Gun Registration?

[ndn]

Google H.R.45 and read what some people think this law would do.

[blufin loui]

Hey ya ndn
Same mentality that continues to subject the law abiding to rules and regulations that will have no bearing on the issue claimed to be "Near & Dear" to the hearts of those who push these rulings.
Simle resolution to some of our woes as a society doesn't get carried out due to the perceived "rights violations" of the criminal sect. It is a Sign of "Progress" (at least some view it as progress).
Keep hope in the heart and support those who carry the torch

[Gisteppo]

Just like last time it was proposed, Resolution 45 will die in committee. It has more to do with WHO is putting the legislation forward (a small time Illinois rep with a friend back home that died from handgun use) than the actual legislation.

Obama even came out saying it goes too far, so don't hold your breath on seeing that bill on the floor. It won't happen, so save yourself the heartache.

E

[blufin loui]

so right you are Gisteppo
Thanks for your input on this subject. These things always provide turmoil in the populace, which I wonder if that isn't the bottom line anyway, even though they have no chance of becoming law.
Your input shed a little light in a dark corner.
Thanks Man

[Gisteppo]

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

[ndn]

Gisteppo, I hope You are right.

My concern is registration is a giant first step towards confiscation.

Who would have thought Canada would pass a law where owning a semi auto shotgun would not be allowed.

I agree some type of weapons should be restricted.

[G-Man]

Get yourself a copy of this, Pocket Constitution. When you are asked to produce your license to own a firearm, just flip to the second amendment.
The courts would be bogged down for years if that bill passed, I just don't see it happening. How about stiffer penalties for people who shoot other people? I don't grasp the repeat offender philosophy, once is enough. Remove the person's head or, if that's too conservative for you, their hands.

[blufin loui]

AHHH G-Man, ya gotta way with words.
There are simple ways in which to "gaurantee" NO repeat offenders. Your above mentioned method, would ensure so.
I don't shoot as much as I once did, but still consider it a "Right" not a privilege to own firearms.
If the offenders were taken out of the picture, there wouldn't need to be any "New" legislation or laws pertaining to gun ownership.
Great thought and good posts.

[Carl762]

Here we go again.

This bill is so poorly written and want to just puke. This one will fail, but another will come up in its place.

The FEDS and the local authorities already know I own handguns and rifles - C&R license holder and CHL permittee.

[Carl762]

Here we go again.

This bill is so poorly written. This will fail, but another will come up in its place.

The FEDS and the local authorities already know I own handguns and rifles - C&R license holder and CHL permittee.

[Gisteppo]

Confiscation is never a part of regulatory processes. Please see the last two hundred and change years as a reference. What happens with the vast majority of laws is a phased or sunsetting process, whereas either the law ends something or has an end.

In this particular instance, you will not see a "confiscation" of guns (as the NRA would like you to believe). It is 100% impossible to confiscate ANYTHING in a new law, and would only worsen the problem. Lawmakers know this and will not create legislation in that fashion. You might see something like the termination of domestic construction of certain types of firearms. You might see regulations on the size and capacity of guns built after a certain date.

I personally would like to see the end of true assault weapons outside of specialized licensing. Making more firearms into Class III licensed weapons keeps the weapons in the hands of the right people, and out of the hands of others. It isn't a difficult license to obtain, it keeps track of extremely dangerous weapons, and creates enough revenue to pay for its own program costs.

Handguns in particular will remain legal in the US for our lifetimes. They may change in construction over time, making them less concealable, but expect the availability to remain. Weapons such as the venerable street "mac 10" should be regulated heavily, but something like service weapons in the .22 to .50 cal range measuring no less than 6" in total body length and being semi-auto, carrying no more than 14 rds would suit my fancy just fine. It minimizes highly lethal arms (ones that can either amass large numbers of victims on a single clip or that are so small as to be undetectable by law enforcement during a felony weapons search) while allowing the widest variety of arms to those who feel they need self protection.

E

[Gisteppo]

Oops, almost forgot...

2nd Amendment reads:

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.

Define for me your well regulated militia, if that's the reason you need your arms.

Its a dead argument. If you say I want the right to self protection, than say it. Don't hide behind the 2nd because you will have a hard time justifying what a Well Regulated Militia is. I prefer seeing people who stand up and say why they want to keep their guns.

Lastly, you do realize that all amendments can be repealed, right?

E

[G-Man]

The second amendment can be interpreted in many ways. However, I feel that when necessary, it is every citizen's duty to protect their country and their freedom. This amendment is not written with personal protection in mind, rather it was to ensure that if government ran afoul the people had the necessary means to take control. With the revolutionary war was fresh in their minds, I like to think that our founding fathers weren't so full of themselves to think that they could create an incorruptible government and put a necessary check in place.
A line from the movie "V" for Vendetta explains it quite simply. "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

[tmusky1]

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?

[Gisteppo]

TM, thats the heart of the issue.

You draw the line at what conceivably is based on victim ratio. It is the same premise we rely on for duck hunting arms, in that you better have the appropriate number of shells in the gun when you get checked. While I applaud the fact that you have and are trained for such a weapon that you possess, I have no qualms that you would be willing to license the weapon.

The question isn't where you draw the line as to what arms are available, its at what point you draw that line to say where you should be LICENSED to own that weapon.

Consider that same street thug you hypothetically throw at your family in the argument. Given concise controls over assault weaponry, that same villainous character walking into your home will be many times more likely to be carrying a weapon which does not have large capacity, while your LICENSED family members will have "spray and pray" capabilities.

The concept isn't regulating your gun. It is to regulate the number of said weapons and know where they are as well as who owns them. If your gun is sold on the black market and used, with your name licensed to it, there will be a string of evidence to lead the authorities to the bad man.

Make sense?

E

[swedefish4life1]

Zero Bee Bee stingers:-$

Red dote lazer scope. 308 = hollow points, 7 clips 30 rnders Crow and Crowd Control:-#
Oh the Hair= LMAO was trying poorly to get snow off the patio!:colors:

[tmusky1]

Yes, my scenario was hypothetical and extreme. Is it possible, yes. Is it probable , hopefully not.

I think the whole issue I have is that, while law abiding citizens would pay to license their firearms and jump through all the hoops, 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.



Make sense?
P.S. Oh my goodness swede, how can you brandish such a horrible evil looking weapon?????:-" (insert sarcastic smilie here)

[A9]

Red dote lazer scope. 308 = hollow points, 7 clips 30 rnders Crow and Crowd Control:-#

Looks more like a zombie patrol gun then a crow control one!

[G-Man]

As pro-gun as I may be, I'm not against the registration of firearms. As long as it does not interfere with one's ability to own a firearm, have at it. However, once you start charging fees, delaying a transaction for an unreasonable amount of time and limiting what a person can own the law starts to bite into your rights. What I find amazing is that people who have had their right to possess a weapon taken away, i.e. convicted felons, are the ones most likely to be carrying one. We need to find a way to enforce that law and not infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens. History shows us that as perceived threats are reduced, folks will feel less compelled to own weapon(s).

[swedefish4life1]

A-9 thats the cupcake chaser the tool breaker is the 9=shot Riot H-K:batman: 3 1/2 inch can and door opener for up close Crow patrol and then when she is empty we feed them the 454 C ported I hate Feathers:bom:

My neighbors love me:cheers:
Crime on my street has dropped a bunch.
Marksman:colors: = in all handguns, shotguns and modern rifles.

My daughter is a real Swede on the rifle:cheers: patterns tighter then a bull fighters pants:-#