Gun crimes are enforced. Registration would limit the ability to illegally procure guns. The idea that gun registration would lead to confiscation is quite a leap in my opinion. How would requiring registration limit legal firearm owners?IRONCHEF wrote:
Ken,
Registration of firearms serves one purpose only...confiscation. It's unconstitutional and should be abolished..like it was in Australia, Germany (I think) and some other country in Europe.
ENforcing gun crimes, not gun ownership laws is the answer. FOcusing on laws that only limit legal gun owners needs to end. SUre, make ownership require training in use, handling, and storage to make responsible owners, but the major focus should be on removing illegal gun trade/selling. Parking lot sales at gun shows, imported guns over state and international borders are two good places to start locking it down. Allowing conceal permits in California would be nice too.
Why don't we just screen people better for mental stability before we allow them to have weapons?
I understand the ideas behind patients' privacy, but I think societal security comes before personal privacy. If you're unstable, you shouldn't be allowed to have guns.
I understand the ideas behind patients' privacy, but I think societal security comes before personal privacy. If you're unstable, you shouldn't be allowed to have guns.
This commercial has been taken out of context so many times by gun control advocates that its whole purpose has been ruined, which was to advertise video games.
KEN: It isn't that huge of a leap. Once a governing body has a list of who owns what, a great deal of them can be taken out of public on a whim...no doubt with a great deal of casualties on both sides in the US's case.
IRON: I think the phrase would be punishing, not enforcing. The way you put it sounds like gladiatorial rules.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Gun crimes are enforced. Registration would limit the ability to illegally procure guns. The idea that gun registration would lead to confiscation is quite a leap in my opinion. How would requiring registration limit legal firearm owners?IRONCHEF wrote:
Ken,
Registration of firearms serves one purpose only...confiscation. It's unconstitutional and should be abolished..like it was in Australia, Germany (I think) and some other country in Europe.
ENforcing gun crimes, not gun ownership laws is the answer. FOcusing on laws that only limit legal gun owners needs to end. SUre, make ownership require training in use, handling, and storage to make responsible owners, but the major focus should be on removing illegal gun trade/selling. Parking lot sales at gun shows, imported guns over state and international borders are two good places to start locking it down. Allowing conceal permits in California would be nice too.
KEN: It isn't that huge of a leap. Once a governing body has a list of who owns what, a great deal of them can be taken out of public on a whim...no doubt with a great deal of casualties on both sides in the US's case.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-12-12 21:48:51)
Gun registration only works for the prevention of private sales (which is legal...) if the police can randomly inspect people's collections...which is illegal under the 4th Amendment. "This is the police, let us in, we are searching for your weapons." "Do you have a reason, or maybe a warrant?" "No, now open the door or you will be arrested." Sounds pleasant, doesn't it?
So, in order for your plan to work, we would have to outlaw private sales, register all weapons, and ignore the 4th Amendment...and the 2nd. That just doesn't sound very smart to me.
So, in order for your plan to work, we would have to outlaw private sales, register all weapons, and ignore the 4th Amendment...and the 2nd. That just doesn't sound very smart to me.
People sell cars privately....how would gun sales be any different? I don't understand how registration would lead to confiscation either. The government knows way more information about you through taxes than you seem to give them credit for, do they randomly come in and try to take your home?RAIMIUS wrote:
Gun registration only works for the prevention of private sales (which is legal...) if the police can randomly inspect people's collections...which is illegal under the 4th Amendment. "This is the police, let us in, we are searching for your weapons." "Do you have a reason, or maybe a warrant?" "No, now open the door or you will be arrested." Sounds pleasant, doesn't it?
So, in order for your plan to work, we would have to outlaw private sales, register all weapons, and ignore the 4th Amendment...and the 2nd. That just doesn't sound very smart to me.
In order for proactive legislation to work, people would need to stop being paranoid about a police force that would randomly knock on people's doors and say, "open up, this is the police." I am talking about maybe a once a year inspection to make sure you have your guns properly permitted and secured. Think about it rationally, not to an extreme. It's not illegal search and seizure if you agree to it. I am still amazed at people who want the ability to buy and possess guns but are against any type of legislation that would restrict the ability of criminals to purchase weapons. "Oh no, the gov'ment will have our records and come take my guns!"
The second amendment guarantees the right to possess weapons. Numerous rulings have established the government's legality in setting up restrictions and regulations. I think it is time to start enacting gun laws that actually work, and stop being paranoid about the government's ability to regulate. As it is, the PATRIOT Act allows government agencies to collect more records about you and your family than you can even imagine, and without a warrant. Yet people are afraid of letting them know what kind of weapon they own, or where it is. Pretty ridiculous in my eyes.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-12-13 12:32:26)
Then let's pray that the day when you risk your life by not having a gun on your person never comes, and that these situations will never exist in the real world.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
looks to me youd be pretty fucked if you didnt have a gun in a situation like that.
because its almost impossible to confiscate unregistered firearms, duh!KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Gun crimes are enforced. Registration would limit the ability to illegally procure guns. The idea that gun registration would lead to confiscation is quite a leap in my opinion. How would requiring registration limit legal firearm owners?IRONCHEF wrote:
Ken,
Registration of firearms serves one purpose only...confiscation. It's unconstitutional and should be abolished..like it was in Australia, Germany (I think) and some other country in Europe.
ENforcing gun crimes, not gun ownership laws is the answer. FOcusing on laws that only limit legal gun owners needs to end. SUre, make ownership require training in use, handling, and storage to make responsible owners, but the major focus should be on removing illegal gun trade/selling. Parking lot sales at gun shows, imported guns over state and international borders are two good places to start locking it down. Allowing conceal permits in California would be nice too.
Well then the person wouldn't be a legal gun owner, would they? Circular logic FTL.Marinejuana wrote:
because its almost impossible to confiscate unregistered firearms, duh!KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Gun crimes are enforced. Registration would limit the ability to illegally procure guns. The idea that gun registration would lead to confiscation is quite a leap in my opinion. How would requiring registration limit legal firearm owners?IRONCHEF wrote:
Ken,
Registration of firearms serves one purpose only...confiscation. It's unconstitutional and should be abolished..like it was in Australia, Germany (I think) and some other country in Europe.
ENforcing gun crimes, not gun ownership laws is the answer. FOcusing on laws that only limit legal gun owners needs to end. SUre, make ownership require training in use, handling, and storage to make responsible owners, but the major focus should be on removing illegal gun trade/selling. Parking lot sales at gun shows, imported guns over state and international borders are two good places to start locking it down. Allowing conceal permits in California would be nice too.
"We'll register all the guns that law-abiding owners have so we can trace the guns that are used criminally to their illegal owners and thus prevent crime!...uh, wait a second..." There was a system to check if a person was restricted from purchasing firearms. If they passed the check, the record was deleted. I wouldn't mind that system.
People fear registration because most confiscations (usually in foreign nations) were made possible by registration. With things like the Patriot Act, is it that much of a leap until you get a government that ignores the constitution (or at least parts of it)? Oh wait, IT ALREADY DOES!
Besides, several lobbyists and Congressmen have already made statements that they want registration because it is a first step toward an effective ban. Do you see why that would make people nervous about registration programs?
People fear registration because most confiscations (usually in foreign nations) were made possible by registration. With things like the Patriot Act, is it that much of a leap until you get a government that ignores the constitution (or at least parts of it)? Oh wait, IT ALREADY DOES!
Besides, several lobbyists and Congressmen have already made statements that they want registration because it is a first step toward an effective ban. Do you see why that would make people nervous about registration programs?
No, it is, "We will catalog the owner of the gun and the make and model along with supervised visits to make sure that people are not procuring guns for black market sales." "We will require gun safes and visits to make sure people are storing their guns safely and there is not a threat of robbery of guns for use in crimes."RAIMIUS wrote:
"We'll register all the guns that law-abiding owners have so we can trace the guns that are used criminally to their illegal owners and thus prevent crime!...uh, wait a second..." There was a system to check if a person was restricted from purchasing firearms. If they passed the check, the record was deleted. I wouldn't mind that system.
People fear registration because most confiscations (usually in foreign nations) were made possible by registration. With things like the Patriot Act, is it that much of a leap until you get a government that ignores the constitution (or at least parts of it)? Oh wait, IT ALREADY DOES!
Besides, several lobbyists and Congressmen have already made statements that they want registration because it is a first step toward an effective ban. Do you see why that would make people nervous about registration programs?
It isn't about restricting felons from buying guns - it's about restricting criminals the ability to procure weapons. I thought I made that clear, but I guess not. The fact that felons and criminals are able to purchase weapons despite supposed lists and federal databases shows that current efforts are not enough.
I don't want a ban on guns. I want people to be responsible gun owners and at the same time limit the ability of criminals to procure weapons. Obviously punishing people after they commit gun crimes is not ameliorating the situation of gun violence in the U.S. Unfortunately, people see any type of legislation or ideas as an infringement on gun rights, when that isn't the case.
So, you are advocating a national database so that the government can come into someone's house and demand to see their property, then tell them what to do with their property. Is that it? Sounds rather fishy to me.
Legally safe storage--When I wake up in the middle of the night to hear an intruder breaking into my appartment, I immediately jump up, run to my safe, enter the combination, open it, retrieve my gun, run over to my closet to get my ammo (remember storing guns and ammo in the same place is dangerous--and now illegal), unlock that box (as unsecured live ammo is now illegal), get the ammo, load my gun, and, assuming the intruder has not walked the 10 feet from the door to my room in this time, I am now prepared to defend myself. Sounds ideal doesn't it???
Placing restrictions on who can buy guns and what they have to do to qualify to buy one IS an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms! The debate centers on if that is reasonable and legal.
You might not want to ban guns, but there are many who do--Rosie O'Donnald, Sara Brady (and her lobbyists), Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Handgun Control Inc., and several doctors associations, to name but a few.
Legally safe storage--When I wake up in the middle of the night to hear an intruder breaking into my appartment, I immediately jump up, run to my safe, enter the combination, open it, retrieve my gun, run over to my closet to get my ammo (remember storing guns and ammo in the same place is dangerous--and now illegal), unlock that box (as unsecured live ammo is now illegal), get the ammo, load my gun, and, assuming the intruder has not walked the 10 feet from the door to my room in this time, I am now prepared to defend myself. Sounds ideal doesn't it???
Placing restrictions on who can buy guns and what they have to do to qualify to buy one IS an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms! The debate centers on if that is reasonable and legal.
You might not want to ban guns, but there are many who do--Rosie O'Donnald, Sara Brady (and her lobbyists), Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Handgun Control Inc., and several doctors associations, to name but a few.
Chris Rock wrote:
We dont need no gun control... what we need is bullet control, all bullets should cost 5 thousand dollars
lol
ME is complex, just not the Israel part we've already been through 9 million times, anywho,CameronPoe wrote:
It's actually been quite a while since I posted an Israel thread but then again the middle east conflict is a tad bit more complex and multi-faceted than the gun law issue.apollo_fi wrote:
...pot, kettle, israel, palestine.CameronPoe wrote:
I think we need guns to enforce a limit on the number of fucking gun law threads on this forum.
guns are fine as long as they are responsibly used, no different to someone using a knife (thats any kind of knife btw) responsibly, you can still kill people with it but if you use it responsibly you won't or won't purposefully.
I guess they are fine if they are responsibly used ...it's just a pity they're used irresponsibly so frequently in the US.M.O.A.B wrote:
ME is complex, just not the Israel part we've already been through 9 million times, anywho,CameronPoe wrote:
It's actually been quite a while since I posted an Israel thread but then again the middle east conflict is a tad bit more complex and multi-faceted than the gun law issue.apollo_fi wrote:
...pot, kettle, israel, palestine.
guns are fine as long as they are responsibly used, no different to someone using a knife (thats any kind of knife btw) responsibly, you can still kill people with it but if you use it responsibly you won't or won't purposefully.
...and I think you'll find the whole Israel thing is one of the most troublesome and complicated aspects of the Middle Eastern situation.
But America is an immensely large place with a very large population, so in comparison it will happen there more. The whole Israel issue has already been discussed, and we finished going through that about 4 months ago and would be do nothing more than repeating the same things, but its gonna happen so meh.Braddock wrote:
I guess they are fine if they are responsibly used ...it's just a pity they're used irresponsibly so frequently in the US.M.O.A.B wrote:
ME is complex, just not the Israel part we've already been through 9 million times, anywho,CameronPoe wrote:
It's actually been quite a while since I posted an Israel thread but then again the middle east conflict is a tad bit more complex and multi-faceted than the gun law issue.
guns are fine as long as they are responsibly used, no different to someone using a knife (thats any kind of knife btw) responsibly, you can still kill people with it but if you use it responsibly you won't or won't purposefully.
...and I think you'll find the whole Israel thing is one of the most troublesome and complicated aspects of the Middle Eastern situation.
Has anyone ever cross checked the frequency of these types of shootings with somewhere like China I wonder?M.O.A.B wrote:
But America is an immensely large place with a very large population, so in comparison it will happen there more. The whole Israel issue has already been discussed, and we finished going through that about 4 months ago and would be do nothing more than repeating the same things, but its gonna happen so meh.Braddock wrote:
I guess they are fine if they are responsibly used ...it's just a pity they're used irresponsibly so frequently in the US.M.O.A.B wrote:
ME is complex, just not the Israel part we've already been through 9 million times, anywho,
guns are fine as long as they are responsibly used, no different to someone using a knife (thats any kind of knife btw) responsibly, you can still kill people with it but if you use it responsibly you won't or won't purposefully.
...and I think you'll find the whole Israel thing is one of the most troublesome and complicated aspects of the Middle Eastern situation.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m … per-capita
Gun murders per capita
#1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
#2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
#3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
#4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
#5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
#6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
#7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
#10 Lithuania: 0.0230748 per 1,000 people
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm
An interesting article on gun ownership in Switzerland.
Gun murders per capita
#1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
#2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
#3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
#4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
#5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
#6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
#7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
#10 Lithuania: 0.0230748 per 1,000 people
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm
An interesting article on gun ownership in Switzerland.
The only one of that top ten that really surprises me is Lithuania, what the hell are they doing there?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
Gun murders per capita
#1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
#2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
#3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
#4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
#5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
#6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
#7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
#10 Lithuania: 0.0230748 per 1,000 people
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm
An interesting article on gun ownership in Switzerland.
That story on Switzerland is very interesting. One must point the finger at American society in that case. My opinion is that strict gun control is advisable in a dangerous and divided society like America. In stable, affluent, peaceful countries like Switzerland gun control can afford to be lax.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
Gun murders per capita
#1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
#2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
#3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
#4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
#5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
#6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
#7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
#10 Lithuania: 0.0230748 per 1,000 people
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm
An interesting article on gun ownership in Switzerland.
Swiss guns are made of chocolate, so ur fine in hot weather, its the knives you have to watch out for.