Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Who is going to the rally at the Capitol?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ripnbst" data-source="post: 2053791" data-attributes="member: 16136"><p>I have quoted your response to respond to each portion individually.</p><p></p><p></p><p>What does this have to do with registration? Registration does not infringe on your right. If it does, in what way?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>What does this have to do with registration?</p><p></p><p>True</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I'd like to note, I am simply playing devil's advocate here for some healthy discussion.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ripnbst, post: 2053791, member: 16136"] I have quoted your response to respond to each portion individually. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Who is going to the rally at the Capitol?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom