Why do they need to know what guns I own? (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

You people make it sound like guns are consistently left at the scene of a crime.  They aren't.

The chances are that if LE knows the serial # of the weapon, they have already arrested the perpetrator of the crime and the weapon is most likely, stolen.

Locating the weapon is extremely helpful in finding out who commited a shooting because they can match the bullet to the gun then linking the gun to the shooter....not the gun to the owner.

I just wonder how many gun crimes are committed by someone who had legally purchased the gun that was used.

Just as in immigration, some people have trouble with the words, "Illegal" and "legal".

Perfect....just removed one of the alleged "concerns" for having them registered...well done

As long as you're not negligent in gun ownership, nothing to worry about on that front!!

Next!!!!!

 

[Opie]

Perfect....just removed one of the alleged "concerns" for having them registered...well done

As long as you're not negligent in gun ownership, nothing to worry about on that front!!

Next!!!!!

...an responsible, law-abiding gun owners are not negligent...what does that have to do with registering my guns?

 

[stlrams]

The irony here is that a Red Dawn scenario is probably more likely than the US government coming to confiscate everyone's guns

It is absolutely amazing to watch a group of people grip so tight to certain portions of the Constitution and in the exact same breath do all they can to ignore other parts.  In this case it's in the exact same amendment  

I’m not a gun owner but the climate towards guns has shifted dramatically specifically towards automatic and semi automatic types given the ongoing massacres.  While I can’t see a federal ban in my time some of the liberal states could institute a ban.  

 

[The Commish]

I’m not a gun owner but the climate towards guns has shifted dramatically specifically towards automatic and semi automatic types given the ongoing massacres.  While I can’t see a federal ban in my time some of the liberal states could institute a ban.  

And what does this fear have to do with a federal confiscation of guns?

 

[The Commish]

...an responsible, law-abiding gun owners are not negligent...what does that have to do with registering my guns?

I'll ignore the incorrectly applied blanket statement in the interest of moving the discussion forward.  Registering your guns has to do with being part of "a well regulated militia" as required in the Constitution.

 

[Opie]

I’m not a gun owner but the climate towards guns has shifted dramatically specifically towards automatic and semi automatic types given the ongoing massacres.  While I can’t see a federal ban in my time some of the liberal states could institute a ban.  

COULD institute a ban?

We've already seen them.

"The ordinance passed at the Village Board meeting on April 2 and took effect April 13; those with weapons in the Village need to remove them from Village limits before June 13. The ordinance provides for an effective date 60 days after the ordinance goes into effect and does not otherwise regulate or prohibit rifles, shot guns, pistols or ammunition,"

So, tell me....If YOUR town, passed a law that REQUIRED you, as a homeowner, to own a gun...would you obey that law or move?

 

[IC FBGCav]

I’m not a gun owner but the climate towards guns has shifted dramatically specifically towards automatic and semi automatic types given the ongoing massacres.  While I can’t see a federal ban in my time some of the liberal states could institute a ban.  

What's the reason for having guns in 2019?

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm in favor of more gun control. 

I'm not a gun owner and never have been. I'm admittedly a little uneasy by how many people I know that have guns and how many people I see carrying.

BUT, for people that do own guns, I can totally see how they'd be uncomfortable with the type of "we need to know all the guns you own" line of thinking. 

Let's be honest, there's a component of owning guns that is very much in line with the "what if we need to defy the government?" thinking. Granted, that was more feasible before the age of modern warfare. But it's still a thing. The Colonials didn't have a chance against the British Army either. 

Bottom line, I'm not sure what do to about it. But I totally get the Pro Gun folks being uncomfortable with this. I think it's entirely reasonable they feel this way. For the discussion to move forward, I think the Pro Gun Control side has to acknowledge it's reasonable. 

 

[timschochet]

I'm in favor of more gun control. 

I'm not a gun owner and never have been. I'm admittedly a little uneasy by how many people I know that have guns and how many people I see carrying.

BUT, for people that do own guns, I can totally see how they'd be uncomfortable with the type of "we need to know all the guns you own" line of thinking. 

Let's be honest, there's a component of owning guns that is very much in line with the "what if we need to defy the government?" thinking. Granted, that was more feasible before the age of modern warfare. But it’s still a thing. The Colonials didn't have a chance against the British Army either. 

Bottom line, I'm not sure what do to about it. But I totally get the Pro Gun folks being uncomfortable with this. I think it's entirely reasonable they feel this way. For the discussion to move forward, I think the Pro Gun Control side has to acknowledge it's reasonable. 

It really isn’t. You’re not going to defy the government with your guns against their drones and tanks and missiles, no matter how loud you scream “Wolverine!” If the British Army had those kind of weapons, the colonials would have had about as much chance against them as the Zulus did. 

 

[Opie]

I'm in favor of more gun control. 

I'm not a gun owner and never have been. I'm admittedly a little uneasy by how many people I know that have guns and how many people I see carrying.

BUT, for people that do own guns, I can totally see how they'd be uncomfortable with the type of "we need to know all the guns you own" line of thinking. 

Let's be honest, there's a component of owning guns that is very much in line with the "what if we need to defy the government?" thinking. Granted, that was more feasible before the age of modern warfare. But it's still a thing. The Colonials didn't have a chance against the British Army either. 

Bottom line, I'm not sure what do to about it. But I totally get the Pro Gun folks being uncomfortable with this. I think it's entirely reasonable they feel this way. For the discussion to move forward, I think the Pro Gun Control side has to acknowledge it's reasonable. 

And again, to put those on the "other side" of the debate more comfortable...I have absolutely no problem with extensive background checks in an attempt to keep guns out of the wrong hands.  It won't keep criminals from stealing guns but who can stop that 100%.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

COULD institute a ban?

We've already seen them.

"The ordinance passed at the Village Board meeting on April 2 and took effect April 13; those with weapons in the Village need to remove them from Village limits before June 13. The ordinance provides for an effective date 60 days after the ordinance goes into effect and does not otherwise regulate or prohibit rifles, shot guns, pistols or ammunition,"

So, tell me....If YOUR town, passed a law that REQUIRED you, as a homeowner, to own a gun...would you obey that law or move?

Funny where I live the sheriffs sell guns they’ve seized. Even as they have community buybacks. Crazy.

 

[Opie]

It really isn’t. You’re not going to defy the government with your guns against their drones and tanks and missiles, no matter how loud you scream “Wolverine!” If the British Army had those kind of weapons, the colonials would have had about as much chance against them as the Zulus did. 

and those chances of your defense fall to absolute zero when you are unarmed.

Are you saying that citizens should be armed with equal firepower or just be subservient?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

>>In light of the temporary restraining order entered last week by the Circuit Court of Lake County, the Village will not enforce the June 18 amendment so long as the injunctive order remains in place."<<

 

[timschochet]

And again, to put those on the "other side" of the debate more comfortable...I have absolutely no problem with extensive background checks in an attempt to keep guns out of the wrong hands.  It won't keep criminals from stealing guns but who can stop that 100%.

Are you in favor of background checks on ALL sales or transfers- no loopholes or exclusions for gun shows, private transfers or sales, etc.? 

 

[timschochet]

and those chances of your defense fall to absolute zero when you are unarmed.

They’re zero now. 

 

[Opie]

Are you in favor of background checks on ALL sales or transfers- no loopholes or exclusions for gun shows, private transfers or sales, etc.? 

Since I don't sell or collect guns...sure, go for it.

However, I do realize that there are those who do.

 

[IC FBGCav]

and those chances of your defense fall to absolute zero when you are unarmed.

When are guns our gone and we get attacked by our government, I am sure Mexico and "humanitarian help" will get them to us.

 

[Opie]

They’re zero now. 

They were considered "zero" in 1775 too...but ...

 

[timschochet]

But I totally get the Pro Gun folks being uncomfortable with this. I think it's entirely reasonable they feel this way. For the discussion to move forward, I think the Pro Gun Control side has to acknowledge it's reasonable. 

It’s reasonable for them to be uncomfortable in a libertarian, it’s none of the government’s business kind of way, which was @Cowboysfan8 ‘s argument for starting the thread. 

But if you’re arguing that it’s reasonable to assume that gun registration might lead in the future to gun seizures by the federal government, and that this is a real threat to be considered- no that is not reasonable. It is, IMO, the opposite of reasonable thinking. 

 

[IC FBGCav]

I have 2 hand guns and my SIL is ex military.  He has about 10.  Some assult rifles too.  It's not going to keep them from shelling his house.  They will not have any impact whatsoever in an impossible government invasion.  

 

[Opie]

When are guns our gone and we get attacked by our government, I am sure Mexico and "humanitarian help" will get them to us.

or...we can use the tactic of hiding in place until they run out of bullets.

 

[timschochet]

They were considered "zero" in 1775 too...but ...

No they weren’t. 

 

[Opie]

It’s reasonable for them to be uncomfortable in a libertarian, it’s none of the government’s business kind of way, which was @Cowboysfan8 ‘s argument for starting the thread. 

But if you’re arguing that it’s reasonable to assume that gun registration might lead in the future to gun seizures by the federal government, and that this is a real threat to be considered- no that is not reasonable. It is, IMO, the opposite of reasonable thinking. 

One more time...

Looking at the Frosh class of Democrats in Congress today, it is totally reasonable.

 

[Opie]

No they weren’t. 

You're right...because we were armed and we could match UK...Ship of the Line for Ship of the Line!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

One more time...

Actually if you’re doing snips, Trump saying let’s skip the due process and the courts and just take the guns is way worse. At least he’s consistent because that’s his view on immigration law too.

 

[Opie]

Actually if you’re doing snips, Trump saying let’s skip the due process and the courts and just take the guns odd way worse. At least he’s consistent because that’s his view on immigration law too.

One has to do with a Constitutional issue...the other...not so much.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

One has to do with a Constitutional issue...the other...not so much.

Lol Opie it was Feinstein that Trump was agreeing with.

The 2nd Amendment is not just about that specific right, it’s also about the 4th & 5th Amendments, But yaknowwhat when you support a nationalist like Trump you endanger *all that.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

It’s reasonable for them to be uncomfortable in a libertarian, it’s none of the government’s business kind of way, which was @Cowboysfan8

But if you’re arguing that it’s reasonable to assume that gun registration might lead in the future to gun seizures by the federal government, and that this is a real threat to be considered- no that is not reasonable. It is, IMO, the opposite of reasonable thinking. 

You have absolutely zero clue if that's ever going to happen or not. Zero

I don't believe it will happen in my lifetime. But to say it's never going to happen, you just can't make that claim

 

[Opie]

I don't care who's in charge of the government...they don't need to know what guns I legally own.

 

[sho nuff]

I would think that law enforcement would have some additional information in trying to solve a case. Example - Firearm licensed to Courtjester was used in a shooting. We know it wasn't him because he was on vacation. But who had acceess to his house? Who robbed him? Was it a family friend? His estranged son in law?

All those little bits of info add up and that is info they would not have if it was just a random gun 

And you know serving a warrant or a traffic stop to know before you approach a house or a car you know if the person owns weapons.

 

[Opie]

And you know serving a warrant or a traffic stop to know before you approach a house or a car you know if the person owns weapons.

I guess that fact that he actually registered his weapons means that he tries to abide by the law but will open fire if provoked.

If the database shows that he hasn't registered any guns is it because he doesn't own any...or that he's a criminal who might have a gun that he obtained illegally?  I am sure that everyone in a crack house has registered their guns.

What difference would this database make?

You do know that when pulled over in Texas, a person with a gun in the car is required to inform the officer at the beginning of the interaction....but only a responsible gun owner would know this....criminals wouldn't care...whether they knew it or not.

Once again...it is legal gun ownership as opposed to illegal gun ownership.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I don't care who's in charge of the government...they don't need to know what guns I legally own.

Sounds like you have something to hide.  

 

[Opie]

Sounds like you have something to hide.  

I does sound that way...doesn't it.

Of course, I don't want to govt to know what I eat, what I drink, where I go, who I talk to, what I talk about, who I sleep with, how I spend my money....etc...but what they don't know already, they can find out.  It's not that I really care...I just don't think that they should know without me telling them.

I just want to be left alone to do the best that I can.

 

[Joe Bryant]

But if you’re arguing that it’s reasonable to assume that gun registration might lead in the future to gun seizures by the federal government, and that this is a real threat to be considered- no that is not reasonable. It is, IMO, the opposite of reasonable thinking. 




1

Completely disagree. I think it's entirely reasonable someone concerned about the government taking guns away would have good reason to worry about the government wanting to know exactly what guns you own. That's easily the logical first step. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

You have absolutely zero clue if that's ever going to happen or not. Zero

I don't believe it will happen in my lifetime. But to say it's never going to happen, you just can't make that claim

Absolutely.

I know it's fun to paint anyone worried about the government dramatically limiting gun ownership or even taking guns away as a fringe doomsdayer survivalist ready to move to Montana and build a fortress. That's not close to reality. I know lots of completely mainstream regular people who worry about that. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Sounds like you have something to hide.  

I've always found that a not very compelling way to argue for taking away privacy. 

 

[Opie]

I asked this question earlier

If your community, all of a sudden, required you, as a homeowner, to own a gun....would you comply, rebel, or move?

 

[timschochet]

Completely disagree. I think it's entirely reasonable someone concerned about the government taking guns away would have good reason to worry about the government wanting to know exactly what guns you own. That's easily the logical first step. 

The way you put it, sure. IF a person is concerned about the government taking guns away, it’s reasonable for them to be concerned about gun registration. 

My point is that it’s not reasonable for them to be concerned about the government taking guns away in the first place. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

They’re zero now. 

If you think the chances are the same armed as they are unarmed, we should just agree to disagree and move on. 

 

[Opie]

The way you put it, sure. IF a person is concerned about the government taking guns away, it’s reasonable for them to be concerned about gun registration. 

My point is that it’s not reasonable for them to be concerned about the government taking guns away in the first place. 

Why?

Governments have taken away guns in the past.  How can you say that "it couldn't happen here"?  

Is it the gun owners who prevent this from happening?

IF the vast majority thought like you...would the 2nd Amendment be repealed?

 

[timschochet]

Absolutely.

I know it's fun to paint anyone worried about the government dramatically limiting gun ownership or even taking guns away as a fringe doomsdayer survivalist ready to move to Montana and build a fortress. That's not close to reality. I know lots of completely mainstream regular people who worry about that. 

You’re quite right. I made this point earlier in another thread. There are plenty of reasonable people who fear this. 

There are also reasonable liberals who fear that, if conservatives take over, we will get The Handmaid’s Tale or some kind of religious dictatorship. Believe me, I know plenty of those folks too. They’re quite rational, but they believe in the worst from the other side. 

And that’s my point. None of these beliefs are reasonable. Not from conservatives, not from liberals. The other side is NOT evil; they do not seek to do harm to you. We’ve got to find a way to get past this, or we’re screwed. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

My point is that it’s not reasonable for them to be concerned about the government taking guns away in the first place. 




 

We'll just disagree then. Of course they're concerned about the government dramatically limiting guns or taking guns away. If you think that's a completely unreasonable thought, I think you're completely wrong. Or trolling. Or at best, completely disconnected from the current political climate. 

 

[timschochet]

If you think the chances are the same armed as they are unarmed, we should just agree to disagree and move on. 

I guess so. Armed with guns against today’s technology is like being armed with bows and arrows. Or spears. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I asked this question earlier

If your community, all of a sudden, required you, as a homeowner, to own a gun....would you comply, rebel, or move?

I'd sue. The USSC already decided in the ACA/Obamacare that the government can't compel private purchases in state commerce.

- Now the thing the government could do is tax you to force you to do that, which the USSC decided the government could do, but these laws don't appear to do that.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Absolutely.

I know it's fun to paint anyone worried about the government dramatically limiting gun ownership or even taking guns away as a fringe doomsdayer survivalist ready to move to Montana and build a fortress. That's not close to reality. I know lots of completely mainstream regular people who worry about that. 

 

[timschochet]

We'll just disagree then. Of course they're concerned about the government dramatically limiting guns or taking guns away. If you think that's a completely unreasonable thought, I think you're completely wrong. Or trolling. Or at best, completely disconnected from the current political climate. 

I think we’re talking past each other. I do not believe it is reasonable to think that the government is going to go around seizing guns. That is my serious point of view, it is a completely logical point of view, and it’s certainly not trolling. I have no idea what you mean by “current political climate” in which seizing guns is a realistic possibility. 

 

[Opie]

I'd sue. The USSC already decided in the ACA/Obamacare that the government can't compel private purchases in state commerce.

- Now the thing the government could do is tax you to force you to do that, which the USSC decided the government could do, but these laws don't appear to do that.

What if the guns were issued to you at no cost?

Would you keep it in your house and loaded?

 

[Opie]

I think we’re talking past each other. I do not believe it is reasonable to think that the government is going to go around seizing guns. That is my serious point of view, it is a completely logical point of view, and it’s certainly not trolling. I have no idea what you mean by “current political climate” in which seizing guns is a realistic possibility. 

The Left is talking about getting rid of the combustion engine, air travel, and farting cows in 12 years.

..and you think that confiscating and banning guns is out of the realm of possibility at this point?

 

[the moops]

Driving is a privilege, gun ownership is a right.

Voting is also a right, yet these same 2nd amendment folks sure don't seem to have an issue with registering and providing proof of residence and requiring an ID

 

[timschochet]

The Left is talking about getting rid of the combustion engine and farting cows in 12 years.

Is nothing out of the realm of possibility at this point?

Apparently nothing is out of the realm of possibility when it comes to right wing talking points.