Gun Registration?

[Gisteppo]

you still have the criminals that are going to break all kinds of laws because that's what they do. Are you telling me that a felon is going to say, "I can't use this gun in a crime because I'm not properly licensed"? Give me a break. The firearms are always going to be out there whether they're legal or not. Maybe if we strictly enforced the laws that already exist we wouldn't need any more new laws.

This is a common argument but it falls a little short because it supposes a few things that aren't necessarily the case.

Yup, there will never be a cessation of the black market for guns. Regardless of what we do, they will always exist. The object isn't to deter felons from owning the guns, it is to put more responsibility on the hands of the original gun owner.

A great example is ol' Swede's gun up there. Let us say its full auto. This requires him to have a Class 3 license to possess said weapon. By having a specialty license to own that gun, Swede will be far less likely to sell the weapon in a questionable way, thus deterring the law abiding owner from selling the gun to someone who may be willing to put it out there on the black market or to use it in a crime. By tying the gun serial to the original owner's name, he then becomes a part of whatever that gun is used for. Having that liability, the owner will be far more diligent in what happens with it than if there were no licensing requirement.

It isn't going to stop the weapons, it is designed to create accountability where some people feel they don't need to be accountable.

E

[swedefish4life1]

Very well put:-$

A fork is a dandy weapon in the correct hands trust me:colors:

Grade 6th on Rod and shotgun in both hands never a shooting never a problem Go Figure and we used both daily after school:cheers:

My guns never Killed a thing#-o I did not pull and press the trigger to do so

Hurt twice bad in all my fighting days .

Once with a crow bar#-o the other a 12inch Screw Driver and without my support packing the gut fanny pack would have been shot many times.

Myself I like it close hand= works.com it leaves a much longer lasting growing reflexion and recovery then guns:-& :cyclopsan

I am the LIVING GRANDE TORNIO:cheers:

[tmusky1]

you still have the criminals that are going to break all kinds of laws because that's what they do. Are you telling me that a felon is going to say, "I can't use this gun in a crime because I'm not properly licensed"? Give me a break. The firearms are always going to be out there whether they're legal or not. Maybe if we strictly enforced the laws that already exist we wouldn't need any more new laws.

This is a common argument but it falls a little short because it supposes a few things that aren't necessarily the case.

Yup, there will never be a cessation of the black market for guns. Regardless of what we do, they will always exist. The object isn't to deter felons from owning the guns, it is to put more responsibility on the hands of the original gun owner.


It isn't going to stop the weapons, it is designed to create accountability where some people feel they don't need to be accountable.

E

OK so,,,, you want responsible gun owners to be MORE responsible??

[Gisteppo]

No, it is to create a wider spectrum of highly lethal weapons under the same guise.

It isn't in legislation, but Id like to see handguns with capacity over 14 rds, full auto, convertible semi/full, stockless, and short arms (those concealing in less than 6" of space) placed inside this protection, broadening the licensing requirements.

This way ownership isn't stifled, and bullets remain relatively inexpensive. It does, however, take more weapons into consideration, allowing only long rifles, large size/small capacity handguns, and specialty weapons (black powder, etc) to be sold in places like gun shows.

Again, this is my personal opinion, not anything under consideration in the federal or state government.

E

[ndn]

Assuming my guns are registered ;then, my home is broken into and my guns are stolen. What happens to accountibility? I guess law enforcement would at least know the serial numbers when I reported the theft; however I could give them that info even if they were not registered.

Concern: Registration would probably result in license fees and when lawmakers are looking for more money, personal property taxes on my guns may come to be.

Also gun registration data bases could be compromised and the info may end up on the internet so a gun thief would know where to get the guns of his choice.

[Gisteppo]

I guess law enforcement would at least know the serial numbers when I reported the theft;

There ya have it. This gives law enforcement a far greater chain of custody to pursue criminals using stolen weapons when stronger licensing exists.

Yes, there will be fees. Those purchasing these types of weapons have the kind of disposable incomes to purchase them, so a small tax on the order of sales tax isn't an issue.

I seriously doubt a criminal would do this. Ask any law enforcement agent and he will tell you that the odds of some guy going through all that effort for your gun is basically nil. Firearms theft is more of an opportunistic nature than something premeditated. Id say thats a false argument.

E

[swedefish4life1]

Armed people are safe and free, unarmed are subjects:-$

This is all Social Engineering for you harder learners#-o

Look up the basic Constitution study it deep#-o

Just like the Bible all want to change each and all to fit there personal needs#-o

[tmusky1]

I guess law enforcement would at least know the serial numbers when I reported the theft]

There ya have it. This gives law enforcement a far greater chain of custody to pursue criminals using stolen weapons when stronger licensing exists.

Yes, there will be fees. Those purchasing these types of weapons have the kind of disposable incomes to purchase them, so a small tax on the order of sales tax isn't an issue.

I seriously doubt a criminal would do this. Ask any law enforcement agent and he will tell you that the odds of some guy going through all that effort for your gun is basically nil. Firearms theft is more of an opportunistic nature than something premeditated. Id say thats a false argument.

E

Sorry man, but I work way too hard for way too long for someone that doesn't even know me to judge whether my income is "disposable" enough for more taxes to not be an issue.

Gisteppo, please answer me this, Are you saying that it's right to make responsible people pay extra to make it harder for people to commit crimes? Isn't that what our judicial system is for? Maybe, just maybe, it would be a good idea to punish the guilty and not the innocent.

[Gisteppo]

TM, I agree with your sentiment, but I can't say that the reality of it doesn't correlate.

If you are living at a level where you can afford food, shelter, and transportation, with no other available money, you cannot afford the weapon. If you are living comfortably enough to have a firearms collecting hobby, and it will cost you $25 to purchase the firearm to license it, then yes, your income can be deemed "disposable".

None of us agree that we want any more of our money taken in the form of tax than we absolutely have to, we must also realize that we can afford it, unlike some of our close friends who have been laid off or lost their jobs thanks to the economy we have been handed.

I am saying that protecting your family's safety should be worth every penny of a small tax such as the one I hypothetically posed to everyone. A small extra tax to stifle this type of crime (one which has the highest impact on law enforcement officers, as shown by those involved in the armored car heist several years ago in Cali) is worth it to me to keep the most lethal weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens.

Imagine if there were no safeguards against armor piercing and specialized explosive rounds. Do you feel more or less safe knowing those types of munitions are unavailable to all but licensed owners and LEO's? There is no benefit to a common gun owner in possessing rounds designed to pierce NATO armor, and this can very much be associated to that.

Those who state the judicial system should protect you have never been involved in criminal proceedings. Law enforcement and criminal justice is but a small piece of why we all pay taxes. Legislation creates laws which protect the many from the few, while LEO's and courts clean up what's left.

Don't take the NRA rhetoric that a tax is "punishment" for ownership. Gun ownership is a right AND a privilege, they are not separate. We have the right to protect ourselves, and the privilege to own certain types of weapons.

I do appreciate the fact that you read and understand the topic, but I hope that you also take the extra time to know the issue, not just the talking points hurled at you by the gun lobby and those influenced by its money.

E

[tmusky1]

Actually Gisteppo, I'm not repeating anything being "hurled at me" by anybody. I have absolutely nothing to gain by doing so. We are discussing our opinions as it relates to the topic and I am speaking (typing) how I honestly feel. I'm obviously not going to change your mind about this issue and you certainly aren't going to change mine. As far as the disposable income is concerned, I know what it means. My issue was someone telling me what I can or should be able to afford. I see unreasonable taxes, such as the one we're discussing, as a punishment. Just because you say it's not doesn't make it so. I'm not saying I have any use for it, BUT, hypothetically speaking, if I wanted to park a M1A1 Abrams in my driveway, it's quite frankly none of your business. Charging me an extra $25 isn't going to make the world a safer place, but I'd be willing to bet my property would be the safest in the neighborhood. This conversation (although entertaining) is going nowhere. You go your way and I'll go mine.

[swedefish4life1]

tmusky masher = fastball straight down the middle of the plate/:-$

Folks who let it be known you come to feed on this area or street the punishment will never outweight the reward:cheers:

Grand Tornino = best in years want some come get some:cheers:

Take back and protect your local communities not just after the crime, rape or thefts then its to late and then were all victims.

Folks just hanging around even across the street ask them what they need or who they know and if there answer is not correct 2pm or 2am lets dance:bounce: :bom:

Or for the policy/politics boys 911 still works I just like none current sparring partners:cyclopsan

[dandanfielding]

Confiscation is never part of regulatory process?Are you kidding?I'm sure there are thousands upon thousands of former gun owners in England,Australia and Canada that would dispute this.All registration may not lead to confiscation but all confiscation begins with registration.
Not sure Gisteppo as to how much you know about gun laws or about firearms in general but I swear to you that all "true" assault weapons are already covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934.All "true" assault weapons are fully automatic and all full auto weapons are already registered and licensed with the BATF.If,and i'm sure you do,you mean assault type weapons that are semi auto only then I would have to ask you why these particular guns should be singled out.If we were to look at crime statistics we would see that a .38 pistol like yours is far more likely to be used in a crime than any assault rifle.Any one of my deer or elk rifles is far more deadly than my (semi-auto)ak47.
Gisteppo this is not meant as a personel attack.In fact I waited two days after reading your posts to calm down a bit.Your views on the second amendment are just plain missinformed.
A well regulated Militia,being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,shall not be infringed.
Ahh,the old Well Regulated Militia strawman rears its ugly head.It is not necessary to define a well regulated militia,although for you I will.Well regulated=well drilled and supplied.Militia=any male person capable of bearing arms .What needs to be defined here is the second part.The right of the people to keep and bear Arms,shall not be infringed.Seems pretty straight forward to me.
There is no more reason to "hide" behind the second amendment for self protection than there is for you to "hide" behind the first amendment while lobbying to limit my rights.I would suggest that you study up on District of Columbia v Heller from June 2008.The Supreme Court found that It is an individual right (there goes your well regulated militia argument) to keep arms for self defense AS WELL AS defense against tyranny.You may also want to read U.S. v Miller from 1939 which holds that millitary style weapons are EXACTLY the types of weapons covered by the second amendmant.
The first ten amendmants to the Constitution (Bill of Rights)are simply an enumeration of Natural rights.Natural Rights are rights bestowed by your creator,or if you like, rights you have simply because you were born a human being.Every Human Being on Earth has these rights although most are not allowed to exercise them.Your rights do not come from this or any government.Governments grant Privileges not rights.What I'm getting at here is that you could(maybe)repeal the Second Amendment but I would still have the right.Your rights are not determined by a three quarter majority of state legislatures

[G-Man]

The Supreme Court found that It is an individual right (there goes your well regulated militia argument) to keep arms for self defense AS WELL AS defense against tyranny.

Right on point. I think that it is lost on many folks that the amendments were written as a hedge against an oppressive government, they weren't written to protect us from one another. Any tax, fee or restriction levied by the government on weapons is in direct conflict with the second amendment.

The fact that we have restrictions on weapon ownership bothers me as it tells me that we are doing a poor job on policing ourselves. Our society has brought this upon us and allowed government to prey on our fears to get these restrictions passed. If the majority instead of the minority of folks were actively involved with their community and it's security there would be little need for any of this. We have allowed a very small percentage of citizens (felons) to greatly influence our state and government policies. It is amazing how quickly a neighborhood watch or block watch program can put a damper on criminal activity. The Seinfeld/New Yorker attitude toward getting involved needs to cease!

[VHMLLC]

[quote="G-Man It is amazing how quickly a neighborhood watch or block watch program can put a damper on criminal activity. The Seinfeld/New Yorker attitude toward getting involved needs to cease![/quote"]

a men brother.









:viking:

[saltyseadog]

I will be the first to say we need stronger controls over certain types of firearms in our country, no question about it. But this particular piece doesn't stand a chance to become anything more than a conservative radio talking point.

I own a .38 pistol and a rifle, just so everyone is clear.

E

Gisteppo, you are entitled to your opinion about what I should be allowed to own but what would you say to someone who had the idea that people should only be allowed to own single shot firearms? That would make you an outlaw. My point is, where do you draw the line? A six shot revolver is OK but a gun that holds seven isn't ? What about eight or nine ? Twelve? When does it become "unacceptable" ? I happen to own a "high capacity assault rifle" that has never killed anyone, and I pride myself in being a responsible gun owner who also teaches my family to be just as safe, but I'll tell you what, if some slimeball crack addict(s) ever attempted to harm my family, I would want my wife or kids to have as many shots as possible to protect themselves. When it comes to protecting my family, I'll take every step I can to tip the odds in my favor. Who are you to tell me what I can protect myself and my family with?

i feel the same perfectly said!:cheers:

[tommytitan08]

You can try to control who has these weapons, but criminals will always find a way to bypass these laws. Just like the laws now that are failing miserably, you can take all weapons away from common law abiding people but thugs, gang members, etc will always find ways to get firearms no matter which laws are enacted.

[Gisteppo]

Sorry, I was out of the country for a week and didn't get a chance to keep up with the discussion here. Ironically, I was in a country where the police carry full auto guns and routinely has road blocks and random search and seizure laws...

TM, you make one of the most valid points of anything Ive ever seen. You and I can live in this great country, feeling very differently on an issue. We can debate it at length, and can have a complete divergence of opinion. At the end of it, neither of us are wrong or right, and we can live another day saying exactly how we feel to anyone that will listen. True freedom is the freedom of speech.

I respect that you have a more libertarian view than I, and there needs to be a group of people with your outlook on government to make sure we don't oversaturate the country with laws and regs. Opposing views are always needed. Though your tone may be a little snarky, I still appreciate what you have to say greatly.

Not sure Gisteppo as to how much you know about gun laws or about firearms in general but I swear to you that all "true" assault weapons are already covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934.All "true" assault weapons are fully automatic and all full auto weapons are already registered and licensed with the BATF.

Yes, I am fully aware. This is a hypothetical discussion of my personal opinion, not one of direct laws.

A well regulated Militia,being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,shall not be infringed.
Ahh,the old Well Regulated Militia strawman rears its ugly head.It is not necessary to define a well regulated militia,although for you I will.Well regulated=well drilled and supplied.Militia=any male person capable of bearing arms .What needs to be defined here is the second part.The right of the people to keep and bear Arms,shall not be infringed.Seems pretty straight forward to me.

The concept was actually based on state by state militias to control the federal government. It wasn't intended to be used as a populace against its tyranny, it was designed as something such as the Virgina Commonwealth being able to rise up against Federalist entities. Ask a Commonwealther about it, you will find very well informed and mildly militant people there who can clearly define the intent of militia.

There is no more reason to "hide" behind the second amendment for self protection than there is for you to "hide" behind the first amendment while lobbying to limit my rights.I would suggest that you study up on District of Columbia v Heller from June 2008.The Supreme Court found that It is an individual right (there goes your well regulated militia argument) to keep arms for self defense AS WELL AS defense against tyranny.You may also want to read U.S. v Miller from 1939 which holds that millitary style weapons are EXACTLY the types of weapons covered by the second amendmant.

I would never use the first amendment to manipulate another amendment. Freedom of speech does not constitute lobbying, moreso it allows for dissent. You do have a very valid point in case law in the Heller ruling in that it carries with it the ability for self armament. This ruling basically upholds the current court opinion of the definition of the wording in the Constitution. The luxury of an evolving document such as the one we live under. However, the 1939 Miller case is a little weaker, as we are talking about very different classifications of weapons. Consider what weapons were under advisement (a shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18") in that situation, and those with which we are talking about today. A street howitzer doesn't have range like some of the incredibly powerful weapons available today. I would try to find a better ruling to stand on in the case of weapons covered by the amendment.

The first ten amendmants to the Constitution (Bill of Rights)are simply an enumeration of Natural rights.Natural Rights are rights bestowed by your creator,or if you like, rights you have simply because you were born a human being.Every Human Being on Earth has these rights although most are not allowed to exercise them.Your rights do not come from this or any government.Governments grant Privileges not rights.What I'm getting at here is that you could(maybe)repeal the Second Amendment but I would still have the right.Your rights are not determined by a three quarter majority of state legislatures

Interesting take, no doubt. Inalienable rights, as they were so ordained in the document itself. Governments should be considered similar to religions in that they are designed to protect the masses from themselves. Those first 10 are what we typify as inalienable rights of life, though I think we found them to be terribly important because they were 10 such things which our previous tyrants in Mother England were so intent on restricting. I don't disagree, I just think the motives were clearly defined.

Dan, you definitely have certain areas well researched, but it also shows that much of it comes from the NRA because I receive their pamphlets and mailers as well.

Right on point. I think that it is lost on many folks that the amendments were written as a hedge against an oppressive government, they weren't written to protect us from one another. Any tax, fee or restriction levied by the government on weapons is in direct conflict with the second amendment.

Restriction is in violation. Taxation isn't. Im not arguing that it is "right", just that it isn't illegal.

We have allowed a very small percentage of citizens (felons) to greatly influence our state and government policies. It is amazing how quickly a neighborhood watch or block watch program can put a damper on criminal activity.

A good deal of research has been done on this, and it is an incontrovertible truth that neighborhood groups having awareness of the surroundings and watching out for one another has great impact.

You can try to control who has these weapons, but criminals will always find a way to bypass these laws. Just like the laws now that are failing miserably, you can take all weapons away from common law abiding people but thugs, gang members, etc will always find ways to get firearms no matter which laws are enacted.

As I was accused of using a straw man argument, this one can also be pointed to in the same light.

To restrict ownership does nothing. To create responsibility in ownership and sales of said firearms does go a long ways to preventing a weapon from entering the wrong hands.

Take my .38 for example. I traded it for a laptop computer because I didn't need the laptop and I thought I needed a personal protection weapon. This weapon was in a transaction with no paperwork, no serial number registration, and no accountability for the seller or myself as the buyer. If I were to use this gun in a crime, there would be no way to trace it back to me. If the gun were used in a crime before my ownership, it would be impossible to trace the ownership back to the man who committed the crime.

The object isn't limiting your rights as a gun owner. You still have the right to possess the weapon you choose. The object would be to create accountability where there may not be any. Firearm registration decreases the likelihood that the weapon will be used in a felonious manner, and that it will be transferred of possession in order to conceal its use. These protections don't harm the owner, they merely create a string with which Police can do their job. The utilization of tax isn't designed as a deterrent of ownership, it is merely a side effect of having the resources available to institute the tracking of the weapons.

I love this debate because its complex, and requires some serious delving into deeper pieces of the issue. Its not as black and white as

[The Quadfather]

I love this debate because its complex, and requires some serious delving into deeper pieces of the issue. Its not as black and white as it may seem...

E

This is one of the best threads/discussions I've seen in the off-topic area in quite awhile IMHO. At least speaking for me, it gives me a lot reason to pause and think about the issue. The closest thing I own to a gun is a slingshot, but it is good to keep aware of the reasoning on both sides of an issue. I look for updates on this one every time I log on.
Good discussion guys.

[swedefish4life1]

QuadFather myself I would take the (slingshot):cheers: if it was customized:-$ over a 38' cal revolver as my last stand staple to protect and serve in any real life game.

The reason that officers years ago dropped this line and Cal. they deflect even on Car glass and many guys walked right through them injuring the officers and some times killing them before they bled out after being shot with each round the 38' revolver held.

The autoloaders took over due to large capacity clips many 14 rds 40cal-45cal cal
Speed of travel, deeper penetration and real stopping power:colors:

The 357mag and 44mag are great wheel guns for protection as well.
Much more producing Trauma to the body and many reasons why.

Do guys need full on Combat weapons in 99 percent of real life conditions?
I would say no.

That is a personal choice but if the Halibut hits the fan a custom Sling shot with (hollow points):cyclopsan I would compare to a 38'cal. which we call a 3rd choice throw away on a leg strap after you have exhausted the 1st 2 choices to save , protect or live or survive if the storm comes.

We all had weapons as kids, shotguns, rifles, even a handgun after about age 12 or so and I cannot remember one public element or outburst from any of the kids they were tools and sporting gear= tools.

Most of are longer camping trips included hiking, fishing and very organized outside target shooting/Education safety, standards and handling for the future hunting seasons coming and if they were for Cock Birds/Pheasant hunts we always picked up all our shot loads and many of us were taught to reload and more as part of the tool's of the trade of sport shooting.

The lead family members made us carry BB guns as very young kids watching the dogs work, standing behind the firelines and being shown real life conditions and still feeling like you were part of the lead Bull Parents, relatives and Elders who were showing and taking the time for us about us.

When we got to the age where we hunted in groups/youth without parents and we were young are parents gave us just the loads for sporting to take fair game and if we wasted them with lack of maturity the future hunts were lean we called that accountability

Home break in's the defense of such acts, car prowls our and will stay a very slippery slope if you make the choice to take a gun out into the dark even inside your home you better be highly trained and be very ready to use it!

Guns of all kinds and the ammunition to support them will be more restricted that is coming and will be a fact to what degree were still very unsure.

The truth in the outdoors now in Wa your chances of a injury from a wild animal are lean very lean if you look and put and make yourself a (Victim) you will become one with Mother=time.
Not by animals by people.

Falling times, changes in what we all except or as the norm until it hits each of us personally, high volume of drugs to our youth, single parents with less and less with a Dad, electronics, little faith based family events.
Complete lack of respect for Mother Earth pressing for a one world system and soon a Reality.
Changing the (Word) to fit who and what you want are Choices not truths
Just like marriage and the same sex choices many now embrace=its a choice so do what you can for some KIDS take them camping, fishing, hunting buy a guy down a burger .
Visit a needs center leave a small dent for a few it will be a reflection that lasts there lifetime.

Guns like Fishing Rods are a tool some have far better talent:-$ at pressing these tools and truth is most will never use one or need one but that as well is a choice made much longer ago in a world that was bound to Change as the one many of us still hold on to.

Changes will still come many of them we can not even dare to understand if we work on holding and respecting Mother Earth and holding a large hand out to a kid with little or nothing but bad choices Guns will remain a tool in deer camp of Farm side upland bird hunting and more:-$

[tmusky1]

[quote="Gisteppo"]Sorry, I was out of the country for a week and didn't get a chance to keep up with the discussion here. Ironically, I was in a country where the police carry full auto guns and routinely has road blocks and random search and seizure laws...

TM, you make one of the most valid points of anything Ive ever seen. You and I can live in this great country, feeling very differently on an issue. We can debate it at length, and can have a complete divergence of opinion. At the end of it, neither of us are wrong or right, and we can live another day saying exactly how we feel to anyone that will listen. True freedom is the freedom of speech.

I respect that you have a more libertarian view than I, and there needs to be a group of people with your outlook on government to make sure we don't oversaturate the country with laws and regs. Opposing views are always needed. Though your tone may be a little snarky, I still appreciate what you have to say greatly.



Gisteppo,

Though your tone may be a little condescending, I also appreciate what you have to say greatly.

You say you are concerned with oversaturating the country with more laws and regs, but yet, you're insistent on adding another.

The way I see it, the government is already invasive enough, and again, as a law abiding citizen, it's nobody's business what firearms I own. If we need to change anything, I believe harsher punishments are in order for criminals who violate the laws that already exist. The real issue is with them anyway. Why do you believe innocent people should pay to be made to jump through more hoops because of them? Do you really honestly believe that it's the guns and not the criminals that are the problem?