Ah, semantics. Whatever. I could point out that I also used "seems" in my post but then you'd counter that in one sentence I didn't use "seem" and then we'd waste another few hours of our life debating about "seems".
That's what I was responding to. I'm not trying to pick apart your statements based upon semantics. I'm interested in the facts so I looked into whether mass shootings is on the rise.
Crawl out from under that rock and do a little research. The universal and openly stated goal of every major gun-control lobbyist and every major gun-control advocate currently in office is the total elimination of un-registered, privately-held guns in America.
While I doubt it, that still doesn't eliminate all guns. crawl out from under the rock and do a little better reading, perhaps?
Read this: http://www.capoliticalreview.com/top-stories/feinstein-to-reveal-gun-ban-legislation-in-january/ Feinstein to Reveal Gun Ban Legislation in January If Feinstein’s legislation is any indication, many are saying that up to 75 percent of all handguns currently in circulation would be banned, along with 50 percent of all long guns and with anything that looks like a military-style weapon. (death by a thousand cuts, indeed)
I forgot when 75% and 50% of something actually meant ALL. Maybe you have an article or video for that, too.
http://americablog.com/2012/12/its-time-to-ban-guns-completely.html 479 people cared enough to click on the facebook like button on the page. Another 502 posted in the comments section.
You think they're going to stop with the one law? Great. Hopefully they'll only pass the one tax hike bill.
putting into law that they should be registered, and tracked after they are passed from owner to owner sounds ok to me. Some think it's somehow a violation of their 2nd amendment rights. So be it.
I agree. Problem is right now they are transferring properly, because what do they really have to do? Is it too much to have them register without it being against the constitution somehow?
Progressives whine about the gun show loophole. There is no such loophole. As it stands now, I can go buy a gun and sell it to you directly without any background check. Background checks are a typical govt. waste of money program. What I propose is to hold the buyer very responsible for what happens to his (or her) gun. The real problem is the bad guys don't play by the rules. If my proposal were passed, all the honest people would register their new guns when purchased. The registration would transfer, like a pink slip, to a buyer - otherwise the original owner would still be on the hook (and wouldn't allow unregistered transfer). But you go buy a gun collection and then it's "stolen," what then? It could be that you just (on purpose) illegally armed a dozen bad guys. I don't think anyone says laws requiring registering a gun is a violation of the 2nd.
Yes, pretty much everyone who understands the meaning of the word "infringement" is against registration. The Second Amendment is first and foremost a guarantee of the right to defend yourself and your countrymen from a potential scenario where our government has gone bad. Being forced to tell said government exactly what arms you have, and having to ask permission to acquire them in the first place, are both infringements. They also defeat the whole purpose of having a Second Amendment. Nothing remains except the door-to-door arms roundup.
^see Denny. And I've seen it more and more in comments online, and facebook, etc. registering guns is somehow a 2nd amendment violation. Are these same people feeling like the inability to yell out I Have a Bomb in an airport in an infringement on their freedom of speech? In that ANYTHING hindering it is wrong? It's fucking ridiculous.
Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. If not the Jews, why couldn't this be ANY group that the government wants to vilify? Like rich people, or black people, or Muslim people, or Latino people, or......? http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html So, in short, fuck yes it concerns gun owners when they are required by law to tell the government where each weapon in the country is. Go Blazers
Over the years, I've taken perhaps 100 people, who were all scared to death of guns, out shooting. In every single case (except 1), they had a great time, and came away with a new appreciation for guns. The one case where I failed was a young lady who picked up a 12 ga. shotgun while I was loading a different gun. I told her she should work her way up to the shotgun by shooting some guns that didn't kick as bad as the 12 gauge. She really wanted to shoot at the clay targets a buddy was throwing. I foolishly allowed her to shoot it, and the kick scared her so badly that she wouldn't touch another gun that day. I did get her to go with me again a couple of years later, after her home was broken into. We started with a .22 and worked up to the shotgun, and even this lady came around. She went out a week later and bought a handgun for home protection, and signed up for training. We still go to the range and shoot to keep her confident enough to use the gun safely. It would be a bad idea for a home invader to choose her house now. Go Blazers
The government should not be in a positon to deny anyone a gun. Maybe people who've committed crimes, as they don't have full rights of citizenship anyhow. While I am a firm believer we should be sticking as close to the constitution as possible, it's also clear to me that there are no absolute rights described. You have free speech, but you can be thrown in jail for assault or sued for libel. You can only shout "fire" in a crowded theater if you're willing to accept the consequences. SCOTUS has ruled twice on the 2nd amendment being a right for all. They suggest that licensing and registration is perfectly constitutional.
I should have said, "nobody who matters..." No offense to anyone here, but we're not very influential among the governing class - and those people do know registration is constitutional. In fact, when D.C. had its outright ban thrown out by SCOTUS, they immediately complied with the ruling and implemented registration and requires people who want one in their home to register the gun with the city. That's not going to get thrown out. The government is going to have to be careful about how they implement registration. If they make the process overly cumbersome as to effectively prevent people from being able to own guns, then I think SCOTUS will step up and make them fix it. The overly cumbersome bit is something everyone should be concerned with.
