I support the second amendment, but...
Anything that comes after makes you look like a fool.
Anything that comes after makes you look like a fool.
I have quoted your response to respond to each portion individually.
To Werewolf, I understand all they do is point to the first owner of the firearm committed in a crime. If they were to require registration then the records would be current unless it was stolen. Which I understand can and will happen but I think probably more often than we know people sell to criminals unknowingly. I always make it a point to ask prior to a sale "Are you a resident of this state?" and "Are you legally allowed to own a firearm?". Under current law, this is all that is required of me, so I comply. Surely they can lie and I just sold to a criminal unknowingly but that is on them, not me. By mandating background check this takes that part of it out of the equation and ensures they are not restricted from purchasing.
To GTG, based on what werewolf said, that they are currently not registrations, simply a series of yes or no questions, how would that constitute a "registry"? It's simply a background check. Requiring registry for fear of being on a list is something that I too am concerned about but nearly all of my guns are in my name. Conversely I am almost positive there are members on this very forum who will only buy used firearms for this exact reason.
If we want to go all "But the constitution", The second amendment does protect our right to keep and bear arms. It makes no mention of protection of anonymity or otherwise in doing so. If it did then we wouldn't have to register them in the first place. My reference to the registry was simply to provide a continuation past the initial owner, which again, people dont seem to care about but then when that registration must continue past the first guy now all of a sudden it matters? I don't get it.
I'd like to note, I am simply playing devil's advocate here for some healthy discussion.
What does this have to do with registration? Registration does not infringe on your right. If it does, in what way?
I concede this is a possibility and that alone is one reason I might be against registration. The way I see it though, whether they know where the guns are or they don't if they want them they are coming for them. It would just save them time if they know where they are and where they aren't. I must say, you being an LEO makes me feel good that your stance on this appears to be a firm one. Kudos.
What does this have to do with registration?
True
Maybe not outright banned but they are restricted by features via gas guzzler tax, proposed luxury tax, etc. Similar to NFA items with the current $200 tax and requiring a trust(in our area) that makes them restricted but not altogether banned. I am not for this, simply saying it happens now so why aren't people making a stink about it?
To Werewolf, I understand all they do is point to the first owner of the firearm committed in a crime. If they were to require registration then the records would be current unless it was stolen. Which I understand can and will happen but I think probably more often than we know people sell to criminals unknowingly. I always make it a point to ask prior to a sale "Are you a resident of this state?" and "Are you legally allowed to own a firearm?". Under current law, this is all that is required of me, so I comply. Surely they can lie and I just sold to a criminal unknowingly but that is on them, not me. By mandating background check this takes that part of it out of the equation and ensures they are not restricted from purchasing.
To GTG, based on what werewolf said, that they are currently not registrations, simply a series of yes or no questions, how would that constitute a "registry"? It's simply a background check. Requiring registry for fear of being on a list is something that I too am concerned about but nearly all of my guns are in my name. Conversely I am almost positive there are members on this very forum who will only buy used firearms for this exact reason.
If we want to go all "But the constitution", The second amendment does protect our right to keep and bear arms. It makes no mention of protection of anonymity or otherwise in doing so. If it did then we wouldn't have to register them in the first place. My reference to the registry was simply to provide a continuation past the initial owner, which again, people dont seem to care about but then when that registration must continue past the first guy now all of a sudden it matters? I don't get it.
I'd like to note, I am simply playing devil's advocate here for some healthy discussion.
Back on topic!
We need to stop bickering over details and at least come together for the month of January or we can kiss a lot of freedom goodbye.
I'll be at the capital on the 19th.
Where do we meet?
We need to stop bickering over details and at least come together for the month of January or we can kiss a lot of freedom goodbye.
I'll be at the capital on the 19th.
Where do we meet?
I recognize that you're playing devil's advocate. The answers to your questions are conveniently located in early American History. I'm not good at regurgitating quotes or I'd throw some your way. Any registration is a conditional term applied to a right enumerated by the Constitution. That is anathema to the very definition of a right. You're relegating it to the position of a privilege.
We sometimes forget the power of "NO.". "NO." has unique properties. It doesn't invite further discussion. It doesn't respond well to queries or parsing language. It is what it is, a powerful, simple statement of fact. There is no "why?", there is simply "NO."
We do not live in the liberal fantasyland of "Democracy". We live in a Constitutional Republic. They need to be taken to task for their error early, and often. Their rightful avenue to implement gun restrictions is through Constitutional Amendment. Only then should any gun control scheme be entertained. Until then, the correct answer is a simple and to the point "NO.".
Dang Jerry. That sums it up very neatly.
Well said.
It's amazing how many "gun people" have no problem with a few more restrictions and controls over our freedoms.
I plan on being there. I'm not the creative type, anyone got ideas for picket messages? that would be a fun thread in and of itself.
It's because they believe that people should only have the freedom that they approve of.
Going to the gun show that morning then I will be at the rally
Similar threads
