***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (5 Viewers)

[Glass Joe]

Reading between the lines, I think this is just a ploy for votes in the mid-term elections. Feinstein's bill is so outrageous, that it WILL get shot down. Easily. But when it does, all of the left-wing chirping will be that the republicans squashed it. If it were to go through, dems would get killed in the mid-term elections. This all seems like a feel-good, non-issue distraction to more serious topics. Sure, if small increments of gun control can be initiated, good for the left. If further gun control can not be initiated, better for the left.

You really don't understand. Right or wrong, your opposition is sincere: they were horrified by Newtown, and they want to find ways to solve this problem. This is no ploy, no left-wing scheme. What specifically do you find outrageous about Feinstein's bill?

I understand the need to want to do something, I think though statistics have shown the previous AWB did nothing and since it expired crime with those types of weapons have gone down but sales have gone way up. Yet the first thing the go after is guns. Can you not see that? Knee jerk reactions do no good except get politicians reelected.

What makes this knee-jerk? There's been support for gun bans for many years.

 

[boots11234]

Reading between the lines, I think this is just a ploy for votes in the mid-term elections. Feinstein's bill is so outrageous, that it WILL get shot down. Easily. But when it does, all of the left-wing chirping will be that the republicans squashed it. If it were to go through, dems would get killed in the mid-term elections. This all seems like a feel-good, non-issue distraction to more serious topics. Sure, if small increments of gun control can be initiated, good for the left. If further gun control can not be initiated, better for the left.

You really don't understand. Right or wrong, your opposition is sincere: they were horrified by Newtown, and they want to find ways to solve this problem. This is no ploy, no left-wing scheme. What specifically do you find outrageous about Feinstein's bill?

I understand the need to want to do something, I think though statistics have shown the previous AWB did nothing and since it expired crime with those types of weapons have gone down but sales have gone way up. Yet the first thing the go after is guns. Can you not see that? Knee jerk reactions do no good except get politicians reelected.

What makes this knee-jerk? There's been support for gun bans for many years.

Really. Why have they waited until precisely now to try to push it through then? Maybe support from you ilk and the filks you hangout with but many rural democrats were against a ban. It will be interesting to see what happens but sadly I believe something will pass. One more thing, do you know how many gun crimes have been directly traced back to the registered gun owner? I have to think such a small number as to be laughable. The reason for this is of course is criminals don't register their guns.

 

[boots11234]

It makes them feel good. Like I've been saying, it's all about feelings.

Does owning a gun make you feel good?

Yes.

 

[moleculo]

We are ok with registering cars but not guns, right?

Not sure how to reconcile that.

 

[boots11234]

Let me see......nope don't see a right to cars in the constitution.

 

[cobalt_27]

Let me see......nope don't see a right to cars in the constitution.

That's idiotic.On multiple levels.

 

[moleculo]

Let me see......nope don't see a right to cars in the constitution.

I don't either. I do, however, find the phrase 'well regulated' and would believe that registration would fall under the umbrella of regulation.

 

[Henry Ford]

It makes them feel good. Like I've been saying, it's all about feelings.

Does owning a gun make you feel good?

Yes.

Me, too. So maybe it's not just "them" who make decisions based at least in part on what makes "them" feel good. Maybe that's the primary reason people ever do anything.

 

[Mello]

We are ok with registering cars but not guns, right?Not sure how to reconcile that.

I'm not exactly thrilled with either one.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Let me see......nope don't see a right to cars in the constitution.

I don't either. I do, however, find the phrase 'well regulated' and would believe that registration would fall under the umbrella of regulation.

" the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[moleculo]

Let me see......nope don't see a right to cars in the constitution.

I don't either. I do, however, find the phrase 'well regulated' and would believe that registration would fall under the umbrella of regulation.

" the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Requiring registration would not infringe on anyone's right to keep and/or bear arms.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Let me see......nope don't see a right to cars in the constitution.

I don't either. I do, however, find the phrase 'well regulated' and would believe that registration would fall under the umbrella of regulation.

" the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Requiring registration would not infringe on anyone's right to keep and/or bear arms.

For what purpose do you assume the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" was originally added to the Bill of Rights?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Registration is more than an Infringement

The Second Amendment reads. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The question may be asked, "Is registration of a particular gun truly such a burden that it can be called an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms?"

To begin with, if we were speaking of registering religious items or communications devices, none but socialists would dare ask such a question. Yet the Second Amendment directly follows the amendment concerned with the free exercise of religion and freedom of the press. The Second Amendment holds a place of priority in the Bill of Rights, which is primarily a list of inalienable personal rights.

But to answer the above question — Yes. Registration is absolutely an infringement, on at least three grounds. In fact, we will see that the rights versus privileges issue makes registration far more than a mere infringement.

Information. Registration of a firearm gives the government information that can be used (and has been used, and is being used right now) to confiscate that firearm or to pinpoint its owner for weapon seizure, fining, incarceration, or execution. Having the government in possession of this information is directly contrary to the Second Amendment's intent to ensure that citizens always possess the means to overthrow the government should it become corrupt or tyrannical.

Government control. Allowing the government to seize a citizen's firearm, or to suspend, revoke, or diminish a citizen's ability to defend life, family, property, and country for paperwork omissions or errors, for regulatory violations, for minor infractions of the law, for misdemeanors, or arguably for anything less than conviction for a major crime of violence is also directly contrary to the intent of the Second Amendment. This is because virtually all citizens have committed, or will commit, one or more of the listed non-violent errors listed above, whereas the entire point of the Second Amendment is to place this same citizenry's right to keep and bear arms (and therefore the right of self-defense) out of the government's grasp.

Right versus privilege. Critically relevant to all our rights, is that any edict that attempts to convert a right into a state-granted privilege by imposing prior requirements — such as registration — before it may be exercised goes far beyond mere "infringement" of that right; it becomes an attempt at outright abrogation of the right.

Therefore the state's demand to comply with the requirements of such an edict — no matter how physically easy compliance is — imposes not some mere inconvenience on the individual. It imposes the enormous moral, ethical, intellectual, and spiritual burden of denying the existence of the right.

It does not matter if the state demands that one simply tap one's nose five times in succession in order to be able to keep and bear a particular gun. This would still be a state-mandated prior requirement. Compliance would indicate tacit denial of the validity of the Second Amendment, and denial of the right it protects. Compliance would encompass an implicit acceptance of the right as a mere privilege, which is directly contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

We are ok with registering cars but not guns, right?Not sure how to reconcile that.

To put it simply, driving a car is a legal privilege, owning a gun is a right.Additionally if you buy a car for use only on private land, there is no requirement for registration or licensing. You want to buy a classic car to add to your car collection and park it in your garage to admire? You can buy any car you want with as large of an engine that you want again with no restriction other than what you can afford. So driving a car is a legal privilege, when used on public roadways would require the proper registration and licensing. Similarly, if someone wanted to buy a gun for self-defense in their home or business or to add to their collection they should not have to register the gun or obtain an "ownership" license.

 

[tom22406]

Democrats ready gun-control legislation that would ban high-capacity magazines

By Mike Lillis - 01/03/13 11:53 AM ET

House Democrats will waste no time in the new Congress pushing legislation to tighten the nation's gun laws.

Reps. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) will introduce a proposal Thursday, the first day of the 113th Congress, to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines like those used last month in the Newtown, Conn., elementary school massacre.

The legislation will be introduced after the 113th Congress is officially gaveled in Thursday, the same day that children from Sandy Hook Elementary School returned to classes for the first time since a lone gunman stormed into the school and fatally shot 26 people. They are attending school at a different location.

The shooter, a 20-year-old who reportedly had a history of mental illness, fatally shot himself as the police moved in.

McCarthy, DeGette and other gun-control advocates say the elimination of ammunition magazines that hold dozens of bullets would help lessen the carnage in such indiscriminate shootings.

"These assault magazines help put the ‘mass’ in ‘mass shooting’ and anything we can do to stop their proliferation will save lives in America,” McCarthy said in a statement. Her husband was killed and her son seriously injured in a 1993 shooting on a Long Island, N.Y., commuter train.

"These devices are used to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible, and we owe it to innocent Americans everywhere to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people," McCarthy said.

"We don’t even allow hunters to use them," she added. "Something’s deeply wrong if we’re protecting game more than we’re protecting innocent human beings."

The reformers now have a powerful ally in President Obama, who has used the Newtown massacre to urge congressional action on gun violence for the first time in his White House tenure.

"I'd like to get it done in the first year," Obama said on NBC's "Meet the Press" program Sunday.

Obama has appointed Vice President Biden to head a new task force assigned to come up with concrete proposals to curb gun violence, looking not only at gun laws but also the mental health system and violence-in-culture issues.

Biden is expected to lend the task force's recommendations this month.

"This is not something that I will be putting off," Obama vowed Sunday.

The gun-control proponents have a tough fight ahead. Not only has the National Rifle Association (NRA) come out strongly against new gun laws since the Newtown shooting, but Republican leaders on Capitol Hill have also been quick to reject the notion that tougher gun restrictions will prevent violent people from shooting others.

"We’re going to take a look at what happened there [in Newtown] and what can be done to help avoid it in the future," Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which oversees gun laws, told Roll Call last month. "But gun control is not going to be something that I would support."

The Democrats don't seem to be deterred, and they see Thursday's proposal, which would ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, as one of their best chances to rein in gun violence.

"While there is no single answer to stopping these massacres, this bill is a step that will go a long way toward making our country safe," DeGette said.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) is expected to introduce similar legislation in the upper chamber.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/275401-democrats-ready-gun-control-bills-for-new-congress

 

[Mello]

We are ok with registering cars but not guns, right?Not sure how to reconcile that.

To put it simply, driving a car is a legal privilege, owning a gun is a right.Additionally if you buy a car for use only on private land, there is no requirement for registration or licensing. You want to buy a classic car to add to your car collection and park it in your garage to admire? You can buy any car you want with as large of an engine that you want again with no restriction other than what you can afford. So driving a car is a legal privilege, when used on public roadways would require the proper registration and licensing. Similarly, if someone wanted to buy a gun for self-defense in their home or business or to add to their collection they should not have to register the gun or obtain an "ownership" license.

Which is a completely dumb designation because the ability to drive a car is far, far more important to the average life of the average person than the ability to own a gun.

 

[timschochet]

Democrats ready gun-control legislation that would ban high-capacity magazines

By Mike Lillis - 01/03/13 11:53 AM ET

House Democrats will waste no time in the new Congress pushing legislation to tighten the nation's gun laws.

Reps. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) will introduce a proposal Thursday, the first day of the 113th Congress, to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines like those used last month in the Newtown, Conn., elementary school massacre.

The legislation will be introduced after the 113th Congress is officially gaveled in Thursday, the same day that children from Sandy Hook Elementary School returned to classes for the first time since a lone gunman stormed into the school and fatally shot 26 people. They are attending school at a different location.

The shooter, a 20-year-old who reportedly had a history of mental illness, fatally shot himself as the police moved in.

McCarthy, DeGette and other gun-control advocates say the elimination of ammunition magazines that hold dozens of bullets would help lessen the carnage in such indiscriminate shootings.

"These assault magazines help put the ‘mass’ in ‘mass shooting’ and anything we can do to stop their proliferation will save lives in America,” McCarthy said in a statement. Her husband was killed and her son seriously injured in a 1993 shooting on a Long Island, N.Y., commuter train.

"These devices are used to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible, and we owe it to innocent Americans everywhere to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people," McCarthy said.

"We don’t even allow hunters to use them," she added. "Something’s deeply wrong if we’re protecting game more than we’re protecting innocent human beings."

The reformers now have a powerful ally in President Obama, who has used the Newtown massacre to urge congressional action on gun violence for the first time in his White House tenure.

"I'd like to get it done in the first year," Obama said on NBC's "Meet the Press" program Sunday.

Obama has appointed Vice President Biden to head a new task force assigned to come up with concrete proposals to curb gun violence, looking not only at gun laws but also the mental health system and violence-in-culture issues.

Biden is expected to lend the task force's recommendations this month.

"This is not something that I will be putting off," Obama vowed Sunday.

The gun-control proponents have a tough fight ahead. Not only has the National Rifle Association (NRA) come out strongly against new gun laws since the Newtown shooting, but Republican leaders on Capitol Hill have also been quick to reject the notion that tougher gun restrictions will prevent violent people from shooting others.

"We’re going to take a look at what happened there [in Newtown] and what can be done to help avoid it in the future," Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which oversees gun laws, told Roll Call last month. "But gun control is not going to be something that I would support."

The Democrats don't seem to be deterred, and they see Thursday's proposal, which would ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, as one of their best chances to rein in gun violence.

"While there is no single answer to stopping these massacres, this bill is a step that will go a long way toward making our country safe," DeGette said.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) is expected to introduce similar legislation in the upper chamber.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/275401-democrats-ready-gun-control-bills-for-new-congress

I am glad to hear this! Thx for posting

 

[5 digit know nothing]

We are ok with registering cars but not guns, right?Not sure how to reconcile that.

To put it simply, driving a car is a legal privilege, owning a gun is a right.Additionally if you buy a car for use only on private land, there is no requirement for registration or licensing. You want to buy a classic car to add to your car collection and park it in your garage to admire? You can buy any car you want with as large of an engine that you want again with no restriction other than what you can afford. So driving a car is a legal privilege, when used on public roadways would require the proper registration and licensing. Similarly, if someone wanted to buy a gun for self-defense in their home or business or to add to their collection they should not have to register the gun or obtain an "ownership" license.

Which is a completely dumb designation because the ability to drive a car is far, far more important to the average life of the average person than the ability to own a gun.

 

[timschochet]

Registration is more than an Infringement

The Second Amendment reads. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The question may be asked, "Is registration of a particular gun truly such a burden that it can be called an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms?"

To begin with, if we were speaking of registering religious items or communications devices, none but socialists would dare ask such a question. Yet the Second Amendment directly follows the amendment concerned with the free exercise of religion and freedom of the press. The Second Amendment holds a place of priority in the Bill of Rights, which is primarily a list of inalienable personal rights.

But to answer the above question — Yes. Registration is absolutely an infringement, on at least three grounds. In fact, we will see that the rights versus privileges issue makes registration far more than a mere infringement.

Information. Registration of a firearm gives the government information that can be used (and has been used, and is being used right now) to confiscate that firearm or to pinpoint its owner for weapon seizure, fining, incarceration, or execution. Having the government in possession of this information is directly contrary to the Second Amendment's intent to ensure that citizens always possess the means to overthrow the government should it become corrupt or tyrannical.

Government control. Allowing the government to seize a citizen's firearm, or to suspend, revoke, or diminish a citizen's ability to defend life, family, property, and country for paperwork omissions or errors, for regulatory violations, for minor infractions of the law, for misdemeanors, or arguably for anything less than conviction for a major crime of violence is also directly contrary to the intent of the Second Amendment. This is because virtually all citizens have committed, or will commit, one or more of the listed non-violent errors listed above, whereas the entire point of the Second Amendment is to place this same citizenry's right to keep and bear arms (and therefore the right of self-defense) out of the government's grasp.

Right versus privilege. Critically relevant to all our rights, is that any edict that attempts to convert a right into a state-granted privilege by imposing prior requirements — such as registration — before it may be exercised goes far beyond mere "infringement" of that right; it becomes an attempt at outright abrogation of the right.

Therefore the state's demand to comply with the requirements of such an edict — no matter how physically easy compliance is — imposes not some mere inconvenience on the individual. It imposes the enormous moral, ethical, intellectual, and spiritual burden of denying the existence of the right.

It does not matter if the state demands that one simply tap one's nose five times in succession in order to be able to keep and bear a particular gun. This would still be a state-mandated prior requirement. Compliance would indicate tacit denial of the validity of the Second Amendment, and denial of the right it protects. Compliance would encompass an implicit acceptance of the right as a mere privilege, which is directly contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment.

The Dupreme Court has demonstrated time and again that it does not agree with this argument.

 

[Guest]

No constitutional rights are completely free of infringement. That's never the test.

 

[moleculo]

I find it odd that many conservatives will yell from the rooftops that a simple documentation requirement is onerous, unnecessary, tedious, an affront to basic human rights, whereas many liberals would consider documentation as a safety net that could ensure responsible stewardship.

Exact opposite of the voter ID debate.

 

[Mello]

We are ok with registering cars but not guns, right?Not sure how to reconcile that.

To put it simply, driving a car is a legal privilege, owning a gun is a right.Additionally if you buy a car for use only on private land, there is no requirement for registration or licensing. You want to buy a classic car to add to your car collection and park it in your garage to admire? You can buy any car you want with as large of an engine that you want again with no restriction other than what you can afford. So driving a car is a legal privilege, when used on public roadways would require the proper registration and licensing. Similarly, if someone wanted to buy a gun for self-defense in their home or business or to add to their collection they should not have to register the gun or obtain an "ownership" license.

Which is a completely dumb designation because the ability to drive a car is far, far more important to the average life of the average person than the ability to own a gun.

You don't it's silly to consider something that's basically a requirement in most of the country to support oneself a privilege while we consider something that is completely optional and unnecessary for the vast majority of people a right?

 

[moleculo]

Registration is more than an Infringement

The Second Amendment reads. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The question may be asked, "Is registration of a particular gun truly such a burden that it can be called an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms?"

To begin with, if we were speaking of registering religious items or communications devices, none but socialists would dare ask such a question. Yet the Second Amendment directly follows the amendment concerned with the free exercise of religion and freedom of the press. The Second Amendment holds a place of priority in the Bill of Rights, which is primarily a list of inalienable personal rights.

But to answer the above question — Yes. Registration is absolutely an infringement, on at least three grounds. In fact, we will see that the rights versus privileges issue makes registration far more than a mere infringement.

Information. Registration of a firearm gives the government information that can be used (and has been used, and is being used right now) to confiscate that firearm or to pinpoint its owner for weapon seizure, fining, incarceration, or execution. Having the government in possession of this information is directly contrary to the Second Amendment's intent to ensure that citizens always possess the means to overthrow the government should it become corrupt or tyrannical.

Government control. Allowing the government to seize a citizen's firearm, or to suspend, revoke, or diminish a citizen's ability to defend life, family, property, and country for paperwork omissions or errors, for regulatory violations, for minor infractions of the law, for misdemeanors, or arguably for anything less than conviction for a major crime of violence is also directly contrary to the intent of the Second Amendment. This is because virtually all citizens have committed, or will commit, one or more of the listed non-violent errors listed above, whereas the entire point of the Second Amendment is to place this same citizenry's right to keep and bear arms (and therefore the right of self-defense) out of the government's grasp.

Right versus privilege. Critically relevant to all our rights, is that any edict that attempts to convert a right into a state-granted privilege by imposing prior requirements — such as registration — before it may be exercised goes far beyond mere "infringement" of that right; it becomes an attempt at outright abrogation of the right.

Therefore the state's demand to comply with the requirements of such an edict — no matter how physically easy compliance is — imposes not some mere inconvenience on the individual. It imposes the enormous moral, ethical, intellectual, and spiritual burden of denying the existence of the right.

It does not matter if the state demands that one simply tap one's nose five times in succession in order to be able to keep and bear a particular gun. This would still be a state-mandated prior requirement. Compliance would indicate tacit denial of the validity of the Second Amendment, and denial of the right it protects. Compliance would encompass an implicit acceptance of the right as a mere privilege, which is directly contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment.

sorry, I don't fine slippery slope arguments compelling. registration is bad because it may one day lead to confiscation. Well, confiscation would be a direct violation of the constitution, so that's already protected against.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

We are ok with registering cars but not guns, right?

Not sure how to reconcile that.

To put it simply, driving a car is a legal privilege, owning a gun is a right.Additionally if you buy a car for use only on private land, there is no requirement for registration or licensing. You want to buy a classic car to add to your car collection and park it in your garage to admire? You can buy any car you want with as large of an engine that you want again with no restriction other than what you can afford. So driving a car is a legal privilege, when used on public roadways would require the proper registration and licensing. Similarly, if someone wanted to buy a gun for self-defense in their home or business or to add to their collection they should not have to register the gun or obtain an "ownership" license.

Which is a completely dumb designation because the ability to drive a car is far, far more important to the average life of the average person than the ability to own a gun.

You don't it's silly to consider something that's basically a requirement in most of the country to support oneself a privilege while we consider something that is completely optional and unnecessary for the vast majority of people a right?

All cars are not a requirement, I lived in New York City for 10 years and did not need a car. I gave an example of collectors, someone that owns 20 cars does not need all 20 cars, they own so many for their collection. Guns are a right because the law says it is, as is written in the Bill of Rights. Now tim or others may challenge that legally it is not a right for all Americans, the law probably explicitly states individuals that are not allowed to own a gun in their home due to crimes they have committed, but that does not change anything for "most of the country" as you put it. Similarly the law states that certain individuals are not allowed to drive a car for crimes they have committed such as drunk driving infractions.

 

[Henry Ford]

Registration is more than an Infringement

The Second Amendment reads. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The question may be asked, "Is registration of a particular gun truly such a burden that it can be called an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms?"

To begin with, if we were speaking of registering religious items or communications devices, none but socialists would dare ask such a question. Yet the Second Amendment directly follows the amendment concerned with the free exercise of religion and freedom of the press. The Second Amendment holds a place of priority in the Bill of Rights, which is primarily a list of inalienable personal rights.

But to answer the above question — Yes. Registration is absolutely an infringement, on at least three grounds. In fact, we will see that the rights versus privileges issue makes registration far more than a mere infringement.

Information. Registration of a firearm gives the government information that can be used (and has been used, and is being used right now) to confiscate that firearm or to pinpoint its owner for weapon seizure, fining, incarceration, or execution. Having the government in possession of this information is directly contrary to the Second Amendment's intent to ensure that citizens always possess the means to overthrow the government should it become corrupt or tyrannical.

Government control. Allowing the government to seize a citizen's firearm, or to suspend, revoke, or diminish a citizen's ability to defend life, family, property, and country for paperwork omissions or errors, for regulatory violations, for minor infractions of the law, for misdemeanors, or arguably for anything less than conviction for a major crime of violence is also directly contrary to the intent of the Second Amendment. This is because virtually all citizens have committed, or will commit, one or more of the listed non-violent errors listed above, whereas the entire point of the Second Amendment is to place this same citizenry's right to keep and bear arms (and therefore the right of self-defense) out of the government's grasp.

Right versus privilege. Critically relevant to all our rights, is that any edict that attempts to convert a right into a state-granted privilege by imposing prior requirements — such as registration — before it may be exercised goes far beyond mere "infringement" of that right; it becomes an attempt at outright abrogation of the right.

Therefore the state's demand to comply with the requirements of such an edict — no matter how physically easy compliance is — imposes not some mere inconvenience on the individual. It imposes the enormous moral, ethical, intellectual, and spiritual burden of denying the existence of the right.

It does not matter if the state demands that one simply tap one's nose five times in succession in order to be able to keep and bear a particular gun. This would still be a state-mandated prior requirement. Compliance would indicate tacit denial of the validity of the Second Amendment, and denial of the right it protects. Compliance would encompass an implicit acceptance of the right as a mere privilege, which is directly contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment.

sorry, I don't fine slippery slope arguments compelling. registration is bad because it may one day lead to confiscation. Well, confiscation would be a direct violation of the constitution, so that's already protected against.

Confiscation, hell. He's saying it will lead to execution.

 

[Guest]

I find it odd that many conservatives will yell from the rooftops that a simple documentation requirement is onerous, unnecessary, tedious, an affront to basic human rights, whereas many liberals would consider documentation as a safety net that could ensure responsible stewardship.Exact opposite of the voter ID debate.

Not really. We require people to register to vote. The fight is over all the stuff that you have to do in order to register to vote.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Registration is more than an Infringement

The Second Amendment reads. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The question may be asked, "Is registration of a particular gun truly such a burden that it can be called an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms?"

To begin with, if we were speaking of registering religious items or communications devices, none but socialists would dare ask such a question. Yet the Second Amendment directly follows the amendment concerned with the free exercise of religion and freedom of the press. The Second Amendment holds a place of priority in the Bill of Rights, which is primarily a list of inalienable personal rights.

But to answer the above question — Yes. Registration is absolutely an infringement, on at least three grounds. In fact, we will see that the rights versus privileges issue makes registration far more than a mere infringement.

Information. Registration of a firearm gives the government information that can be used (and has been used, and is being used right now) to confiscate that firearm or to pinpoint its owner for weapon seizure, fining, incarceration, or execution. Having the government in possession of this information is directly contrary to the Second Amendment's intent to ensure that citizens always possess the means to overthrow the government should it become corrupt or tyrannical.

Government control. Allowing the government to seize a citizen's firearm, or to suspend, revoke, or diminish a citizen's ability to defend life, family, property, and country for paperwork omissions or errors, for regulatory violations, for minor infractions of the law, for misdemeanors, or arguably for anything less than conviction for a major crime of violence is also directly contrary to the intent of the Second Amendment. This is because virtually all citizens have committed, or will commit, one or more of the listed non-violent errors listed above, whereas the entire point of the Second Amendment is to place this same citizenry's right to keep and bear arms (and therefore the right of self-defense) out of the government's grasp.

Right versus privilege. Critically relevant to all our rights, is that any edict that attempts to convert a right into a state-granted privilege by imposing prior requirements — such as registration — before it may be exercised goes far beyond mere "infringement" of that right; it becomes an attempt at outright abrogation of the right.

Therefore the state's demand to comply with the requirements of such an edict — no matter how physically easy compliance is — imposes not some mere inconvenience on the individual. It imposes the enormous moral, ethical, intellectual, and spiritual burden of denying the existence of the right.

It does not matter if the state demands that one simply tap one's nose five times in succession in order to be able to keep and bear a particular gun. This would still be a state-mandated prior requirement. Compliance would indicate tacit denial of the validity of the Second Amendment, and denial of the right it protects. Compliance would encompass an implicit acceptance of the right as a mere privilege, which is directly contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment.

sorry, I don't fine slippery slope arguments compelling. registration is bad because it may one day lead to confiscation. Well, confiscation would be a direct violation of the constitution, so that's already protected against.

and yet you are the one trying to compare guns with cars?

 

[Henry Ford]

We are ok with registering cars but not guns, right?

Not sure how to reconcile that.

To put it simply, driving a car is a legal privilege, owning a gun is a right.Additionally if you buy a car for use only on private land, there is no requirement for registration or licensing. You want to buy a classic car to add to your car collection and park it in your garage to admire? You can buy any car you want with as large of an engine that you want again with no restriction other than what you can afford. So driving a car is a legal privilege, when used on public roadways would require the proper registration and licensing. Similarly, if someone wanted to buy a gun for self-defense in their home or business or to add to their collection they should not have to register the gun or obtain an "ownership" license.

Which is a completely dumb designation because the ability to drive a car is far, far more important to the average life of the average person than the ability to own a gun.

You don't it's silly to consider something that's basically a requirement in most of the country to support oneself a privilege while we consider something that is completely optional and unnecessary for the vast majority of people a right?

All cars are not a requirement, I lived in New York City for 10 years and did not need a car. I gave an example of collectors, someone that owns 20 cars does not need all 20 cars, they own so many for their collection. Guns are a right because the law says it is, as is written in the Bill of Rights. Now tim or others may challenge that legally it is not a right for all Americans, the law probably explicitly states individuals that are not allowed to own a gun in their home due to crimes they have committed, but that does not change anything for "most of the country" as you put it. Similarly the law states that certain individuals are not allowed to drive a car for crimes they have committed such as drunk driving infractions.

Is voting a right or a privilege in your estimation?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I find it odd that many conservatives will yell from the rooftops that a simple documentation requirement is onerous, unnecessary, tedious, an affront to basic human rights, whereas many liberals would consider documentation as a safety net that could ensure responsible stewardship.

Exact opposite of the voter ID debate.

My linkDo you really think criminals are going to volunteer guns they own that the government does not already know about?

 

[Guest]

Do you really think criminals are going to volunteer guns they own that the government does not already know about?

We probably shouldn't make anything illegal because whatever it is, the criminals will do it anyway.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I find it odd that many conservatives will yell from the rooftops that a simple documentation requirement is onerous, unnecessary, tedious, an affront to basic human rights, whereas many liberals would consider documentation as a safety net that could ensure responsible stewardship.Exact opposite of the voter ID debate.

Not really. We require people to register to vote. The fight is over all the stuff that you have to do in order to register to vote.

Yeah, but voter registration is only begrudgingly accepted by some of us. I'd prefer a system where it was unnecessary. The analogy doesn't work perfectly, but I can see some similarities.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Do you really think criminals are going to volunteer guns they own that the government does not already know about?

We probably shouldn't make anything illegal because whatever it is, the criminals will do it anyway.

So you agree that they would not comply? You'd rather inconvenience ~93% of Americans that own guns for no purpose other than to put responsible citizens on suspect lists every time a crime is committed because they own a similar type of weapon that was used in a crime? Why don't we let the government monitor all of our communications from cell phones, to email, to internet usage? I can make ridiculous comparisons too.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

You'd rather inconvenience ~93% of Americans that own guns

I'm not understanding this statistic. Where does it come from?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Violent crime statistics in the U.S. Video

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

BAM. I couldn't have said it better and have avoided this thread because of the truth he speaks. I alluded to i(info he's pulling up) as the 10 ton elephant in the room, when an article was posted, but it was whining about police and monorities, so I didn't want to go there. But if you keep following that trail, you'll find over 50% of all murders come from about 7% of the population and fit neatly into another subset of those neighborhoods that need help. We are very safe here regardless of the media noise machine.Could be the left needs outrage over crime to ban guns, and the right needs outrage over crime to sell them.

I probably botched my use of it, but the 7% came from here, I don't have a source.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Yeah let's register guns and inform criminals who owns a gun and who doesn't....

The names & addresses of 170,000 permit holders in CT, now kept confidential by law, could be made public under a bill proposed by Rep. Stephen DarganFor some reason, this “public servant” thinks that publicizing the names and addresses of law abiding permit holders (and presumably gun owners) will help to reduce gun violence.His solution to the tragedy in Newtown? Making it easier for criminals (thanks to whichever intrepid, half-######ed journalist actually FOI’s and publishes the list) to get their hands on guns by taking them from law abiding citizen’s homes.From today’s Hartford Courant: “The names and addresses of about 170,000 handgun permit holders in Connecticut, now kept confidential by law, could be made public under a proposed bill that pits gun owners against would-be reformers in the aftermath of the Dec. 14 Newtown school massacre.The bill, introduced by Rep. Stephen D. Dargan, D-West Haven, co-chairman of the legislature's public safety committee, would make public the names and addresses of permit holders under Connecticut's Freedom of Information Act — and would reverse lawmakers' decision to protect that personal information from disclosure nearly two decades ago."Most things are FOI-able now," Dargan said in an interview Thursday. "Go to the local city clerk's office and you can find out where Steve Dargan owns property," as well as what cars a person owns and perhaps some of his debts. "I don't know why a responsible gun owner is worried about whether a permit for a revolver is FOI-able or not."”

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/newtown-sandy-hook-school-shooting/hc-handgun-permit-foi-0104-20130103,0,6372731.storyThis is exactly the type of consequences you open yourself up to when you start taking these steps to identify every gun owner in America.

 

[Henry Ford]

Do you really think criminals are going to volunteer guns they own that the government does not already know about?

We probably shouldn't make anything illegal because whatever it is, the criminals will do it anyway.

So you agree that they would not comply? You'd rather inconvenience ~93% of Americans that own guns for no purpose other than to put responsible citizens on suspect lists every time a crime is committed because they own a similar type of weapon that was used in a crime? Why don't we let the government monitor all of our communications from cell phones, to email, to internet usage? I can make ridiculous comparisons too.

Are you under the impression that your emails and internet usage are free from monitoring?

 

[Guest]

Do you really think criminals are going to volunteer guns they own that the government does not already know about?

We probably shouldn't make anything illegal because whatever it is, the criminals will do it anyway.

So you agree that they would not comply? You'd rather inconvenience ~93% of Americans that own guns for no purpose other than to put responsible citizens on suspect lists every time a crime is committed because they own a similar type of weapon that was used in a crime? Why don't we let the government monitor all of our communications from cell phones, to email, to internet usage? I can make ridiculous comparisons too.

I'm saying that if any modest proposal is going to be met with, "Well, if you do X it won't work because then only people who follow the law will do X" there's less than zero point in trying to create any policies, much less having any sort of real discussion about them. With any policy, you have to think about the overall compliance, but that's not what is happening here at all. You're not trying to have a discussion, you're trying to stop one.

 

[Henry Ford]

You'd rather inconvenience ~93% of Americans that own guns

I'm not understanding this statistic. Where does it come from?

Well, polls suggest that approximately 34% of Americans own a gun, while just over 51% live in a household without a gun. If you add 51 + 34, you get 85%. 100%-85% is 15%. Half of that is 7.5%, but he rounded down to 7%. So the other 93% are what he's talking about.

 

[Guest]

I find it odd that many conservatives will yell from the rooftops that a simple documentation requirement is onerous, unnecessary, tedious, an affront to basic human rights, whereas many liberals would consider documentation as a safety net that could ensure responsible stewardship.Exact opposite of the voter ID debate.

Not really. We require people to register to vote. The fight is over all the stuff that you have to do in order to register to vote.

Yeah, but voter registration is only begrudgingly accepted by some of us. I'd prefer a system where it was unnecessary. The analogy doesn't work perfectly, but I can see some similarities.

Even a commie like you would agree that the state can define who gets to vote and that keeping lists of people to compare who gets to vote against who says they're going to vote (and at the same time keep records that they only vote once and in one place) is a good thing. You can have same-day, in-person voter registration. It just means that there's a record kept, not that there is any particular hurdle to jump over.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I find it odd that many conservatives will yell from the rooftops that a simple documentation requirement is onerous, unnecessary, tedious, an affront to basic human rights, whereas many liberals would consider documentation as a safety net that could ensure responsible stewardship.Exact opposite of the voter ID debate.

Not really. We require people to register to vote. The fight is over all the stuff that you have to do in order to register to vote.

Yeah, but voter registration is only begrudgingly accepted by some of us. I'd prefer a system where it was unnecessary. The analogy doesn't work perfectly, but I can see some similarities.

Even a commie like you would agree that the state can define who gets to vote and that keeping lists of people to compare who gets to vote against who says they're going to vote (and at the same time keep records that they only vote once and in one place) is a good thing. You can have same-day, in-person voter registration. It just means that there's a record kept, not that there is any particular hurdle to jump over.

Sure, you can check people against a list. It's the hurdle part. It seems like most gun buyers are OK with being checked against a list too.Maybe one difference is the durability of the exchange. A vote lasts only a moment, while a gun can remain operational for many years. Simply checking your name against a list at the time of purchase is more problematic because of the possibility that somebody else will later get the gun (either because they stole it or because you gave/lent/sold it to them). Or the possibility that you yourself will get "delisted" (e.g., you commit a violent felony or have mental health issues, etc.) but still retain possession of the gun you bought when you were still on the list.

 

[Mello]

We are ok with registering cars but not guns, right?

Not sure how to reconcile that.

To put it simply, driving a car is a legal privilege, owning a gun is a right.Additionally if you buy a car for use only on private land, there is no requirement for registration or licensing. You want to buy a classic car to add to your car collection and park it in your garage to admire? You can buy any car you want with as large of an engine that you want again with no restriction other than what you can afford. So driving a car is a legal privilege, when used on public roadways would require the proper registration and licensing. Similarly, if someone wanted to buy a gun for self-defense in their home or business or to add to their collection they should not have to register the gun or obtain an "ownership" license.

Which is a completely dumb designation because the ability to drive a car is far, far more important to the average life of the average person than the ability to own a gun.

You don't it's silly to consider something that's basically a requirement in most of the country to support oneself a privilege while we consider something that is completely optional and unnecessary for the vast majority of people a right?

All cars are not a requirement, I lived in New York City for 10 years and did not need a car. I gave an example of collectors, someone that owns 20 cars does not need all 20 cars, they own so many for their collection. Guns are a right because the law says it is, as is written in the Bill of Rights. Now tim or others may challenge that legally it is not a right for all Americans, the law probably explicitly states individuals that are not allowed to own a gun in their home due to crimes they have committed, but that does not change anything for "most of the country" as you put it. Similarly the law states that certain individuals are not allowed to drive a car for crimes they have committed such as drunk driving infractions.

You didn't really answer the question. A car is basically a requirement in most of the country. I placed that qualifier there because a minority of the population in a few areas like NYC can get by without one. I'll agree collectors don't need 20 cars, but they most likely need at least one. I agree that guns are a right because the law says so, but I thought we were discussing this in regards to gun legislation. In that case, what it is now doesn't matter. This is about what we believe things should be. So I ask again, do you not think it's silly that gun ownership is a right, but car ownership is a privilege? I would say yes and it's ridiculous that we haven't made something as necessary as owning a car a right. Unfortunately, I think most would go the other way and say yes, but that's because we need to the government to micromanage us with guns just like we do with cars.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

We are ok with registering cars but not guns, right?

Not sure how to reconcile that.

To put it simply, driving a car is a legal privilege, owning a gun is a right.Additionally if you buy a car for use only on private land, there is no requirement for registration or licensing. You want to buy a classic car to add to your car collection and park it in your garage to admire? You can buy any car you want with as large of an engine that you want again with no restriction other than what you can afford. So driving a car is a legal privilege, when used on public roadways would require the proper registration and licensing. Similarly, if someone wanted to buy a gun for self-defense in their home or business or to add to their collection they should not have to register the gun or obtain an "ownership" license.

Which is a completely dumb designation because the ability to drive a car is far, far more important to the average life of the average person than the ability to own a gun.

You don't it's silly to consider something that's basically a requirement in most of the country to support oneself a privilege while we consider something that is completely optional and unnecessary for the vast majority of people a right?

All cars are not a requirement, I lived in New York City for 10 years and did not need a car. I gave an example of collectors, someone that owns 20 cars does not need all 20 cars, they own so many for their collection. Guns are a right because the law says it is, as is written in the Bill of Rights. Now tim or others may challenge that legally it is not a right for all Americans, the law probably explicitly states individuals that are not allowed to own a gun in their home due to crimes they have committed, but that does not change anything for "most of the country" as you put it. Similarly the law states that certain individuals are not allowed to drive a car for crimes they have committed such as drunk driving infractions.

You didn't really answer the question. A car is basically a requirement in most of the country. I placed that qualifier there because a minority of the population in a few areas like NYC can get by without one. I'll agree collectors don't need 20 cars, but they most likely need at least one. I agree that guns are a right because the law says so, but I thought we were discussing this in regards to gun legislation. In that case, what it is now doesn't matter. This is about what we believe things should be. So I ask again, do you not think it's silly that gun ownership is a right, but car ownership is a privilege? I would say yes and it's ridiculous that we haven't made something as necessary as owning a car a right. Unfortunately, I think most would go the other way and say yes, but that's because we need to the government to micromanage us with guns just like we do with cars.

We already have CCW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_StatesWhat you and others here are proposing is identifying every individual in the U.S. that owns a firearm for home self-defense. I have already given an example of why this is a horrible idea because of what it can lead to. People don't want to talk about these future steps though since they seem to think it is impossible to happen yet we are already seeing this behavior from politicians.

 

[Guest]

Sure, you can check people against a list. It's the hurdle part. It seems like most gun buyers are OK with being checked against a list too.Maybe one difference is the durability of the exchange. A vote lasts only a moment, while a gun can remain operational for many years. Simply checking your name against a list at the time of purchase is more problematic because of the possibility that somebody else will later get the gun (either because they stole it or because you gave/lent/sold it to them). Or the possibility that you yourself will get "delisted" (e.g., you commit a violent felony or have mental health issues, etc.) but still retain possession of the gun you bought when you were still on the list.

As far as I understand it, gun registrations are just a list.Gun Dealer X sold 12-gauge shotgun, Serial No 111352151251, to John Doe on 1/1/13.They're just paranoid that if the government knows who has all the guns, when the government does its ultimate takeover of the people, they'll know whose doors to knock on to come and take the piece.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Do you really think criminals are going to volunteer guns they own that the government does not already know about?

We probably shouldn't make anything illegal because whatever it is, the criminals will do it anyway.

So you agree that they would not comply? You'd rather inconvenience ~93% of Americans that own guns for no purpose other than to put responsible citizens on suspect lists every time a crime is committed because they own a similar type of weapon that was used in a crime? Why don't we let the government monitor all of our communications from cell phones, to email, to internet usage? I can make ridiculous comparisons too.

I'm saying that if any modest proposal is going to be met with, "Well, if you do X it won't work because then only people who follow the law will do X" there's less than zero point in trying to create any policies, much less having any sort of real discussion about them. With any policy, you have to think about the overall compliance, but that's not what is happening here at all. You're not trying to have a discussion, you're trying to stop one.

What is the point of trying to legislate policy if you don't believe it will "work"? I have already given you examples of how it doesn't work, how you will not get enough compliance for it to "work", how you will just end up spending a ton of money to make this happen to not only inconvenience a vast majority of gun owners, but put targets on their head from both the police by profiling them due to their possessions and making them suspects in crimes, and potentially making them targets for criminals by making their possessions or whereabouts readily available if future legislation passes which we have already seen a few attempts of this type of policy being proposed.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Sure, you can check people against a list. It's the hurdle part. It seems like most gun buyers are OK with being checked against a list too.Maybe one difference is the durability of the exchange. A vote lasts only a moment, while a gun can remain operational for many years. Simply checking your name against a list at the time of purchase is more problematic because of the possibility that somebody else will later get the gun (either because they stole it or because you gave/lent/sold it to them). Or the possibility that you yourself will get "delisted" (e.g., you commit a violent felony or have mental health issues, etc.) but still retain possession of the gun you bought when you were still on the list.

As far as I understand it, gun registrations are just a list.Gun Dealer X sold 12-gauge shotgun, Serial No 111352151251, to John Doe on 1/1/13.They're just paranoid that if the government knows who has all the guns, when the government does its ultimate takeover of the people, they'll know whose doors to knock on to come and take the piece.

Or like I previously posted, they make this information available to the public and you have criminals breaking into their homes while they are at work, stealing their guns and committing crimes and killing people with these stolen weapons.

 

[Guest]

Sure, you can check people against a list. It's the hurdle part. It seems like most gun buyers are OK with being checked against a list too.

Maybe one difference is the durability of the exchange. A vote lasts only a moment, while a gun can remain operational for many years. Simply checking your name against a list at the time of purchase is more problematic because of the possibility that somebody else will later get the gun (either because they stole it or because you gave/lent/sold it to them). Or the possibility that you yourself will get "delisted" (e.g., you commit a violent felony or have mental health issues, etc.) but still retain possession of the gun you bought when you were still on the list.

As far as I understand it, gun registrations are just a list.Gun Dealer X sold 12-gauge shotgun, Serial No 111352151251, to John Doe on 1/1/13.

They're just paranoid that if the government knows who has all the guns, when the government does its ultimate takeover of the people, they'll know whose doors to knock on to come and take the piece.

Or like I previously posted, they make this information available to the public and you have criminals breaking into their homes while they are at work, stealing their guns and committing crimes and killing people with these stolen weapons.

It's a good thing that there's no stores that are known to sell these things. Because otherwise, they would be a hotbed of break-ins. Hell, criminals would know that there's tons and tons of guns right there.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Sure, you can check people against a list. It's the hurdle part. It seems like most gun buyers are OK with being checked against a list too.

Maybe one difference is the durability of the exchange. A vote lasts only a moment, while a gun can remain operational for many years. Simply checking your name against a list at the time of purchase is more problematic because of the possibility that somebody else will later get the gun (either because they stole it or because you gave/lent/sold it to them). Or the possibility that you yourself will get "delisted" (e.g., you commit a violent felony or have mental health issues, etc.) but still retain possession of the gun you bought when you were still on the list.

As far as I understand it, gun registrations are just a list.Gun Dealer X sold 12-gauge shotgun, Serial No 111352151251, to John Doe on 1/1/13.

They're just paranoid that if the government knows who has all the guns, when the government does its ultimate takeover of the people, they'll know whose doors to knock on to come and take the piece.

Or like I previously posted, they make this information available to the public and you have criminals breaking into their homes while they are at work, stealing their guns and committing crimes and killing people with these stolen weapons.

It's a good thing that there's no stores that are known to sell these things. Because otherwise, they would be a hotbed of break-ins. Hell, criminals would know that there's tons and tons of guns right there.

There are stores that sell gold too, what is your point?I see you are in favor of the government-sponsored shopping list for criminals©

 

[Henry Ford]

I find it odd that many conservatives will yell from the rooftops that a simple documentation requirement is onerous, unnecessary, tedious, an affront to basic human rights, whereas many liberals would consider documentation as a safety net that could ensure responsible stewardship.Exact opposite of the voter ID debate.

Not really. We require people to register to vote. The fight is over all the stuff that you have to do in order to register to vote.

Yeah, but voter registration is only begrudgingly accepted by some of us. I'd prefer a system where it was unnecessary. The analogy doesn't work perfectly, but I can see some similarities.

Even a commie like you would agree that the state can define who gets to vote and that keeping lists of people to compare who gets to vote against who says they're going to vote (and at the same time keep records that they only vote once and in one place) is a good thing. You can have same-day, in-person voter registration. It just means that there's a record kept, not that there is any particular hurdle to jump over.

Sure, you can check people against a list. It's the hurdle part. It seems like most gun buyers are OK with being checked against a list too.Maybe one difference is the durability of the exchange. A vote lasts only a moment, while a gun can remain operational for many years. Simply checking your name against a list at the time of purchase is more problematic because of the possibility that somebody else will later get the gun (either because they stole it or because you gave/lent/sold it to them). Or the possibility that you yourself will get "delisted" (e.g., you commit a violent felony or have mental health issues, etc.) but still retain possession of the gun you bought when you were still on the list.

If the gun was stolen, there's an additional charge for burglary, theft of a firearm, or whatever to bring against the person which will be a virtual slam dunk in court and will help close a bunch of open criminal cases if the gun is found after the commission of a different crime. If it was given/lent/sold, the person who is the registered owner will have information about who has the gun.Also, if you get "delisted," there's suddenly a record of the firearms you have in your possession, and until those weapons are turned in or registered with another owner, you're in violation of your "delisting," which the appropriate authorities can figure out and deal with. In fact, "delisting" is probably the most helpful part of a registration law - "you've lost your right to own a gun. Now account for these firearms which you are no longer allowed to possess."

 

[5 digit know nothing]

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP4dfd92bea0cf471fba1580181ddfa84d.html

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I find it odd that many conservatives will yell from the rooftops that a simple documentation requirement is onerous, unnecessary, tedious, an affront to basic human rights, whereas many liberals would consider documentation as a safety net that could ensure responsible stewardship.Exact opposite of the voter ID debate.

Not really. We require people to register to vote. The fight is over all the stuff that you have to do in order to register to vote.

Yeah, but voter registration is only begrudgingly accepted by some of us. I'd prefer a system where it was unnecessary. The analogy doesn't work perfectly, but I can see some similarities.

Even a commie like you would agree that the state can define who gets to vote and that keeping lists of people to compare who gets to vote against who says they're going to vote (and at the same time keep records that they only vote once and in one place) is a good thing. You can have same-day, in-person voter registration. It just means that there's a record kept, not that there is any particular hurdle to jump over.

Sure, you can check people against a list. It's the hurdle part. It seems like most gun buyers are OK with being checked against a list too.Maybe one difference is the durability of the exchange. A vote lasts only a moment, while a gun can remain operational for many years. Simply checking your name against a list at the time of purchase is more problematic because of the possibility that somebody else will later get the gun (either because they stole it or because you gave/lent/sold it to them). Or the possibility that you yourself will get "delisted" (e.g., you commit a violent felony or have mental health issues, etc.) but still retain possession of the gun you bought when you were still on the list.

If the gun was stolen, there's an additional charge for burglary, theft of a firearm, or whatever to bring against the person which will be a virtual slam dunk in court and will help close a bunch of open criminal cases if the gun is found after the commission of a different crime. If it was given/lent/sold, the person who is the registered owner will have information about who has the gun.Also, if you get "delisted," there's suddenly a record of the firearms you have in your possession, and until those weapons are turned in or registered with another owner, you're in violation of your "delisting," which the appropriate authorities can figure out and deal with. In fact, "delisting" is probably the most helpful part of a registration law - "you've lost your right to own a gun. Now account for these firearms which you are no longer allowed to possess."

harm vs. benefit IMO