I am pro-gun - ask me anything...

Ok well you have lots of research now. LOL

 

And tanks are for sale all over the place. The only regulation on those purchased domestically are those imposed by the state DoT.
In fact, I know of a guy with a fully functional M16 halftrack, including the M2s.

 

I have to do an annual background check for work. It is easy to do and I don't see why anyone wanting to own a fire arm couldn't do the same thing.

Registration is not the first step to confiscation, that is a fallacy. The first step to confiscation would be banning and then confiscating firearms. This is a often repeated talking point that is completely illogical.

 

Don't break the law. You won't have the police bother you.

 

Background checks already exist in most cases when purchasing a firearm. The supreme court has not determined that is a constitutional violation. I trust them over you TBH.

The 2nd amendment does not guarantee that you will have access to a firearm without registration. It would require a new law, but there is no reason that it would be unconstitutional.

 

Disagree.

Even the federal govt has concluded universal background checks alone are pointless. "Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies", National Institute of Justice, 4 Jan 2013:

Universal background checks: Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process. ...... A perfect universal background check system can address the gun shows and might deter many unregulated private sellers. However, this does not address the largest sources (straw purchasers and theft), which would most likely become larger if background checks at gun shows and private sellers were addressed. The secondary market is the primary source of crime guns.​

In other words, criminals don't follow the law, they don't do background checks, and to reduce the criminals access to firearms requires elimination of the straw purchase, underground market, and smuggling.

The claim that universal background checks are productive is a myth and propaganda.

Disagree.

Same reason as above - criminals don't follow the law. That's why Canada abandoned their long gun registration in 2014, despite claims it would reduce crime and protect police, the registry had no impact other than to cost billions. https://www.forbes.com/sites/daniel...gistering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#5a8133735a1b


And there is always the distrust of the gun banners. The gun control crowd have through their lies and subterfuge so poisoned the well that nobody trusts them even if they propose something reasonable. That's why the NRA and most gun owners oppose any increase in gun control.

 

Use doesn't mean own. I stopped after this interpretation.

 

I can't find anything verifying what you claimed. You haven't provided anything verifying it either. Personal attacks against me because you are wrong are petty.

Thanks for the link.

 

There are loopholes in the requirement of background checks. Those should be eliminated. Criminals not complying with law is not a logical reason not to have laws.

Registering a firearm should be like a car. It shows all of the owners and could be used to demonstrate if a firearm was sold illegally, stolen, etc.

 

It takes time and effort. What you are stating is that (besides implying I am lying about what I post) you are not willing or interested enough to check into it yourself, yet you want me to do your work for you.

 

Really? Where does the constitution limit the weapons a citizen can have? I think it's you out of ammunition. Read the post I responded to if you need clarification.

 

That's a very interesting article. Thanks for sharing it. So would you agree with gun owners being required to have a license like it proposes?

I don't think that Canada's failure would have to be shared here. We could learn from the problems they faced in registry and come up with a better solution.

 

Is a toy classified as a weapon? Can it be used as a weapon? That is the discussion, yes? Not toys.

 

You made a claim. I asked for evidence. You don't have any. Discussion over.

 

There isn't a right to bear cars, but there is one to bear arms so no it's not the government's business to know what guns a person has.

 

There are no loopholes. In states that have expanded background checks, and spent millions to do so for private sales, no one has been caught or prosecuted for doing so.

No, registering a firearm should not be "like a car". It serves no practical purpose. The average "time to crime" on a gun is over 10 years, and destruction of the serial number eliminates all tracing possibiliites.

Canada spent a ton of money trying to register long guns, then realized the attempt was a waste of time.

 

Nowhere here is an honest attempt to counter my argument, other than a lackluster appeal to authority.
Do you understand the concept of prior restraint?
Do you understand how background checks are a form of prior restraint?
Do you understand why it is virtually always unconstitutional?

It does, pursuant to the argument I laid out - the state cannot show a compelling need for this restriction; the state cannot restrict a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution, absent said compelling need. the state can no more require the registration of those seeking to exercise their basic right to keep and bear arms than it can those wo seek an abortion.
See: Strict Scrutiny.

 

The right to be armed is based on the natural right of self defense of the individual. A nuclear weapon is not a weapon that can be used in self defense of the individual.

 

It could be used as a weapon but most rich people buy jet fighters for speed not to shoot at things. So it's used as a "toy" but yes it could be used as a weapon, but that is okay because they are rich and the poor should screw off on the right to own weapons.

 

This is an opf-repeated fallacy.
It is impossible to legally avoid the background checks required by federal law.
Thus, there is no loophole.

You asked about the registration of gun owners, not guns.
That said, you do not need to register a car as a condition of ownership, possession or any use other than that on public property.

 

Which, of course, is why car thieves chop cars when they steal them.

You can't trace the parts when they're done.

 

It is not an appeal to authority. The current laws regarding firearm ownership have been determined to be constitutional. You 'logic' does not overturn the law. Your opinion is moot.

 

Perhaps you can explain how requiring a free ID card is "disenfranchisement" on the right to vote, but spending hundreds of dollars to exercise your right to bear arms is not.

Also, in Printz v. United States, the supreme court ruled that states could not be compelled to perform background checks that would meet federal requirements.

 

Let me be clear for you then, I think a possible solution for making gun ownership safer would be a requirement of a background check and a registration. It does not currently require those things.

 

Voter ID laws are still being settled by the courts. We will see what they determine.

My opinion: Gun ownership should be difficult. Voting should be easy.