YAGunT: Should Fed/states track the serial # of guns?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
olds

olds

Elite Member
Mar 3, 2000
50,071
744
126
Cars are tracked to get into your wallet. Not because they are deadly.
(Yes, I know this is a troll thread)
 
irishScott

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
If guns were more widespread I'd agree. As it is there is too much ignorance and fear surrounding guns for such a registry to avoid the slippery slope into gun ban territory. Thankfully there are more gun owners and gun freedoms than ever now (in the US anyway). Little known fact to gun control advocates: Even during the assault weapons ban right-to-carry laws were being expanded. Things are generally going in the right direction for now IMO.

It's also a notable fact that most gun control advocates have never fired a gun, nor know how one works even on a basic level. It's like being told you're not driving safely by someone who doesn't even have a learner's permit.
 
Raduque

Raduque

Lifer
Aug 22, 2004
13,140
138
106
No, and fuck you.

HAL9000 said:
Yeah that's a point. In all honesty I thought guns were already registered everywhere in the US, you see on TV

Police officer: "I see you've got a Glock registered to your name"
Suspect: "Yeah but it was stolen so someone else used it to shoot that german nun"
Click to expand...

You're watching Law and Order, which is set in NYC, which DOES have such laws. The country as a whole, and most non-oppressive states, do not have such laws.

HAL9000 said:
Grow up.
Click to expand...
If you go away.
 
Last edited:
U

uli2000

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2006
1,257
1
71
schneiderguy said:
No, because Canada did it and it cost them billions of dollars and hasn't help solve a single crime.

People with legally owned guns are NOT the ones committing crimes with their guns a large majority of the time.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:

Go ask Canada how well it's working.
 
HAL9000

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Raduque said:
No, and fuck you.



You're watching Law and Order, which is set in NYC, which DOES have such laws. The country as a whole, and most non-oppressive states, do not have such laws.
Click to expand...

It bothers me that you know that D:
 
HAL9000

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
schneiderguy said:
They have overly restrictive gun laws that disarm law abiding citizens while doing nothing to stop gun crime.
Click to expand...

Wow that sounds fucked up. If you can own a registered gun in NY (as per earlier in the thread) then how are they disarming citizens?
 
irishScott

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
HAL9000 said:
Wow that sounds fucked up. If you can own a registered gun in NY (as per earlier in the thread) then how are they disarming citizens?
Click to expand...

You still can't carry, licensed or not; and the licensing process forces people to pay money and jump through hoops. They also have useless "assault weapon bans" that the criminals happily fire their illegal assault weapons in spite of.
 
HAL9000

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
irishScott said:
You still can't carry, licensed or not; and the licensing process forces people to pay money and jump through hoops. They also have useless "assault weapon bans" that the criminals happily fire their illegal assault weapons in spite of.
Click to expand...

Interesting, if you can't carry a gun isn't that against the [INSERT NUMBER] amendment?
 
schneiderguy

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,765
52
91
HAL9000 said:
Interesting, if you can't carry a gun isn't that against the [INSERT NUMBER] amendment?
Click to expand...

It'll be decided in the court system soon probably. We got a decision from the Supreme Court a couple of years ago that said we've got the right to have a gun in our house, but they didn't rule on carry outside of the home.

You can carry in about 90% of states if you've got a permit to, and in the last few years a few states have moved to permitless carry.

The problem is that the anti-gun people don't think the 2nd Amendment guarantees ANY right to keep or bear arms that might be remotely useful in self defense situations. Basically they want our gun laws to look like the UK (and we don't want that :awe:).
 
guyver01

guyver01

Lifer
Sep 25, 2000
22,135
5
61
HAL9000 said:
Interesting, if you can't carry a gun isn't that against the [INSERT NUMBER] amendment?
Click to expand...

Nope.

The "right to bear arms" doesn't say The right to carry a Baretta 9mm around Midtown Manhattan.

You have a gun in your house? you're bearing arms.
 
schneiderguy

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,765
52
91
guyver01 said:
Nope.

The "right to bear arms" doesn't say The right to carry a Baretta 9mm around Midtown Manhattan.

You have a gun in your house? you're bearing arms.
Click to expand...

Wrong. If they only wanted us to have guns in our house they would have said "the right to keep and bear arms in your house".

Laws against carrying handguns in public are recent inventions, and are unconstitutional.
 
irishScott

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
HAL9000 said:
Interesting, if you can't carry a gun isn't that against the [INSERT NUMBER] amendment?
Click to expand...

In most gun owners' opinion yes, but:

They technically have a carry permit system, therefore while they hardly give any out according to the Supreme Court they're not violating the 2nd amendment. Supreme Court recently made something of a compromise ruling where they stated that while owning a gun for self defense is natural right and protected by the 2nd amendment, ambiguous "reasonable restrictions" are not in violation of said amendment. So begun the debate over what is considered "reasonable". A few cases challenging carry laws are already in the pipe, the next year should be interesting.
 
guyver01

guyver01

Lifer
Sep 25, 2000
22,135
5
61
schneiderguy said:
Wrong. If they only wanted us to have guns in our house they would have said "the right to keep and bear arms in your house".

Laws against carrying handguns in public are recent inventions, and are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

"Bear arms" meant "possess armament"

you own a gun? you possess it.
 
schneiderguy

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,765
52
91
guyver01 said:
Wrong.

"Bear arms" meant "possess armament"

you own a gun? you possess it.
Click to expand...

No it doesnt :hmm:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bear

1.
to hold up; support: to bear the weight of the roof.
2.
to hold or remain firm under (a load): The roof will not bear the strain of his weight.
3.
to bring forth (young); give birth to: to bear a child.
4.
to produce by natural growth: a tree that bears fruit.
5.
to hold up under; be capable of: His claim doesn't bear close examination.
6.
to press or push against: The crowd was borne back by the police.
7.
to hold or carry (oneself, one's body, one's head, etc.): to bear oneself erectly.
8.
to conduct (oneself): to bear oneself bravely.
9.
to suffer; endure; undergo: to bear the blame.
10.
to sustain without yielding or suffering injury; tolerate (usually used in negative constructions, unless qualified): I can't bear your nagging. I can hardly bear to see her suffering so.
11.
to be fit for or worthy of: It doesn't bear repeating.
12.
to carry; bring: to bear gifts.
13.
to carry in the mind or heart: to bear love; to bear malice.
14.
to transmit or spread (gossip, tales, etc.).
15.
to render; afford; give: to bear witness; to bear testimony.
16.
to lead; guide; take: They bore him home.
17.
to have and be entitled to: to bear title.
18.
to exhibit; show: to bear a resemblance.
19.
to accept or have, as an obligation: to bear responsibility; to bear the cost.
20.
to stand in (a relation or ratio); have or show correlatively: the relation that price bears to profit.
21.
to possess, as a quality or characteristic; have in or on: to bear traces; to bear an inscription.
22.
to have and use; exercise: to bear authority; to bear sway.
Click to expand...
 
HAL9000

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
I suppose if the original intent of this amendment was to be able to revolt when needed against a corrupt government then you don't need a gun in your back pocket all the time.
 
schneiderguy

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,765
52
91
HAL9000 said:
I suppose if the original intent of this amendment was to be able to revolt when needed against a corrupt government then you don't need a gun in your back pocket all the time.
Click to expand...

The intent of it doesn't matter, it doesn't say "the right to keep and bear arms for a violent revolution". It just says, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and somehow people take this to mean "YOU CAN'T HAVE GUNS" :hmm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom