Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Firearm registry is unacceptable at any time for any reason. There is no reason for it other than confiscation. No one has ever explained how a registry PREVENTS anything.
The Supreme Court has already ruled this very reasoning.
It is unconstitutional for Government to have their nose in or be involved in the peoples arms.
We are not their property for them to have a say. We are armed so they can never make your or me their property. You going to consent to your enemy telling you, what you can fight them with? LOL, don't be silly.
A registry is a no go with me. History has shown that it has led to confiscation in the past, although, the ATF hasn't gone around and scooped up all the NFA firearms.....yet.
My biggest problem with a registry is a mistrust of the government. There have been several instances of politicians wanting to make public exactly whom the firearms owners are. And I think one state representative actually did post publicly all the CPL holders in that particular area. In this day and age of information, I don't want anyone knowing if I have firearms or not. Not to mention certain groups doxing people and the possibility of being swatted, which would end up very bad.
Background checks, are no problem with me. Although without a registry, there is no way to enforce them, and that is the conundrum.
Firearm registry is unacceptable at any time for any reason. There is no reason for it other than confiscation. No one has ever explained how a registry PREVENTS anything.
What is it about you folks that prohibits you from understanding what I'm patiently and repeatedly stating agreement with you about the plethora of definitions of assault weapons.
Those definitions however, do exist in laws of a variety of States. You can't just ignore that, they are a fact.
Burying your head in the sand leaves the largest part of you up front, loud and proud for the legislators to easily target.
And I will repeat, until you finally get the point that the constitutional amendment you speak of was done by mere men involved in politics, what is about your 2nd that elevates it to the degree that mere men cannot force it's amendment through the two houses and the SCOTUS if the majority of the population get fed up with the status quo.
Either sit down and reasonably craft laws you can all agree upon or lose this battle. Don't like the word lose - then use another that describes you all refusing compromise and threatening anarchy, to which the completely predictable response will be - - you losing.
If you can not agree on a definition AND the definitions cannot pass muster as "rights shall not be infringed" under the constitution - any restriction is just a feel good measure.
Bury your head in the sand - less than half the states even try because they are unpopular in the majority of states - you can't just ignore that, that is a fact.
They are basically worthless laws because they don't pass muster and ONLY impact lawful citizens, they have NO effect on criminals. These laws are often more nuisance than impactful since mainly deal with cosmetics. They are primarily lip service by legislatures to gullible voters. The status quo is mainly due to lack of enforcement of the laws that do exist.
The recent Rasmussen polls indicate that you are in the minority - the polls suggest less than 1 in 4 support repealing the Second Amendment, even among democrats it was only about 1 in 3. Even restrictions on "assault rifles" was supported by less than half of those polled. The Constitution requires 2/3 of house and senate and 3/4 of the states for modifying any amendment - those numbers are no where close.
Either sit down and LISTEN to the other side on reasonable laws - calling for bans on assault rifles without understanding what an assault rifle is not the way to start a discussion. Reasonable discussion means compromise - those that want to start with bans as "reasonable" are NOT discussing - they are dictating.
Too bad 10 people were not dropping brass and throwing lead his direction.
But that's what happens, when your masters threaten violence against you for wanting to protect yourself, when they the government has no obligation to protect you, your family or your property, much less your liberty, privacy or good reputation..... NONE! That is your responsibility.
Really, though, it would have been a worse mass killing with 10 more people suddenly shooting, because somebody else started shooting first.
Your response is perhaps the best, and most accurate response ever given on this cd web site, and I commend you for it.
As I stated in my earlier post, I was looking for answers to why some gun enthusiast felt they needed these types of guns, and you have done a splendid job at explaining your personal reasons.
After reading the responses to my questions, and especially your response, I am ready to put forth what I feel is the correct response to once and for all, address this gun issue head on, and to be fair, while doing it.
Some will be in opposition to what I say, while some will agree.
If there is one thing in human nature that will never change, it is the fact that you can't please everyone.
Here is my solution:
First thing that needs to be addressed is the 2nd amendment to the constitution.
It needs to be repealed, and a new amendment written to take it's place.
I am well aware of what it takes for this action, and I would not rule it out, regardless of what political party is in office.
.........
Put too much definition into something and the people in power will find a way so only those they want have it.
For example, "consecutive"......they will find a way to legal define that word to mean a lot longer than what us common people think, like, say once every half minute.
Think of the Constitution as something like the Ten Commandments......very simple and to the point.
Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 03-26-2021 at 02:03 PM..
Firearm registry is unacceptable at any time for any reason. There is no reason for it other than confiscation. No one has ever explained how a registry PREVENTS anything.
So everyone needs to pack heat when venturing outside to protect themselves from mentally ill mass shooters?
According to the 27 words that make up the Second Amendment and a strict interpretation of it, we cannot deny "arms" to anyone. Not violent felons, not toddlers, not children, not the mentally ill, not even prisoners.
All the aforementioned are "vulnerable', so they need these "arms" even more than other citizens. The Second Amendment doesn't say we can deny them arms. Nor can we deny people access to grenades, rocket launchers, mustard gas...based on a literally interpretation of the Second amendment
Get a grip people. No one is coming for your guns. The mass shootings will continue. Schools, music venues, massage parlors, restaurants, sports events will all continue to see regular attacks. No need to worry.
Heck, Colorado even has "open carry", and despite what some will say, it isn't doing a whole lot of good. There is evidence of higher rates of mass shootings in states with relaxed gun laws even.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
