[quote]Professor X wrote:
<<< So, just to make up a scenario, when a murder happens and cops are able to trace the bullet to the gun and/or find the owner BECAUSE of guns being registered, you see this as a negative? >>>[/quote]
The vast majority of gun crimes are not committed with legally obtained and owned firearms. They’re criminals. They don’t obey our laws… by definition.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
None of what we are discussing, however, explains the fear mongering going on as if guns are about to be taken away simply because one side is pissed it lost the election.
I want guns registered. I don’t have an issue at all with a waiting period and if someone is actually holding the stance that rage induced gun purchases simply have not or can not occur, I am not sure what world they are living on.
[/quote]
You talk about irrational fear of events that haven’t happened yet (ie Obama signing anti-gun legislation), yet use the same type of logic to defend your position for waiting periods.
Several states have waiting periods and there is absolutely no data to support they’ve done anything. There were no data to support the laws to begin with. It’s a phantom problem that was born out of the assassination attempt on Reagan (Brady Bill).
No one has ever suggested that ‘rage induced gun purchases’ can’t happen, but the frequency is so minute it’s statistically irrelevant. It’s more “feel good” legislation.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
You talk about irrational fear of events that haven’t happened yet (ie Obama signing anti-gun legislation), yet use the same type of logic to defend your position for waiting periods. [/quote]
What? Thinking all guns are about to be banned is NUTTY, about as nutty as thinking Obama is super secret Al Queida. How can you compare that to the very real possibility of someone buying a gun to kill their wife they just walked in on having sex with their best friend? One scenario is very possible, the other is not.
Who ever said anything about Obama banning all guns? – I’ve certainly never implied that. I have no idea what you’re talking about with the al Queida thing.
Your scenario doesn’t change with or without a waiting period. If someone wants to kill another, they will find away. Again, states with waiting periods do not bear the results you’re trying to come up with.
We can all think of a million ‘what ifs’ and fantasy scenarios to create new laws to ‘protect us from ourselves’.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Your scenario doesn’t change with or without a waiting period. If someone wants to kill another, they will find away. Again, states with waiting periods do not bear the results you’re trying to come up with.[/quote]
The result would be less guns bought in a fit of rage. How would that show up statistically? It couldn’t.
Hasn’t this country been doing that? Every time someone actually wins some frivolous law suit we are setting that in motion.
My question is why are people suddenly making noise about these “laws or restrictions” when the strongest piece of legislation that gives the government true power over the people seemed to slip by without much resistance at all?
People don’t get loud and pissed off unless guns enter the picture?
There has been no new gun legislation. There HAS been a Patriot Act.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The result would be less guns bought in a fit of rage. How would that show up statistically? It couldn’t.
[/quote]
And that’s the point-- that it’s a law based on emotion than facts or efficacy.
We could go round and round, but it really is pointless. It’s been a nice discussion anyway.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
My question is why are people suddenly making noise about these “laws or restrictions” …
People don’t get loud and pissed off unless guns enter the picture?
[/quote]
Some folks do learn from history. You can’t deny the amount of effort that goes into trying to pass anti-gun legislation (and the resulting effort to deter it). It’s just a battle some are willing to fight.
By this I assume you mean “… since the election”. Fair enough, but I’m setting the bar low. For those of us who keep track, legislation is always getting submitted ‘to protect us’. After the Virginia Tech incident, there was a handful of new knee-jerk restrictions submitted. Same old, same old.
No argument here. No fan of the P-A here. I’m a life-long Libertarian and no fan of the out-going administration. The PA, as it exists, is an abomination. That doesn’t mean that other battles aren’t worthy of discussion.
Look, I treat the Bill of Rights equally. I’d defend against an assault on any of them. I’m only posting to these threads because they exist.
I don’t know why I even bother posting in a political forum on a bodybuilding site anyway (ironically, more people post in other forums besides bodybuilding, but that’s another thread).
I’m going to go start a Triceps thread…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
So, just to make up a scenario, when a murder happens and cops are able to trace the bullet to the gun and/or find the owner BECAUSE of guns being registered, you see this as a negative?
The Patriot Act gives government the ability to label a citizen of this country an “enemy” and you are comparing this to gun registration?
Not one issue brought up about guns in this thread can eclipse that so why aren’t people up in arms about it?
You may disagree with the Patriot Act, but we haven’t heard a peep out of most conservatives on the issue over the past few years yet they are racing to buy guns as if they are going to be out of stock soon.[/quote]
I can tell you exactly why I’m against registration and licensing/mandatory training, if you care.
Licensing / Mandatory Training: This one is a non-starter, and it is directly analogous to a poll tax. This WILL be used to apply arbitrary requirements and criteria on gun ownership. How do I know?
Because it is ALREADY HAPPENING with concealed carry permits. Take California for example. The spirit of the law is that a county’s Sheriff is supposed to look at your application for a CCW license and then issue based on your fitness for one, which should be based on criminal record and some sort of weapons training.
Sounds great, right? Except that in many counties this is abused so that NO permits are issued, ever. And there is no oversight. You will get the exact same thing happened with ownership if we enact licensing for ownership. Licensing also implies registration, which I’ll get to below.
If it is my human right to do something, then I shouldn’t need the government to issue me a license to do it. What other right do I need a license for?
Registration: Of course your scenario above sounds great, and I struggle with it sometimes. But at the end of the day I fundamentally disagree that the government has a right to have knowledge of my, as a law-abiding tax-paying citizen, purchases.
Really your argument sounds the same as the scenario I always hear for the Patriot Act wrt warrantless wiretapping or searches:
“What if a dirty nuke is detonated in NY, you’re saying it’s a bad thing that we can go over recorded phone calls and see who was responsible? Or better yet intercept the calls and prevent it? You’re against preventing a terrorist attack!?! You have nothing to worry about if you don’t break the law!”
I’m not against preventing terrorist attacks, and I’m not against tracking down murderers, but I’m am not willing to give up my fundamental rights for that marginally increased security.
(As a side note I also think it’s ridiculous that I need to undergo a “registration” process up to 30 days in advance to practice my right to vote. If I can prove my identity and it matches the county’s records why do I need additional “registration”?)
And I haven’t even mentioned how the vast majority of gun crimes occur with guns that wouldn’t go through the proper registration pipeline anyway.
I’ll tell you exactly what I do support to put a dent on gun crime. We start issuing CCW permits within the spirit of the law, and then if you’re caught carrying a weapon when you’re not allowed (felon, etc), you go to jail as if you committed a serious assault with it.
Gangbangers get 10+ years just for holding one. If you commit murder, you go to jail for life, instead of the average 10 year sentence murderers currently get. Modernizing our drug laws would easily make up for and surpass the increase in prison population.
How’s that sound? Punishing criminals while granting law-abiding citizens the liberties that the Constitution intends.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
There has been no new gun legislation. There HAS been a Patriot Act.[/quote]
Many of us just endured a 10 year period, ending in 2004, which we were considered felons. We’re law-abiding citizens that pay our taxes and we own weapons of the same caliber and rate of fire as other people, but we were felons because our guns had “scary” comestic features. That’s still fresh.
Our rights (we believe) were violated for ten years. The federal ban ended in 2004, but some states still have those bans on the books. Chicago still has its handgun ban even though it was just ruled unconstitutional.
You make it sound like this ban is a pipe dream, but it already exists in some states. I’m a law abiding citizen where I live now but an instant felon if I return to my home state of California.
Oh and BTW, in 1992 we had the same democratic majority in congress we do now, and a president that was LESS adamant about gun bans as we have now, and everyone kept saying “The economy is so screwed the last thing we need to worry about is a gun ban.”
2 years later…A massive federal gun ban. Thank god it had a sunset provision, the next one won’t. That said, I’m not overly worried about a gun ban because I do think Obama is smarter than that. I just have a rational level of distrust of government. I think that’s healthy.
And let’s repeal the Patriot Act and close Guantanamo too. I’ve called my senators about both of those issues.
Er…I sincerely hope that those uninformed on the matter (generally those who have no clue just how difficult it is to obtain firearms legally, due to media propaganda) need to understand that every single legally bought firearm is automatically “registered” in both State and Federal databases.
Therefore, this is a specious argument. “Registration” is an unwelcome, but long established reality… (Director John Milius pointed this out in the film “Red Dawn”, when the Cuban Commander orders his troops to go to the gun stores and seize the ATF registration forms to find all the addresses of firearms owners in the area. Fictional film, but realistic scenario for anyone wishing to do this)…Yes, due to registration, it would, and is, just that simple…
[quote]Blacksnake wrote:
I would hope every single gun sold is registered…
Er…I sincerely hope that those uninformed on the matter (generally those who have no clue just how difficult it is to obtain firearms legally, due to media propaganda) need to understand that every single legally bought firearm is automatically “registered” in both State and Federal databases.
Therefore, this is a specious argument. “Registration” is an unwelcome, but long established reality… (Director John Milius pointed this out in the film “Red Dawn”, when the Cuban Commander orders his troops to go to the gun stores and seize the ATF registration forms to find all the addresses of firearms owners in the area. Fictional film, but realistic scenario for anyone wishing to do this)…Yes, due to registration, it would, and is, just that simple…
[/quote]
Did you honestly just use a Red Dawn reference as justification for why we shouldn’t register guns? Because we are afraid the enemy will walk into a gun store in a rural area and try to find who owns one? Guess what…in most rural areas…most people more than likely already own a gun or at least know where one is. Worrying about who specifically wouldn’t even make sense.
That was a great movie though…in the 80’s.
All firearms purchased from a Federal Firearms Dealer (gun shops, dept. stores etc) already require a background check. This includes handguns, rifles and shotguns.
Concealed Weapons permits also require a background check and in many states a reference check.
Data bases that contain this data are exist. Access to them is extremely privilidged and it should be.
Weapons referred to as “Assault Weapons” by the media and naive politicians are rarely used in the commission of a crime. However, they are featured in a lot of TV crime and make great props for drive by media reports.
Concealed Weapons carried by permitted citizens are used to stop or deter a crime far more then they are used for unlawful purposes.
Waiting periods are not proven to work. They sound PC but in practice can’t be determined to be effective. They are more likely to annoy the innocent sportsman then deter the potential killer. Pre-meditated murder is still rare (going out to buy a gun to committ murder).
Most gun owners would be more supportive or regulation if just once it wasn’t used as a stepping stone to greater and greater restrictions. Liberals have had a hard on for legal firearms ownership for 40 years. The crowd in power now is th emost liberal in 40 years. Caution is advised and warranted and gun owners should oppose them at every turn and punish them at the polls if they vote for for additional gun control.
I’m from PA. We are clinging to our guns and religion.
Anyone else think it is kind of funny some posters think it is okay for the government to get involved in our 2nd ammendment right to own a gun, but it isn’t okay for the governmnet to get involved in home land security?
Shouldn’t you either be for both or against both?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Anyone else think it is kind of funny some posters think it is okay for the government to get involved in our 2nd ammendment right to own a gun, but it isn’t okay for the governmnet to get involved in home land security?
Shouldn’t you either be for both or against both? [/quote]
Anyone else think that it is kind of funny some posters think it is ok for the government to blow up whole villages to spread life, liberty and the possibility to pursue happiness abroad but it isn´t ok for the government to do the same in America?
Shouldn’t you either be for both or against both?
[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
Anyone else think it is kind of funny some posters think it is okay for the government to get involved in our 2nd ammendment right to own a gun, but it isn’t okay for the governmnet to get involved in home land security?
Shouldn’t you either be for both or against both?
Anyone else think that it is kind of funny some posters think it is ok for the government to blow up whole villages to spread life, liberty and the possibility to pursue happiness abroad but it isn´t ok for the government to do the same in America?
Shouldn’t you either be for both or against both?[/quote]
I never said that. I wouldn’t even blink if the American government “cleaned up” some of America’s trouble spots…ie LA, Baltimore, New York, etc…
Can you name a villiage that has been blown up by America or do you just soak up all CNN has to say?
[quote]hedo wrote:
All firearms purchased from a Federal Firearms Dealer (gun shops, dept. stores etc) already require a background check. This includes handguns, rifles and shotguns.
Concealed Weapons permits also require a background check and in many states a reference check.
Data bases that contain this data are exist. Access to them is extremely privilidged and it should be.
Weapons referred to as “Assault Weapons” by the media and naive politicians are rarely used in the commission of a crime. However, they are featured in a lot of TV crime and make great props for drive by media reports.
Concealed Weapons carried by permitted citizens are used to stop or deter a crime far more then they are used for unlawful purposes.
Waiting periods are not proven to work. They sound PC but in practice can’t be determined to be effective. They are more likely to annoy the innocent sportsman then deter the potential killer. Pre-meditated murder is still rare (going out to buy a gun to committ murder).
Most gun owners would be more supportive or regulation if just once it wasn’t used as a stepping stone to greater and greater restrictions. Liberals have had a hard on for legal firearms ownership for 40 years. The crowd in power now is th emost liberal in 40 years. Caution is advised and warranted and gun owners should oppose them at every turn and punish them at the polls if they vote for for additional gun control.
I’m from PA. We are clinging to our guns and religion.[/quote]
I’d also like to point out that a license is simply a document expressing that one party (the government) recognizes another party’s (me) ability to do something (own a gun).
In the case of gun ownership the constitution is that document. I am already fully licensed to own a firearm, and additional licenses are extraneous.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
…I’d also like to point out that a license is simply a document expressing that one party (the government) recognizes another party’s (me) ability to do something (own a gun).
In the case of gun ownership the constitution is that document. I am already fully licensed to own a firearm, and additional licenses are extraneous.
Exquisite.[/quote]
Quite
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
…I’d also like to point out that a license is simply a document expressing that one party (the government) recognizes another party’s (me) ability to do something (own a gun).
In the case of gun ownership the constitution is that document. I am already fully licensed to own a firearm, and additional licenses are extraneous.
Exquisite.
Quite[/quote]
Yep, What would the liberals think if before exercising their right to the first amendment you needed a background check, permit , or license.
If they looked at the second the way they looked at the first, low income people would get gun and ammo subsidies, since it’s unfair that they can’t afford expensive rich guy hunting rifles or accurized semi automatics.
On whether the new president is thinking about gun regulation, he doesn’t have to. He’s nominated Eric Holder as attorney general. Holder, Janet Reno and others drafted an amicus brief in Heller urging the Supreme Court to uphold the DC handgun law on the basis that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a collective, not individual right.
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_PetitionerAmCuFmrDOJOfficials.pdf