***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[Mello]

Many gun owners I have encountered share cookiemonster's fear of registration- that it will be used as a tool by the government to eventually seize all guns. Personally, I regard this as an incredibly paranoid fear, but it does exist and it appears to be strongly held. But maybe there is a compromise- I heard a suggestion on the radio which was quite simple but made a lot of sense to me: every lawful gun owner gets a card idenitfying them as exactly that: a lawful gun owner. With that card, they would be able to purchase as many legal firearms as they wish- with no government record kept of how many they own. Only people without the card, such as convicted felons (or perhaps mentally ill if there is a means to make a list of them) would be unable to purchase weapons. All sales and transactions would go through a background check to see if you own such a card or not.I don't know if this idea is new or not; it probably isn't, but it's the first I've heard of it. It seems to me that it would satisfy the gun owners desire to avoid registration and at the same time make illegal sales more rare. I'm curious of the gun-owners in this thread: would this sort of compromise be acceptable to you?

I don't really see much of a difference. Isn't the only major difference that the government then doesn't know exactly how many or what guns someone has? They still know who every legal gun owner is and where to go to confiscate those guns.If I were setting things up, my plan would be to tie it to state IDs. When anyone gets/renews an ID, there is a background check that only checks if they are approved to purchase guns and the ID is marked as such. Sellers of guns would be required to register the guns they sell. When they sell a gun, they will only be required to check if the ID is approved to buy a gun and keep a record of this purchase linking it to the new owner. This record would be private and require court order for the government to access. I think that should only be allowed if a gun that the owner has sold has been used in a crime and only the information on that specific gun should be given to authorities.Now, the government does not know who has purchased a gun, but there is a check in place. There is also a trail to track a specific gun back to a person if needed.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Many gun owners I have encountered share cookiemonster's fear of registration- that it will be used as a tool by the government to eventually seize all guns. Personally, I regard this as an incredibly paranoid fear, but it does exist and it appears to be strongly held. But maybe there is a compromise- I heard a suggestion on the radio which was quite simple but made a lot of sense to me: every lawful gun owner gets a card idenitfying them as exactly that: a lawful gun owner. With that card, they would be able to purchase as many legal firearms as they wish- with no government record kept of how many they own. Only people without the card, such as convicted felons (or perhaps mentally ill if there is a means to make a list of them) would be unable to purchase weapons. All sales and transactions would go through a background check to see if you own such a card or not.I don't know if this idea is new or not; it probably isn't, but it's the first I've heard of it. It seems to me that it would satisfy the gun owners desire to avoid registration and at the same time make illegal sales more rare. I'm curious of the gun-owners in this thread: would this sort of compromise be acceptable to you?

1) It has happened, here in our own country, several times. It was not long ago that it happened here in our state of Kalifornia.2) We seem to be finding some middle ground with a card, or my suggestion of a note on your state ID/DL that says you can (I like the can not and make the can not's pay for the notation). About my post above though, how is that followed up or enforced without some kind of registration.3) It would be acceptable to me if we can do it without a government controlled/held registration list. See previous post again.

yeah, what would be the difference between having a card and being in a database. I'm sure the card would have some kind of ID#

And why I'd prefer that the "can nots" have the notation on their ID/DL. Everyone else is good, no need to track them personally. I still think that a database of some kind would be imperative for limiting the private transfer to illegal owners. I don't see any way around it, because you have to be able to trace it back after it has been found to be illegally possessed in order to prosecute the illegal seller. It would be easy to identify illegals (or legals, either way) for the purpose of transfer, but how do you enforce it without the database?

 

[tom22406]

Regarding Biden's statement:1. Can the President issue an executive order banning certain weapons?2. Can the President issue an executive order banning high capacity magazines?3. Can the President issue an executive order that removes the private sales loophole, and/or calls for a national database and a registration of all guns? Any Constitutional law experts that can answer this? tia

Not meant to be schtick but the president seems to think he can do anything with executive order. I was not surprised to see, this but hopefully there will be enough revolt to this trial balloon that if any laws are made it will be by congress. Not that they are doing such a good job. Hopefully we will do something of a legislative process instead of just backroom negotiations and vote before there is anything to read or comment on.

Despite the fact that I'm in favor of points #2 and #3 here, I might have a real problem if they're done through executive order rather than through the legislative process. I'd have to think about that some more, but it would trouble me quite a bit.

I would hope it would outrage you

It would not outrage me, because I don't hold that the provisions I stated are constitutional rights. It would, however, bother me, because I don't understand the scope of executive action.

Well if #1 does happen and you are not outraged I know for sure where you stand.I see no way he just goes for 2 and 3 but I could be wrong.

 

[timschochet]

Many gun owners I have encountered share cookiemonster's fear of registration- that it will be used as a tool by the government to eventually seize all guns. Personally, I regard this as an incredibly paranoid fear, but it does exist and it appears to be strongly held. But maybe there is a compromise- I heard a suggestion on the radio which was quite simple but made a lot of sense to me: every lawful gun owner gets a card idenitfying them as exactly that: a lawful gun owner. With that card, they would be able to purchase as many legal firearms as they wish- with no government record kept of how many they own. Only people without the card, such as convicted felons (or perhaps mentally ill if there is a means to make a list of them) would be unable to purchase weapons. All sales and transactions would go through a background check to see if you own such a card or not.I don't know if this idea is new or not; it probably isn't, but it's the first I've heard of it. It seems to me that it would satisfy the gun owners desire to avoid registration and at the same time make illegal sales more rare. I'm curious of the gun-owners in this thread: would this sort of compromise be acceptable to you?

I don't really see much of a difference. Isn't the only major difference that the government then doesn't know exactly how many or what guns someone has? They still know who every legal gun owner is and where to go to confiscate those guns.If I were setting things up, my plan would be to tie it to state IDs. When anyone gets/renews an ID, there is a background check that only checks if they are approved to purchase guns and the ID is marked as such. Sellers of guns would be required to register the guns they sell. When they sell a gun, they will only be required to check if the ID is approved to buy a gun and keep a record of this purchase linking it to the new owner. This record would be private and require court order for the government to access. I think that should only be allowed if a gun that the owner has sold has been used in a crime and only the information on that specific gun should be given to authorities.Now, the government does not know who has purchased a gun, but there is a check in place. There is also a trail to track a specific gun back to a person if needed.

This would make sense to me too. While I don't share your fears of confiscation, I don't want to sound unreasonable. It is not my intent to cause you or other lawful gun-owners needless hassle or distress; I just want to help solve these problems.Hopefully when the NRA meets with Biden tomorrow, ideas like some of the ones we have discussed here will be brought up, and the two sides can reach some reasonable compromise. I hope so. But- if the NRA comes in with the attitude that guys like Slingblade are urging on them: "Not a ####### inch"- then I believe measures will be forced upon gun owners eventually which you will likely have much greater objection to.

 

[Guest]

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is protection of our free states from the government (foreign or domestic). You don't hand a potential enemy the blueprints to you vault, or the programming to your network security. Until you can trust all of the people in power, and you just can't because they are almost all from legal/lawyer backgrounds - insert lawyer joke here-, you can't trust those people with your defense of freedoms (see sig).

Do you trust the military and members of the armed forces?ETA: (see sig)

The individual members? Yes. The military as an organization? No, because the military is a tool of the government. If the military kept gun registration records, then it would be in the government's hands. The government is run by lawyers (politicians). I don't think any of us trust the ethics of lawyers.

Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell aren't going to be breaking down doors and busting skulls. If you really, sincerely believe that guns are necessary in order to protect against a totataliarianistic state, then you must lack faith in the individual members of the military who would be the ones carrying out the orders of the lawyers and politicians which you obviously hold in such low regard.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding Biden's statement:1. Can the President issue an executive order banning certain weapons?2. Can the President issue an executive order banning high capacity magazines?3. Can the President issue an executive order that removes the private sales loophole, and/or calls for a national database and a registration of all guns? Any Constitutional law experts that can answer this? tia

Not meant to be schtick but the president seems to think he can do anything with executive order. I was not surprised to see, this but hopefully there will be enough revolt to this trial balloon that if any laws are made it will be by congress. Not that they are doing such a good job. Hopefully we will do something of a legislative process instead of just backroom negotiations and vote before there is anything to read or comment on.

Despite the fact that I'm in favor of points #2 and #3 here, I might have a real problem if they're done through executive order rather than through the legislative process. I'd have to think about that some more, but it would trouble me quite a bit.

I would hope it would outrage you

It would not outrage me, because I don't hold that the provisions I stated are constitutional rights. It would, however, bother me, because I don't understand the scope of executive action.

Well if #1 does happen and you are not outraged I know for sure where you stand.I see no way he just goes for 2 and 3 but I could be wrong.

I have already stated that I would reluctantly support #1 if it were part of a single piece of legislation that included #2 and #3. By itself, I would not support #1, as I think it's useless. But I don't believe it to be unconstitutional, so I still probably wouldn't be outraged.

 

[tom22406]

Now imagine if Bush had tried what Biden is talking about.....

Executive orders?They kept the warrantless wiretapping thing humming along for years, authorized torture of captured prisoners, and assassinations of suspected terrorists.But ZOMG!!! Obama's going to make me register a gun!!!Fwiw, I'm not sure where the executive power gets exactly circumscribed on this question. But it's naive to suggest the above.

FWIW I was totally against the Patriot Act.And the post was meant more as a poke at the Libs here since we all know the outrage that would have come after that news and I would have been right beside them as well saying the same thing I am today.

 

[Mello]

so, do you consider low capacity magazines a right? makes about as much sense as a 6 pack is okay but a 30 pack isnt

That's an extremely complex question, but generally I consider anything I can do legally right now a right which would include buying or selling high or low capacity magazines.

 

[FlapJacks]

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is protection of our free states from the government (foreign or domestic). You don't hand a potential enemy the blueprints to you vault, or the programming to your network security. Until you can trust all of the people in power, and you just can't because they are almost all from legal/lawyer backgrounds - insert lawyer joke here-, you can't trust those people with your defense of freedoms (see sig).

Do you trust the military and members of the armed forces?ETA: (see sig)

The individual members? Yes. The military as an organization? No, because the military is a tool of the government. If the military kept gun registration records, then it would be in the government's hands. The government is run by lawyers (politicians). I don't think any of us trust the ethics of lawyers.

Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell aren't going to be breaking down doors and busting skulls. If you really, sincerely believe that guns are necessary in order to protect against a totataliarianistic state, then you must lack faith in the individual members of the military who would be the ones carrying out the orders of the lawyers and politicians which you obviously hold in such low regard.

any purported move towards totalitarianism would not be so clumsy and overt as that

 

[jonessed]

There would be no central database. The manufacturer would have a record to which FFL the gun was sold. The FFL would keep the record to whom they sold the gun to and also any transfer records between individuals. Any access to those records would require a subpoena. It would be no different than your health records. Your FFL won't give up your info any easier than your doctor would.

Until a president issues an executive order and seizes the information after a gun massacre in the name of public safety.People don't trust the government because the government isn't trustworthy. I think if our government was more reliable and responsible then there would be more middle ground on issues like this, but they simply aren't and believing so is more about using common sense than being paranoid.

 

[smotherhook]

There would be no central database. The manufacturer would have a record to which FFL the gun was sold. The FFL would keep the record to whom they sold the gun to and also any transfer records between individuals. Any access to those records would require a subpoena. It would be no different than your health records. Your FFL won't give up your info any easier than your doctor would.

Until a president issues an executive order and seizes the information after a gun massacre in the name of public safety.People don't trust the government because the government isn't trustworthy. I think if our government was more reliable and responsible then there would be more middle ground on issues like this, but they simply aren't and believing so is more about using common sense than being paranoid.

 

[jafo]

If Obama tries to pass an executive order banning anything to do with the second amendment, there will be a civil war in this Country.

 

[Mello]

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is protection of our free states from the government (foreign or domestic). You don't hand a potential enemy the blueprints to you vault, or the programming to your network security. Until you can trust all of the people in power, and you just can't because they are almost all from legal/lawyer backgrounds - insert lawyer joke here-, you can't trust those people with your defense of freedoms (see sig).

Do you trust the military and members of the armed forces?ETA: (see sig)

The individual members? Yes. The military as an organization? No, because the military is a tool of the government. If the military kept gun registration records, then it would be in the government's hands. The government is run by lawyers (politicians). I don't think any of us trust the ethics of lawyers.

Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell aren't going to be breaking down doors and busting skulls. If you really, sincerely believe that guns are necessary in order to protect against a totataliarianistic state, then you must lack faith in the individual members of the military who would be the ones carrying out the orders of the lawyers and politicians which you obviously hold in such low regard.

any purported move towards totalitarianism would not be so clumsy and overt as that

They won't take peoples' guns unless they can convince the majority to give them up on their own. They have just been using peoples' guns as justification to turn our police into a local military force.

 

[Hoosier16]

There would be no central database. The manufacturer would have a record to which FFL the gun was sold. The FFL would keep the record to whom they sold the gun to and also any transfer records between individuals. Any access to those records would require a subpoena. It would be no different than your health records. Your FFL won't give up your info any easier than your doctor would.

Until a president issues an executive order and seizes the information after a gun massacre in the name of public safety.People don't trust the government because the government isn't trustworthy. I think if our government was more reliable and responsible then there would be more middle ground on issues like this, but they simply aren't and believing so is more about using common sense than being paranoid.

How many FFLs do you think would comply? Probably just the ones who aren't members of the NRA.There are 60,000+ FFLs. It's not as easy as pushing a button.

 

[Guest]

If Obama tries to pass an executive order banning anything to do with the second amendment, there will be a civil war in this Country.

This time, the North will tank it.

 

[Guest]

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is protection of our free states from the government (foreign or domestic). You don't hand a potential enemy the blueprints to you vault, or the programming to your network security. Until you can trust all of the people in power, and you just can't because they are almost all from legal/lawyer backgrounds - insert lawyer joke here-, you can't trust those people with your defense of freedoms (see sig).

Do you trust the military and members of the armed forces?ETA: (see sig)

The individual members? Yes. The military as an organization? No, because the military is a tool of the government. If the military kept gun registration records, then it would be in the government's hands. The government is run by lawyers (politicians). I don't think any of us trust the ethics of lawyers.

Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell aren't going to be breaking down doors and busting skulls. If you really, sincerely believe that guns are necessary in order to protect against a totataliarianistic state, then you must lack faith in the individual members of the military who would be the ones carrying out the orders of the lawyers and politicians which you obviously hold in such low regard.

any purported move towards totalitarianism would not be so clumsy and overt as that

Meh. Ok."Crafty government creates totalitarian state which requires to be overthrown by The People in order to Preserve Liberty."

Who is going to defend the politicians? And if the military is a bunch of Good Guys, why aren't they on the side of The People in this scenario?

 

[jafo]

If Obama tries to pass an executive order banning anything to do with the second amendment, there will be a civil war in this Country.

This time, the North will tank it.

If Obama tries this then he becomes a dictator. It would show is is not working for the people and our constitution, but against us. We have a fundamental right and responsibility to stand up and overthrow this type of government.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I'll take a stab at the private sale problem and everyone can poke holes in it and point out where I'm misinformed. I think the solution is to require a background check for private sales by having any sale go through an FFL. This won't stop anyone from obtaining a gun illegally, just like any law won't stop someone from breaking the law. But it does allow a private citizen to obtain a background check on a purchaser and I'd think most would gladly follow the law, if only for the comfort of knowing their gun wasn't bought for criminal use. Just like with new gun purchases, you wouldn't stop the flow of illegal gun sales, but you would reduce them and make it harder for the wrong person to obtain a gun.

The way I understand it to be now, any new gun sales must go through an FFL and receive a background check. In addition, at least here in VA, I believe the FFLs are required to keep a record of the sale for 2 years. By having any private sales go through an FFL, the buyer, seller, and FFL would all have records of the sale. This seems like it would provide a system where you could trace an illegally used gun without having a national (or state) database. There isn't any reason why you couldn't push the record keeping requirement for all parties to 10 years. I think the number of background checks last year was around 17 million, which would include some private sales. Even if you push that to 30 million to account for the additional sales, that's only about 500 per FFL.

So, while you will never eliminate all instances of criminals acquiring guns, you would at least likely make it harder and more expensive to obtain them illegally. With national registration, you won't get the criminals and many of the non-criminals to comply. With this type of law, you would at least get the majority of non-criminals to comply.

I don't know that it could be possible without a registration database. Without a database of gun owners, how do you get back to original owners to follow the trail? I can guarantee that a huge number of gun owners will be unwilling to be listed in a database for fear of the potential for future confiscation.

There would be no central database. The manufacturer would have a record to which FFL the gun was sold. The FFL would keep the record to whom they sold the gun to and also any transfer records between individuals. Any access to those records would require a subpoena. It would be no different than your health records. Your FFL won't give up your info any easier than your doctor would.

Agreed. I wasn't necessarily talking about a central database, but all-inclusive records kept. Preferably by manufacturer because that would keep it broken into many separate parts and more difficult to assemble. Also, gun manufacturers would be more likely to respect/support privacy and gun rights, seeing that their target demographic is gun buyers/owners that would quickly and easily take their business elsewhere if those rights to privacy were violated without proper procedure. I'm liking this a lot.

There is also no way to prevent somebody from selling a gun to anybody they want without going through an FFL. The only way to accomplish this idea of limiting private gun sales without background checks I can see is requiring total registration, and that is completely off the table for me and for about 80 million guns in the hands of about 10 million gun owners in my estimation. Those 10 million probably donate quite a bit of money to the NRA-ILA for legal defense of their rights and political voice. Gonna be tough.

Agree. Even with registration, you would need total compliance, even from the criminals. That's not going to happen but it shouldn't stop us from trying to prevent some of the guns from getting there. Non-criminals would likely comply with going through an FFL and that would make it harder for the criminal.

Every private seller could keep a reciept/B.O.S. approved by an FFL for a period of time as a trail to follow if a gun was found to be possessed illegally. It would incur a cost of about $25 per transaction, and many will squawk about that, but I would be happy to "purchase" insurance of each sale of my guns for $25 in the case that it ended up in the hands of a felon or used in a crime. A FFL transaction record to say, "I don't have it anymore. I sold it to John Doe. See, here is the record." I would prefer it be in the $10-15 range to keep it affordable, but I don't know the cost for the FFLs to process the background check. Here in Kali it's $25.

I think we agree here.

But again, how do you get back to the original owner in order to follow the trail without registration? If there were a way to keep track of the original owner that was forever off-limits for the authorities/politicians/military to get ahold of blanket list, but only single inquiries on a gun's serial # in possession of police for the investigation of a crime, I might be OK with it. Maybe the gun manufacturer keeps the record of original sale or something? I wouldn't know where to start with this policy for the 300 million + guns already in circulation. You could start by the registration already on file with individual states being turned over to manufacturers, I guess. The important part of establishing any kind of registration is to keep the master list out of the government's hands. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is protection of our free states from government (foreign or domestic). You don't hand a potential enemy the blueprints to you vault, or the programming to your network security. Until you can trust all of the people in power, and you just can't because they are almost all from legal/lawyer backgrounds - insert lawyer joke here-, you can't trust those people with your defense of freedoms (see sig).

Yes, I think. The police would have to start with the manufacturer. That would lead to the original FFL, which would lead to the 1st owner, and so on. Each request would be separate. There is no way to take care of the 300 million already out there, but nothing being suggested takes care of that, not even registration (because nobody will comply). This at least takes care of any transfers going forward.

Many states already have a database (Kalifornia, New York, New Jersey, Illinois of the top of my head - I may be wrong on those). Turn those over to gun manufacturers, and you would take care of probably 50-100 million guns right there. From that point, go with every new sale and every private sale that was willing to comply with the registration. It would probably take some time, but would eventually get to the point of at least 1/2 to 2/3rds of the guns in the U.S. being accounted for. Time would take care of 90% of the rest and of course there would still be imported illegal arms and Alex Jones burying his in PVC packed with preservative somewhere in the woods, but this could make a huge difference in limiting private illegal sales.

 

[jonessed]

There would be no central database. The manufacturer would have a record to which FFL the gun was sold. The FFL would keep the record to whom they sold the gun to and also any transfer records between individuals. Any access to those records would require a subpoena. It would be no different than your health records. Your FFL won't give up your info any easier than your doctor would.

Until a president issues an executive order and seizes the information after a gun massacre in the name of public safety.People don't trust the government because the government isn't trustworthy. I think if our government was more reliable and responsible then there would be more middle ground on issues like this, but they simply aren't and believing so is more about using common sense than being paranoid.

How many FFLs do you think would comply? Probably just the ones who aren't members of the NRA.There are 60,000+ FFLs. It's not as easy as pushing a button.

I doubt many of them would be willing to go to jail to protect their sales receipts.

 

[Hoosier16]

I'll take a stab at the private sale problem and everyone can poke holes in it and point out where I'm misinformed. I think the solution is to require a background check for private sales by having any sale go through an FFL. This won't stop anyone from obtaining a gun illegally, just like any law won't stop someone from breaking the law. But it does allow a private citizen to obtain a background check on a purchaser and I'd think most would gladly follow the law, if only for the comfort of knowing their gun wasn't bought for criminal use. Just like with new gun purchases, you wouldn't stop the flow of illegal gun sales, but you would reduce them and make it harder for the wrong person to obtain a gun.

The way I understand it to be now, any new gun sales must go through an FFL and receive a background check. In addition, at least here in VA, I believe the FFLs are required to keep a record of the sale for 2 years. By having any private sales go through an FFL, the buyer, seller, and FFL would all have records of the sale. This seems like it would provide a system where you could trace an illegally used gun without having a national (or state) database. There isn't any reason why you couldn't push the record keeping requirement for all parties to 10 years. I think the number of background checks last year was around 17 million, which would include some private sales. Even if you push that to 30 million to account for the additional sales, that's only about 500 per FFL.

So, while you will never eliminate all instances of criminals acquiring guns, you would at least likely make it harder and more expensive to obtain them illegally. With national registration, you won't get the criminals and many of the non-criminals to comply. With this type of law, you would at least get the majority of non-criminals to comply.

I don't know that it could be possible without a registration database. Without a database of gun owners, how do you get back to original owners to follow the trail? I can guarantee that a huge number of gun owners will be unwilling to be listed in a database for fear of the potential for future confiscation.

There would be no central database. The manufacturer would have a record to which FFL the gun was sold. The FFL would keep the record to whom they sold the gun to and also any transfer records between individuals. Any access to those records would require a subpoena. It would be no different than your health records. Your FFL won't give up your info any easier than your doctor would.

Agreed. I wasn't necessarily talking about a central database, but all-inclusive records kept. Preferably by manufacturer because that would keep it broken into many separate parts and more difficult to assemble. Also, gun manufacturers would be more likely to respect/support privacy and gun rights, seeing that their target demographic is gun buyers/owners that would quickly and easily take their business elsewhere if those rights to privacy were violated without proper procedure. I'm liking this a lot.

There is also no way to prevent somebody from selling a gun to anybody they want without going through an FFL. The only way to accomplish this idea of limiting private gun sales without background checks I can see is requiring total registration, and that is completely off the table for me and for about 80 million guns in the hands of about 10 million gun owners in my estimation. Those 10 million probably donate quite a bit of money to the NRA-ILA for legal defense of their rights and political voice. Gonna be tough.

Agree. Even with registration, you would need total compliance, even from the criminals. That's not going to happen but it shouldn't stop us from trying to prevent some of the guns from getting there. Non-criminals would likely comply with going through an FFL and that would make it harder for the criminal.

Every private seller could keep a reciept/B.O.S. approved by an FFL for a period of time as a trail to follow if a gun was found to be possessed illegally. It would incur a cost of about $25 per transaction, and many will squawk about that, but I would be happy to "purchase" insurance of each sale of my guns for $25 in the case that it ended up in the hands of a felon or used in a crime. A FFL transaction record to say, "I don't have it anymore. I sold it to John Doe. See, here is the record." I would prefer it be in the $10-15 range to keep it affordable, but I don't know the cost for the FFLs to process the background check. Here in Kali it's $25.

I think we agree here.

But again, how do you get back to the original owner in order to follow the trail without registration? If there were a way to keep track of the original owner that was forever off-limits for the authorities/politicians/military to get ahold of blanket list, but only single inquiries on a gun's serial # in possession of police for the investigation of a crime, I might be OK with it. Maybe the gun manufacturer keeps the record of original sale or something? I wouldn't know where to start with this policy for the 300 million + guns already in circulation. You could start by the registration already on file with individual states being turned over to manufacturers, I guess. The important part of establishing any kind of registration is to keep the master list out of the government's hands. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is protection of our free states from government (foreign or domestic). You don't hand a potential enemy the blueprints to you vault, or the programming to your network security. Until you can trust all of the people in power, and you just can't because they are almost all from legal/lawyer backgrounds - insert lawyer joke here-, you can't trust those people with your defense of freedoms (see sig).

Yes, I think. The police would have to start with the manufacturer. That would lead to the original FFL, which would lead to the 1st owner, and so on. Each request would be separate. There is no way to take care of the 300 million already out there, but nothing being suggested takes care of that, not even registration (because nobody will comply). This at least takes care of any transfers going forward.

Many states already have a database (Kalifornia, New York, New Jersey, Illinois of the top of my head - I may be wrong on those). Turn those over to gun manufacturers, and you would take care of probably 50-100 million guns right there. From that point, go with every new sale and every private sale that was willing to comply with the registration. It would probably take some time, but would eventually get to the point of at least 1/2 to 2/3rds of the guns in the U.S. being accounted for. Time would take care of 90% of the rest and of course there would still be imported illegal arms and Alex Jones burying his in PVC packed with preservative somewhere in the woods, but this could make a huge difference in limiting private illegal sales.

I think we have acceptance from both you and Tim.We can put my name on the bill.

 

[Hoosier16]

There would be no central database. The manufacturer would have a record to which FFL the gun was sold. The FFL would keep the record to whom they sold the gun to and also any transfer records between individuals. Any access to those records would require a subpoena. It would be no different than your health records. Your FFL won't give up your info any easier than your doctor would.

Until a president issues an executive order and seizes the information after a gun massacre in the name of public safety.People don't trust the government because the government isn't trustworthy. I think if our government was more reliable and responsible then there would be more middle ground on issues like this, but they simply aren't and believing so is more about using common sense than being paranoid.

How many FFLs do you think would comply? Probably just the ones who aren't members of the NRA.There are 60,000+ FFLs. It's not as easy as pushing a button.

This really seems like pretty small potatoes in the grand arena of complicated tasks.

You don't think there would be a lot of computers damaged by electrical surges or paper records lost in contained (like the trash can) office fires? Certainly you don't think all 60,000 would be seized at the same time.

 

[smotherhook]

i just wonder how long it would take to register 300 million guns?

 

[Cookiemonster]

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is protection of our free states from the government (foreign or domestic). You don't hand a potential enemy the blueprints to you vault, or the programming to your network security. Until you can trust all of the people in power, and you just can't because they are almost all from legal/lawyer backgrounds - insert lawyer joke here-, you can't trust those people with your defense of freedoms (see sig).

Do you trust the military and members of the armed forces?ETA: (see sig)

The individual members? Yes. The military as an organization? No, because the military is a tool of the government. If the military kept gun registration records, then it would be in the government's hands. The government is run by lawyers (politicians). I don't think any of us trust the ethics of lawyers.

Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell aren't going to be breaking down doors and busting skulls. If you really, sincerely believe that guns are necessary in order to protect against a totataliarianistic state, then you must lack faith in the individual members of the military who would be the ones carrying out the orders of the lawyers and politicians which you obviously hold in such low regard.

any purported move towards totalitarianism would not be so clumsy and overt as that

Meh. Ok."Crafty government creates totalitarian state which requires to be overthrown by The People in order to Preserve Liberty."

Who is going to defend the politicians? And if the military is a bunch of Good Guys, why aren't they on the side of The People in this scenario?

I would estimate that in the beginning of confiscation or when the #### begins to hit the fan, 90% of police / military would be compliant to orders. After it kicks off, and the hell it would raise with the population, I'd guess compliance of law enforcement / military may wane to 30-40%. Many of these people are conditioned to do what they are ordered without question. It would take the staff NCOs, officers, police sergeants etc to start to question the lawfulness of the orders before the "grunts" begin to follow them out the door. People generally react before thinking when it should be the other way around, unfortunately. The 10% I estimate to be unwilling to comply with kicking down doors and confiscating would be the minority that think before reacting. The 30-40% that I would estimate to continue would be the ones that believe in what they are doing and don't understand what our constitution really means.

 

[tom22406]

I'll take a stab at the private sale problem and everyone can poke holes in it and point out where I'm misinformed. I think the solution is to require a background check for private sales by having any sale go through an FFL. This won't stop anyone from obtaining a gun illegally, just like any law won't stop someone from breaking the law. But it does allow a private citizen to obtain a background check on a purchaser and I'd think most would gladly follow the law, if only for the comfort of knowing their gun wasn't bought for criminal use. Just like with new gun purchases, you wouldn't stop the flow of illegal gun sales, but you would reduce them and make it harder for the wrong person to obtain a gun.

The way I understand it to be now, any new gun sales must go through an FFL and receive a background check. In addition, at least here in VA, I believe the FFLs are required to keep a record of the sale for 2 years. By having any private sales go through an FFL, the buyer, seller, and FFL would all have records of the sale. This seems like it would provide a system where you could trace an illegally used gun without having a national (or state) database. There isn't any reason why you couldn't push the record keeping requirement for all parties to 10 years. I think the number of background checks last year was around 17 million, which would include some private sales. Even if you push that to 30 million to account for the additional sales, that's only about 500 per FFL.

So, while you will never eliminate all instances of criminals acquiring guns, you would at least likely make it harder and more expensive to obtain them illegally. With national registration, you won't get the criminals and many of the non-criminals to comply. With this type of law, you would at least get the majority of non-criminals to comply.

I don't know that it could be possible without a registration database. Without a database of gun owners, how do you get back to original owners to follow the trail? I can guarantee that a huge number of gun owners will be unwilling to be listed in a database for fear of the potential for future confiscation.

There would be no central database. The manufacturer would have a record to which FFL the gun was sold. The FFL would keep the record to whom they sold the gun to and also any transfer records between individuals. Any access to those records would require a subpoena. It would be no different than your health records. Your FFL won't give up your info any easier than your doctor would.

Agreed. I wasn't necessarily talking about a central database, but all-inclusive records kept. Preferably by manufacturer because that would keep it broken into many separate parts and more difficult to assemble. Also, gun manufacturers would be more likely to respect/support privacy and gun rights, seeing that their target demographic is gun buyers/owners that would quickly and easily take their business elsewhere if those rights to privacy were violated without proper procedure. I'm liking this a lot.

There is also no way to prevent somebody from selling a gun to anybody they want without going through an FFL. The only way to accomplish this idea of limiting private gun sales without background checks I can see is requiring total registration, and that is completely off the table for me and for about 80 million guns in the hands of about 10 million gun owners in my estimation. Those 10 million probably donate quite a bit of money to the NRA-ILA for legal defense of their rights and political voice. Gonna be tough.

Agree. Even with registration, you would need total compliance, even from the criminals. That's not going to happen but it shouldn't stop us from trying to prevent some of the guns from getting there. Non-criminals would likely comply with going through an FFL and that would make it harder for the criminal.

Every private seller could keep a reciept/B.O.S. approved by an FFL for a period of time as a trail to follow if a gun was found to be possessed illegally. It would incur a cost of about $25 per transaction, and many will squawk about that, but I would be happy to "purchase" insurance of each sale of my guns for $25 in the case that it ended up in the hands of a felon or used in a crime. A FFL transaction record to say, "I don't have it anymore. I sold it to John Doe. See, here is the record." I would prefer it be in the $10-15 range to keep it affordable, but I don't know the cost for the FFLs to process the background check. Here in Kali it's $25.

I think we agree here.

But again, how do you get back to the original owner in order to follow the trail without registration? If there were a way to keep track of the original owner that was forever off-limits for the authorities/politicians/military to get ahold of blanket list, but only single inquiries on a gun's serial # in possession of police for the investigation of a crime, I might be OK with it. Maybe the gun manufacturer keeps the record of original sale or something? I wouldn't know where to start with this policy for the 300 million + guns already in circulation. You could start by the registration already on file with individual states being turned over to manufacturers, I guess. The important part of establishing any kind of registration is to keep the master list out of the government's hands. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is protection of our free states from government (foreign or domestic). You don't hand a potential enemy the blueprints to you vault, or the programming to your network security. Until you can trust all of the people in power, and you just can't because they are almost all from legal/lawyer backgrounds - insert lawyer joke here-, you can't trust those people with your defense of freedoms (see sig).

Yes, I think. The police would have to start with the manufacturer. That would lead to the original FFL, which would lead to the 1st owner, and so on. Each request would be separate. There is no way to take care of the 300 million already out there, but nothing being suggested takes care of that, not even registration (because nobody will comply). This at least takes care of any transfers going forward.

Many states already have a database (Kalifornia, New York, New Jersey, Illinois of the top of my head - I may be wrong on those). Turn those over to gun manufacturers, and you would take care of probably 50-100 million guns right there. From that point, go with every new sale and every private sale that was willing to comply with the registration. It would probably take some time, but would eventually get to the point of at least 1/2 to 2/3rds of the guns in the U.S. being accounted for. Time would take care of 90% of the rest and of course there would still be imported illegal arms and Alex Jones burying his in PVC packed with preservative somewhere in the woods, but this could make a huge difference in limiting private illegal sales.

I think we have acceptance from both you and Tim.We can put my name on the bill.

I'm on board with this as well.Seems very reasonable that should make both sides happy

 

[Cookiemonster]

I think we have acceptance from both you and Tim.We can put my name on the bill.

Hell must be getting a bit chilly right now. I have enjoyed solving the world's problems with you. Now, if only the politicians could be as smart as fantasy football nerds. So, we have something both sides agree with in regards to private sales / gunshow loophole - whatever you want to call it - and really very few feel that already legal and available guns should be banned. The magazine capacity seems to be moving in favor of the pro-gun rights side, but not by landslide. We have a couple pro-ban who have crossed over to the "it doesn't matter," but that issue only seems about 60:40. I would be in favor of a non-government controlled "database" or original sales listing with gun owners required to keep FFL approved bills of sale to provide a paper trail of ownership, and identification or driver's license tags on people prevented by law from owning guns. If gun owners conceded this, could we then take the magazine limitation off the table? Or at least limit it to 30?

 

[shader]

If Obama tries to pass an executive order banning anything to do with the second amendment, there will be a civil war in this Country.

This time, the North will tank it.

The SEC has better athletes.

 

[Hoosier16]

I think we have acceptance from both you and Tim.We can put my name on the bill.

Hell must be getting a bit chilly right now. I have enjoyed solving the world's problems with you. Now, if only the politicians could be as smart as fantasy football nerds. So, we have something both sides agree with in regards to private sales / gunshow loophole - whatever you want to call it - and really very few feel that already legal and available guns should be banned. The magazine capacity seems to be moving in favor of the pro-gun rights side, but not by landslide. We have a couple pro-ban who have crossed over to the "it doesn't matter," but that issue only seems about 60:40. I would be in favor of a non-government controlled "database" or original sales listing with gun owners required to keep FFL approved bills of sale to provide a paper trail of ownership, and identification or driver's license tags on people prevented by law from owning guns. If gun owners conceded this, could we then take the magazine limitation off the table?

I'm of the opinion that magazine limitations are worthless. They shouldn't even be on the table. I don't see how anyone can justify this as a means of prevention. There just isn't a significant difference in the outcome between a 6, 10, 15, or 30 round magazine when considering the total shots that can be fired. It would be nice to see Feinstein watch a demonstration of someone shooting and reloading a revolver. Let her count, out loud, how many shots they can fire in 10 minutes. That would be eye opening.

 

[jamny]

I think we have acceptance from both you and Tim.We can put my name on the bill.

Hell must be getting a bit chilly right now. I have enjoyed solving the world's problems with you. Now, if only the politicians could be as smart as fantasy football nerds. So, we have something both sides agree with in regards to private sales / gunshow loophole - whatever you want to call it - and really very few feel that already legal and available guns should be banned. The magazine capacity seems to be moving in favor of the pro-gun rights side, but not by landslide. We have a couple pro-ban who have crossed over to the "it doesn't matter," but that issue only seems about 60:40. I would be in favor of a non-government controlled "database" or original sales listing with gun owners required to keep FFL approved bills of sale to provide a paper trail of ownership, and identification or driver's license tags on people prevented by law from owning guns. If gun owners conceded this, could we then take the magazine limitation off the table?

I'm of the opinion that magazine limitations are worthless. They shouldn't even be on the table. I don't see how anyone can justify this as a means of prevention. There just isn't a significant difference in the outcome between a 6, 10, 15, or 30 round magazine when considering the total shots that can be fired. It would be nice to see Feinstein watch a demonstration of someone shooting and reloading a revolver. Let her count, out loud, how many shots they can fire in 10 minutes. That would be eye opening.

But what about if it's some deranged kid doing the shooting as is so often the case. Would you rather he has a 50 round capacity to just keep shooting or a 10 round capacity and has to change magazines and there is a chance he drops them or the gun jams or whatever. Isn't it better to somehow slow the slaughter in some way?

 

[timschochet]

I think we have acceptance from both you and Tim.We can put my name on the bill.

Hell must be getting a bit chilly right now. I have enjoyed solving the world's problems with you. Now, if only the politicians could be as smart as fantasy football nerds. So, we have something both sides agree with in regards to private sales / gunshow loophole - whatever you want to call it - and really very few feel that already legal and available guns should be banned. The magazine capacity seems to be moving in favor of the pro-gun rights side, but not by landslide. We have a couple pro-ban who have crossed over to the "it doesn't matter," but that issue only seems about 60:40. I would be in favor of a non-government controlled "database" or original sales listing with gun owners required to keep FFL approved bills of sale to provide a paper trail of ownership, and identification or driver's license tags on people prevented by law from owning guns. If gun owners conceded this, could we then take the magazine limitation off the table?

I'm of the opinion that magazine limitations are worthless. They shouldn't even be on the table. I don't see how anyone can justify this as a means of prevention. There just isn't a significant difference in the outcome between a 6, 10, 15, or 30 round magazine when considering the total shots that can be fired. It would be nice to see Feinstein watch a demonstration of someone shooting and reloading a revolver. Let her count, out loud, how many shots they can fire in 10 minutes. That would be eye opening.

I realize there's a whole bunch of gun people who can re-load extremely quickly. I get that. But that doesn't mean that some crazed madman like Jared Loughner is able to do it. The fact is that some of these guys are tackled when they are trying to re-load. Therefore, I think we can make the reasonable assumption that if any of these killers had been forced to re-load after 10 bullets rather than 30 (or whatever the number was) lives would have been saved. That's why I continue to find your denials ultimately unconvincing.

 

[jafo]

I think we have acceptance from both you and Tim.We can put my name on the bill.

Hell must be getting a bit chilly right now. I have enjoyed solving the world's problems with you. Now, if only the politicians could be as smart as fantasy football nerds. So, we have something both sides agree with in regards to private sales / gunshow loophole - whatever you want to call it - and really very few feel that already legal and available guns should be banned. The magazine capacity seems to be moving in favor of the pro-gun rights side, but not by landslide. We have a couple pro-ban who have crossed over to the "it doesn't matter," but that issue only seems about 60:40. I would be in favor of a non-government controlled "database" or original sales listing with gun owners required to keep FFL approved bills of sale to provide a paper trail of ownership, and identification or driver's license tags on people prevented by law from owning guns. If gun owners conceded this, could we then take the magazine limitation off the table?

I'm of the opinion that magazine limitations are worthless. They shouldn't even be on the table. I don't see how anyone can justify this as a means of prevention. There just isn't a significant difference in the outcome between a 6, 10, 15, or 30 round magazine when considering the total shots that can be fired. It would be nice to see Feinstein watch a demonstration of someone shooting and reloading a revolver. Let her count, out loud, how many shots they can fire in 10 minutes. That would be eye opening.

I realize there's a whole bunch of gun people who can re-load extremely quickly. I get that. But that doesn't mean that some crazed madman like Jared Loughner is able to do it. The fact is that some of these guys are tackled when they are trying to re-load. Therefore, I think we can make the reasonable assumption that if any of these killers had been forced to re-load after 10 bullets rather than 30 (or whatever the number was) lives would have been saved. That's why I continue to find your denials ultimately unconvincing.

They found that the Newtown killer reloaded most of his mags after firing 10-15 rounds out of each one. That didn't seem to slow the killing there.

 

[Hoosier16]

But what about if it's some deranged kid doing the shooting as is so often the case. Would you rather he has a 50 round capacity to just keep shooting or a 10 round capacity and has to change magazines and there is a chance he drops them or the gun jams or whatever. Isn't it better to somehow slow the slaughter in some way?

I realize there's a whole bunch of gun people who can re-load extremely quickly. I get that. But that doesn't mean that some crazed madman like Jared Loughner is able to do it. The fact is that some of these guys are tackled when they are trying to re-load. Therefore, I think we can make the reasonable assumption that if any of these killers had been forced to re-load after 10 bullets rather than 30 (or whatever the number was) lives would have been saved. That's why I continue to find your denials ultimately unconvincing.

I said this before and offended someone, so I'm not trying to repeat that, but I don't think you guys realize how little practice this takes. It's seconds. I have very little 'gun people' in me and I can eject and reload a magazine in seconds. Give me a week of practice with a revolver and I'd be just as fast. All it takes is advance preparation.

 

[jamny]

But what about if it's some deranged kid doing the shooting as is so often the case. Would you rather he has a 50 round capacity to just keep shooting or a 10 round capacity and has to change magazines and there is a chance he drops them or the gun jams or whatever. Isn't it better to somehow slow the slaughter in some way?

I realize there's a whole bunch of gun people who can re-load extremely quickly. I get that. But that doesn't mean that some crazed madman like Jared Loughner is able to do it. The fact is that some of these guys are tackled when they are trying to re-load. Therefore, I think we can make the reasonable assumption that if any of these killers had been forced to re-load after 10 bullets rather than 30 (or whatever the number was) lives would have been saved. That's why I continue to find your denials ultimately unconvincing.

I said this before and offended someone, so I'm not trying to repeat that, but I don't think you guys realize how little practice this takes. It's seconds. I have very little 'gun people' in me and I can eject and reload a magazine in seconds. Give me a week of practice with a revolver and I'd be just as fast. All it takes is advance preparation.

OK, in a controlled environment but you don't think it's at all possible that problems could arise while in the midst of a slaughter with heightened nerves and the panic everywhere?

 

[Gman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aorMJoMDN-QThis guy is angry

 

[Henry Ford]

i just wonder how long it would take to register 300 million guns?

Let's say 15 minutes apiece - about 75 million hours.

 

[Cookiemonster]

i just wonder how long it would take to register 300 million guns?

Let's say 15 minutes apiece - about 75 million hours.

Divided by 60,000 FFLs minus the data transfer from states that already have registration lists. Not to mention the manufacturers that already have the original owners paperwork for warranty purposes. So we only have to register guns that are not owned by the original owners.

 

[boots11234]

I think we have acceptance from both you and Tim.We can put my name on the bill.

Hell must be getting a bit chilly right now. I have enjoyed solving the world's problems with you. Now, if only the politicians could be as smart as fantasy football nerds. So, we have something both sides agree with in regards to private sales / gunshow loophole - whatever you want to call it - and really very few feel that already legal and available guns should be banned. The magazine capacity seems to be moving in favor of the pro-gun rights side, but not by landslide. We have a couple pro-ban who have crossed over to the "it doesn't matter," but that issue only seems about 60:40. I would be in favor of a non-government controlled "database" or original sales listing with gun owners required to keep FFL approved bills of sale to provide a paper trail of ownership, and identification or driver's license tags on people prevented by law from owning guns. If gun owners conceded this, could we then take the magazine limitation off the table?

I'm of the opinion that magazine limitations are worthless. They shouldn't even be on the table. I don't see how anyone can justify this as a means of prevention. There just isn't a significant difference in the outcome between a 6, 10, 15, or 30 round magazine when considering the total shots that can be fired. It would be nice to see Feinstein watch a demonstration of someone shooting and reloading a revolver. Let her count, out loud, how many shots they can fire in 10 minutes. That would be eye opening.

I realize there's a whole bunch of gun people who can re-load extremely quickly. I get that. But that doesn't mean that some crazed madman like Jared Loughner is able to do it. The fact is that some of these guys are tackled when they are trying to re-load. Therefore, I think we can make the reasonable assumption that if any of these killers had been forced to re-load after 10 bullets rather than 30 (or whatever the number was) lives would have been saved. That's why I continue to find your denials ultimately unconvincing.

They found that the Newtown killer reloaded most of his mags after firing 10-15 rounds out of each one. That didn't seem to slow the killing there.

Lets not let logic get in the way here guy.

 

[Glass Joe]

I think we have acceptance from both you and Tim.We can put my name on the bill.

Hell must be getting a bit chilly right now. I have enjoyed solving the world's problems with you. Now, if only the politicians could be as smart as fantasy football nerds. So, we have something both sides agree with in regards to private sales / gunshow loophole - whatever you want to call it - and really very few feel that already legal and available guns should be banned. The magazine capacity seems to be moving in favor of the pro-gun rights side, but not by landslide. We have a couple pro-ban who have crossed over to the "it doesn't matter," but that issue only seems about 60:40. I would be in favor of a non-government controlled "database" or original sales listing with gun owners required to keep FFL approved bills of sale to provide a paper trail of ownership, and identification or driver's license tags on people prevented by law from owning guns. If gun owners conceded this, could we then take the magazine limitation off the table?

I'm of the opinion that magazine limitations are worthless. They shouldn't even be on the table. I don't see how anyone can justify this as a means of prevention. There just isn't a significant difference in the outcome between a 6, 10, 15, or 30 round magazine when considering the total shots that can be fired. It would be nice to see Feinstein watch a demonstration of someone shooting and reloading a revolver. Let her count, out loud, how many shots they can fire in 10 minutes. That would be eye opening.

I realize there's a whole bunch of gun people who can re-load extremely quickly. I get that. But that doesn't mean that some crazed madman like Jared Loughner is able to do it. The fact is that some of these guys are tackled when they are trying to re-load. Therefore, I think we can make the reasonable assumption that if any of these killers had been forced to re-load after 10 bullets rather than 30 (or whatever the number was) lives would have been saved. That's why I continue to find your denials ultimately unconvincing.

They found that the Newtown killer reloaded most of his mags after firing 10-15 rounds out of each one. That didn't seem to slow the killing there.

The only answer is to eliminate the right to own a gun. Make everyone turn them in. If it causes some people (lunatics) to want to invoke Civil War, so be it.

 

[boots11234]

I think we have acceptance from both you and Tim.We can put my name on the bill.

Hell must be getting a bit chilly right now. I have enjoyed solving the world's problems with you. Now, if only the politicians could be as smart as fantasy football nerds. So, we have something both sides agree with in regards to private sales / gunshow loophole - whatever you want to call it - and really very few feel that already legal and available guns should be banned. The magazine capacity seems to be moving in favor of the pro-gun rights side, but not by landslide. We have a couple pro-ban who have crossed over to the "it doesn't matter," but that issue only seems about 60:40. I would be in favor of a non-government controlled "database" or original sales listing with gun owners required to keep FFL approved bills of sale to provide a paper trail of ownership, and identification or driver's license tags on people prevented by law from owning guns. If gun owners conceded this, could we then take the magazine limitation off the table?

I'm of the opinion that magazine limitations are worthless. They shouldn't even be on the table. I don't see how anyone can justify this as a means of prevention. There just isn't a significant difference in the outcome between a 6, 10, 15, or 30 round magazine when considering the total shots that can be fired. It would be nice to see Feinstein watch a demonstration of someone shooting and reloading a revolver. Let her count, out loud, how many shots they can fire in 10 minutes. That would be eye opening.

I realize there's a whole bunch of gun people who can re-load extremely quickly. I get that. But that doesn't mean that some crazed madman like Jared Loughner is able to do it. The fact is that some of these guys are tackled when they are trying to re-load. Therefore, I think we can make the reasonable assumption that if any of these killers had been forced to re-load after 10 bullets rather than 30 (or whatever the number was) lives would have been saved. That's why I continue to find your denials ultimately unconvincing.

They found that the Newtown killer reloaded most of his mags after firing 10-15 rounds out of each one. That didn't seem to slow the killing there.

The only answer is to eliminate the right to own a gun. Make everyone turn them in. If it causes some people (lunatics) to want to invoke Civil War, so be it.

At least you are honest about how you feel. Thanks.

 

[Slingblade]

I think we have acceptance from both you and Tim.We can put my name on the bill.

Hell must be getting a bit chilly right now. I have enjoyed solving the world's problems with you. Now, if only the politicians could be as smart as fantasy football nerds. So, we have something both sides agree with in regards to private sales / gunshow loophole - whatever you want to call it - and really very few feel that already legal and available guns should be banned. The magazine capacity seems to be moving in favor of the pro-gun rights side, but not by landslide. We have a couple pro-ban who have crossed over to the "it doesn't matter," but that issue only seems about 60:40. I would be in favor of a non-government controlled "database" or original sales listing with gun owners required to keep FFL approved bills of sale to provide a paper trail of ownership, and identification or driver's license tags on people prevented by law from owning guns. If gun owners conceded this, could we then take the magazine limitation off the table?

I'm of the opinion that magazine limitations are worthless. They shouldn't even be on the table. I don't see how anyone can justify this as a means of prevention. There just isn't a significant difference in the outcome between a 6, 10, 15, or 30 round magazine when considering the total shots that can be fired. It would be nice to see Feinstein watch a demonstration of someone shooting and reloading a revolver. Let her count, out loud, how many shots they can fire in 10 minutes. That would be eye opening.

I realize there's a whole bunch of gun people who can re-load extremely quickly. I get that. But that doesn't mean that some crazed madman like Jared Loughner is able to do it. The fact is that some of these guys are tackled when they are trying to re-load. Therefore, I think we can make the reasonable assumption that if any of these killers had been forced to re-load after 10 bullets rather than 30 (or whatever the number was) lives would have been saved. That's why I continue to find your denials ultimately unconvincing.

They found that the Newtown killer reloaded most of his mags after firing 10-15 rounds out of each one. That didn't seem to slow the killing there.

The only answer is to eliminate the right to own a gun. Make everyone turn them in. If it causes some people (lunatics) to want to invoke Civil War, so be it.

From my cold dead hands.

 

[jamny]

So what's the rationale for having a National gun database?

 

[Widbil83]

I think we have acceptance from both you and Tim.We can put my name on the bill.

Hell must be getting a bit chilly right now. I have enjoyed solving the world's problems with you. Now, if only the politicians could be as smart as fantasy football nerds. So, we have something both sides agree with in regards to private sales / gunshow loophole - whatever you want to call it - and really very few feel that already legal and available guns should be banned. The magazine capacity seems to be moving in favor of the pro-gun rights side, but not by landslide. We have a couple pro-ban who have crossed over to the "it doesn't matter," but that issue only seems about 60:40. I would be in favor of a non-government controlled "database" or original sales listing with gun owners required to keep FFL approved bills of sale to provide a paper trail of ownership, and identification or driver's license tags on people prevented by law from owning guns. If gun owners conceded this, could we then take the magazine limitation off the table?

I'm of the opinion that magazine limitations are worthless. They shouldn't even be on the table. I don't see how anyone can justify this as a means of prevention. There just isn't a significant difference in the outcome between a 6, 10, 15, or 30 round magazine when considering the total shots that can be fired. It would be nice to see Feinstein watch a demonstration of someone shooting and reloading a revolver. Let her count, out loud, how many shots they can fire in 10 minutes. That would be eye opening.

I realize there's a whole bunch of gun people who can re-load extremely quickly. I get that. But that doesn't mean that some crazed madman like Jared Loughner is able to do it. The fact is that some of these guys are tackled when they are trying to re-load. Therefore, I think we can make the reasonable assumption that if any of these killers had been forced to re-load after 10 bullets rather than 30 (or whatever the number was) lives would have been saved. That's why I continue to find your denials ultimately unconvincing.

They found that the Newtown killer reloaded most of his mags after firing 10-15 rounds out of each one. That didn't seem to slow the killing there.

The only answer is to eliminate the right to own a gun. Make everyone turn them in. If it causes some people (lunatics) to want to invoke Civil War, so be it.

What do we do with the people who don't turn their guns in? And don't say send in the Military because the vast majority will be on the side of the "lunatics."

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I think we have acceptance from both you and Tim.We can put my name on the bill.

Hell must be getting a bit chilly right now. I have enjoyed solving the world's problems with you. Now, if only the politicians could be as smart as fantasy football nerds. So, we have something both sides agree with in regards to private sales / gunshow loophole - whatever you want to call it - and really very few feel that already legal and available guns should be banned. The magazine capacity seems to be moving in favor of the pro-gun rights side, but not by landslide. We have a couple pro-ban who have crossed over to the "it doesn't matter," but that issue only seems about 60:40. I would be in favor of a non-government controlled "database" or original sales listing with gun owners required to keep FFL approved bills of sale to provide a paper trail of ownership, and identification or driver's license tags on people prevented by law from owning guns. If gun owners conceded this, could we then take the magazine limitation off the table?

I'm of the opinion that magazine limitations are worthless. They shouldn't even be on the table. I don't see how anyone can justify this as a means of prevention. There just isn't a significant difference in the outcome between a 6, 10, 15, or 30 round magazine when considering the total shots that can be fired. It would be nice to see Feinstein watch a demonstration of someone shooting and reloading a revolver. Let her count, out loud, how many shots they can fire in 10 minutes. That would be eye opening.

I realize there's a whole bunch of gun people who can re-load extremely quickly. I get that. But that doesn't mean that some crazed madman like Jared Loughner is able to do it. The fact is that some of these guys are tackled when they are trying to re-load. Therefore, I think we can make the reasonable assumption that if any of these killers had been forced to re-load after 10 bullets rather than 30 (or whatever the number was) lives would have been saved. That's why I continue to find your denials ultimately unconvincing.

They found that the Newtown killer reloaded most of his mags after firing 10-15 rounds out of each one. That didn't seem to slow the killing there.

The only answer is to eliminate the left to own a gun.

fixed that for you

 

[Cookiemonster]

So what's the rationale for having a National gun database?

Confiscation. If you're referring to the previous attempt at a real compromise, it was to be able to backtrack and prosecute illegal sales.

 

[cobalt_27]

Solid developments today.

 

[Slingblade]

 

[cobalt_27]

See, according to this guy, you have nothing to worry about. This smart young chap does not believe Obama will issue an executive order.

 

[Slingblade]

I don't think he will either. It would be a total ####storm if he did.I could see an executive order for mental health funding or something along those lines, but that's it.

 

[Glass Joe]

I think we have acceptance from both you and Tim.We can put my name on the bill.

Hell must be getting a bit chilly right now. I have enjoyed solving the world's problems with you. Now, if only the politicians could be as smart as fantasy football nerds. So, we have something both sides agree with in regards to private sales / gunshow loophole - whatever you want to call it - and really very few feel that already legal and available guns should be banned. The magazine capacity seems to be moving in favor of the pro-gun rights side, but not by landslide. We have a couple pro-ban who have crossed over to the "it doesn't matter," but that issue only seems about 60:40. I would be in favor of a non-government controlled "database" or original sales listing with gun owners required to keep FFL approved bills of sale to provide a paper trail of ownership, and identification or driver's license tags on people prevented by law from owning guns. If gun owners conceded this, could we then take the magazine limitation off the table?

I'm of the opinion that magazine limitations are worthless. They shouldn't even be on the table. I don't see how anyone can justify this as a means of prevention. There just isn't a significant difference in the outcome between a 6, 10, 15, or 30 round magazine when considering the total shots that can be fired. It would be nice to see Feinstein watch a demonstration of someone shooting and reloading a revolver. Let her count, out loud, how many shots they can fire in 10 minutes. That would be eye opening.

I realize there's a whole bunch of gun people who can re-load extremely quickly. I get that. But that doesn't mean that some crazed madman like Jared Loughner is able to do it. The fact is that some of these guys are tackled when they are trying to re-load. Therefore, I think we can make the reasonable assumption that if any of these killers had been forced to re-load after 10 bullets rather than 30 (or whatever the number was) lives would have been saved. That's why I continue to find your denials ultimately unconvincing.

They found that the Newtown killer reloaded most of his mags after firing 10-15 rounds out of each one. That didn't seem to slow the killing there.

The only answer is to eliminate the right to own a gun. Make everyone turn them in. If it causes some people (lunatics) to want to invoke Civil War, so be it.

What do we do with the people who don't turn their guns in? And don't say send in the Military because the vast majority will be on the side of the "lunatics."

Shut down gun manufacturers in America, at least sales in America.Anyone found in possession of more than a minimal number of guns and bullets faces prison. Without parole. Yes, you are now a criminal.So you don't want to turn in your toys...hope you're willing to pay for your hobby with your life.

 

[Slingblade]

I think we have acceptance from both you and Tim.We can put my name on the bill.

Hell must be getting a bit chilly right now. I have enjoyed solving the world's problems with you. Now, if only the politicians could be as smart as fantasy football nerds. So, we have something both sides agree with in regards to private sales / gunshow loophole - whatever you want to call it - and really very few feel that already legal and available guns should be banned. The magazine capacity seems to be moving in favor of the pro-gun rights side, but not by landslide. We have a couple pro-ban who have crossed over to the "it doesn't matter," but that issue only seems about 60:40. I would be in favor of a non-government controlled "database" or original sales listing with gun owners required to keep FFL approved bills of sale to provide a paper trail of ownership, and identification or driver's license tags on people prevented by law from owning guns. If gun owners conceded this, could we then take the magazine limitation off the table?

I'm of the opinion that magazine limitations are worthless. They shouldn't even be on the table. I don't see how anyone can justify this as a means of prevention. There just isn't a significant difference in the outcome between a 6, 10, 15, or 30 round magazine when considering the total shots that can be fired. It would be nice to see Feinstein watch a demonstration of someone shooting and reloading a revolver. Let her count, out loud, how many shots they can fire in 10 minutes. That would be eye opening.

I realize there's a whole bunch of gun people who can re-load extremely quickly. I get that. But that doesn't mean that some crazed madman like Jared Loughner is able to do it. The fact is that some of these guys are tackled when they are trying to re-load. Therefore, I think we can make the reasonable assumption that if any of these killers had been forced to re-load after 10 bullets rather than 30 (or whatever the number was) lives would have been saved. That's why I continue to find your denials ultimately unconvincing.

They found that the Newtown killer reloaded most of his mags after firing 10-15 rounds out of each one. That didn't seem to slow the killing there.

The only answer is to eliminate the right to own a gun. Make everyone turn them in. If it causes some people (lunatics) to want to invoke Civil War, so be it.

What do we do with the people who don't turn their guns in? And don't say send in the Military because the vast majority will be on the side of the "lunatics."

Shut down gun manufacturers in America, at least sales in America.Anyone found in possession of more than a minimal number of guns and bullets faces prison. Without parole. Yes, you are now a criminal.So you don't want to turn in your toys...hope you're willing to pay for your hobby with your life.

And us gun owners get called crazy.

 

[cobalt_27]

Oh, I expect it will be a little more far reaching than that. Maybe even to include a few assault rifles. But, handguns will be off limits for quite a while.