What's wrong with gun registration?

If nothing else, the cost involved, and overall lack of accuracy. The nation of Canada attempted to register every rifle and shotgun within its borders, which was but a tiny fraction compared to the number possessed in the united states. The combination of the database costing billions of dollars just to maintain, in addition to thousands of errors, eventually lead it to being scrapped, and all the gathered data being deleted.

There are between three hundred and five hundred million firearms in the united states, with countless thousands being added daily. In simple, uncomplicated, easy to understand terms, there are simply too many firearms in existence for any proposed database to either be accurate, or cost effective.

 

any politician who does not trust me to own the same type of weapons that my tax dollars supply said politician's bodyguards is a politician I do not trust to hold public office

 

Comment:

The Nazis of the past seem to be a reflection of todays liberal Democrats and progressives we see in America today. They both have the same agenda, tactics and strategy.

In Adolph Hitlers own words.

 

No offense to you personally, but after the millionth mass shooting, AK-47 owners have lost my trust. Why DO you need an AK-47? Why does anyone need that? Something like that is designed to kill lots of people very quickly, and in a time of mass shooting after mass shooting, I think it's logical people will be talking about high powered weapons with large capacity magazines.

 

Sure you know difference between AK and AR or how about differences between AK and Glock?

 

I see the above as anecdotal. Just because one state does a thing does not mean that inexorably all states will follow suit. To me the above is the oft heard argument of registration is the first step to confiscation which I do not subscribe to. Perhaps I have more faith in the 2nd Amendment than you or perhaps it is that I am from a red state where we do not have to worry about gun seizures.

The states are like individuals, all different, some more liberal, some more conservative, while others more centrist, and no two states are exactly the same. Some states will have more restrictive laws while others will be less restrictive. To argue that restrictive gun laws work, the data needs to show that restrictive gun laws have a direct correlation with a meaningful decline in gun violence. If this can be empirically determined then this will open a debate of the right to bear arms vs public safety. Has gun violence fallen significantly under the NY Safe Act?

We have had 7 years of a liberal president, the issue is that we are in danger of having another liberal president for perhaps a couple more terms if the republicans do not get their (*)(*)(*)(*) together. If a republican is elected then I think much of your fear is for not, but if we have another liberal president after Obama then I think there is a chance that federal level laws may be implemented.

As an independent I like balance and do fear the scale tipping to what I perceive as too far to the left. I also am appalled by our current level of gun violence and personally am willing to have limits places upon my right to keep and bear arms if the upside is far less gun violence. But the solution is multifaceted as is the problem, so those who just want to do a gun grab are ignorant of the problem as guns are not the problem, the problem is that there is something seriously amiss in our society and untill we figure out what it is, the violence will continue.

 

First regulations and laws mean nothing to criminals . Second regulations and " registration" is just another excuse to collect fees and taxes from law bidding citizens and a means to employ more unless government zombies .
Those who obey the law and have moral values don't need more regulations to inform them the proper way to act because they know right from wrong , so why keep diverting the real problem and deal with it swiftly and directly !

 

It's not a dodge I wanted to know whether I needed to explain the process you. People say they find that patronizing. Since I don't need to explain it to you you know it costs money to get checks run etc.

There you have it.

 

I think most on the left want to confiscate all of your guns about as much as you want to give every single person 12 guns no matter how crazy they are. Both scenarios are the total extreme of each side and not a realistic goal for either.

I really appreciate you saying you'd be willing to take on some limitations if they proved to reduce overall gun violence. I have no idea what those limitations would or should look like, but just hearing that from a gun enthusiast is huge. I don't want you to give up your hobby, passion or right to bear arms. I just want to have a serious conversation that isn't totally sensationalized about gun violence. Thanks for your post.

 

I've said this a few times but I don't buy this argument. With this logic you could say we don't need any laws because all laws are broken by criminals who are obviously not law abiding citizens. Laws are not about preventing a crime as much as they are about seeking justice after a law had been broken. Now, that justice does act as a prevention method many times as people fear the consequences of breaking the law, but without the law you have no grounds o seek justice.

 

Correction: The 2A is an unalienable Right, not an inalienable one. To be precise, there IS a difference. Other than that, you are spot on.

 

Since the ratification of the United States Constitution, we have compromised with the left to the tune of more than 40,000 federal, state and local laws governing the ownership of firearms. With each of these laws, the left always ends the commentary "well at least it's a start." So, where are you thinking it ends?

Maybe you focus on the wrong aspects of the issue. For example, all mass shootings are done by either jihadists or people on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs. We all know what needs to be done in regards to jihadists. That leaves the SSRIs. My solution is to administer those drugs only as a last resort AND it must be done where the patient is not left to run amok in a free society while taking a psychotropic drug that is linked to every mass shooting in the U.S. not done by a jihadist.

Now, you have an idea on the table. Next.

 

Gun violence is already illegal.

 

Does your logic apply to illegals and sanctuary cities as well ? How about the sale , possession , and using of weed ? As long as the government gets their cut anything go's ! It's NEVER about justice , it's always been how much justice you can afford !

 

i am just guessing, too complicated; why not simply engender a better attitude toward militia service, well regulated, and merely weapons qualify for the Arms of choice.

 

nothing the leftwing politicians suggest meets that test. and most of the stuff they propose are clearly designed to harass lawful gun owners

- - - Updated - - -

gun violence is not what gun banners or gun restrictionist leaders are really trying to impede or end

 

How about this for the latest in militia mobiles?

[video=youtube;ZbE6mxjmRUM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbE6mxjmRUM[/video]

 

I live in Colorado so as far as I'm concerned weed is a non issue now. If we're truly a free nation then a person should be free to smoke whatever stupid substance they want. As long as they aren't blowing it in my face what do I care? Might as well make some tax money off it. And I bet in a decade or more gun violence will be down due to the legalization of pot. You don't hear about alcohol deals going down under the bridge, so once pot is well regulated it would be as ridiculous as hitting an alcohol dealer up... No one does that they go through the drive through liquor store.

And if the argument against gun control is criminals ignore gun laws anyway, why is it any different with pot laws? People smoke anyway so why does it matter? Might as well get a cut to fix up pot holes and fund some schools and libraries.

 

Yawn. What is the right wing suggesting exactly?

 

target criminals with laws that punish harmful uses of guns rather than pushing crap like Magazine limits or "assault weapon bans" which don't do anything additional to criminals since they already are banned from owning any firearm

 

I heard the same tale about tobacco , as long as they don't blow it in my face who cares the government may as well make money too ! Now who is paying for all the healthcare problems it caused ??? The TAXPAYERS with that Obamacare !!!