Ban on "assault weapons" and/or high capacity magazines?

[Grinning Dragon]

I am opposed to registration. Not because of "What ifs?" so much as "Why?"s. If someone ends up selling a rifle to someone else, all the paperwork has to be changed, etc., and this goes on for the life of the firearm. Rather than register, why not just make a safety and handling class mandatory before one is able to purchase a firearm? Flash your hunting license or what-have-you at the gun store, and they'll know you can legally own one. Make selling it to someone without one an illegal action.

Because registration helps track guns so it's easy to identify one that has been stolen and makes it near impossible for black market criminals to legally purchase guns which they go on to sell.

I can't imagine the paperwork would be any different to transferring registration of a car and I do that at least 20 times a day. You fill out some details and mail it off, simple.

Where is the proof of this; helps track weapons and easy to identify?

[Mavorpen]

Out of curiosity, who of the pro-gun group on NS is opposed to registration on the grounds that the government will know who has guns and will take them away from you before tyranny is enforced?

Ill bite.
I am against registration. For me it just boils down to, it is of no ones business on what I own.

Dude, we're talking about guns, not "packing" in that sense.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I am opposed to registration. Not because of "What ifs?" so much as "Why?"s. If someone ends up selling a rifle to someone else, all the paperwork has to be changed, etc., and this goes on for the life of the firearm. Rather than register, why not just make a safety and handling class mandatory before one is able to purchase a firearm? Flash your hunting license or what-have-you at the gun store, and they'll know you can legally own one. Make selling it to someone without one an illegal action.

Because registration helps track guns so it's easy to identify one that has been stolen and makes it near impossible for black market criminals to legally purchase guns which they go on to sell.

I can't imagine the paperwork would be any different to transferring registration of a car and I do that at least 20 times a day. You fill out some details and mail it off, simple.

The red tape of the ATF is hilarious, though.
I remember a video that said having all 314 million firearms in America suddenly registered and grandfathered would backlog the ATF for years. Considering it takes 6-8 months to have the paperwork for licences to take NFA items across state lines returned, I would not be surprised.

[Northern Dominus]

Or "plinking targets", another favorite excuse of the firearms fetishists of the nation.

The only semi-valid reason for owning a military-pattern weapon is home defense, but even then an AR-15, AK, MP5, or any other semi-auto firearm patterened after an assault rifle or submachine gun is still a stupid choice. The best choice has always been and will always be a 12 gauge shotgun in the shortest legal length. Usually the sound of a shell being racked is enough to put any intruder off of a home invasion, and if not then 30 aught buckshot is more than enough to put a person down, even if they are wigged out on PCP or in the grip of some kind of madness. Add to that the fact that the pellets spread and therefore one doesn't have to be that accurate in order for it to be effective...

But no. Instead of even that "common sense" solution that includes a firearm, somehow that's not good enough. Somehow it goes from a simple firearm for home defense to being prepared for some sort of siege by the government stormtroopers that nessecitates a pistol in every room and several rifles in the closet in the minds of lunatics like Alex Jones. And in this sort of climate can we really expect any sort of logical thinking?

Ironically the people who call the "gun lovers" paranoid sure are paranoid about firearms

Oh I'm not paranoid about firearms. Nor am I vehemently against them. You're free of course to try and paint me in any other light of course, but just bear in mind I do best with fall colors so some version of red or orange if you please.

Instead I am of the mind that while the base rights accorded by the 2nd Amendment should be left intact, a perfectly reasonable and logical revision due to the advance of time, circumstance, and firearm technology has been hijacked by a small but very vocal and unnaturally well funded group of firearms fetishists, ones that elevate the firearm from a tool that makes the act of killing virtually effortless into an object of holy significance that is to be revered and never questioned in its majesty. This group, this Cult of the Gun, has turned any civil discussion regarding common sense firearms regulation into a hysterical clarion call invoking provocative, paranoid, and delusional language usually involving some sort of variations on the themes of "tyrrany" or a bastardization of what the founding fathers had in mind.

The advent of the automobile and the liscensing in order to operate one in a public sphere serves as the perfect example of what new firearms regulation can be based on. To wit: there is no law saying an individual can't own a car, and if they have the money they can buy as many as they want and keep them on their property. However, in order to operate one on a public roadway a person must demonstrate competence and skill in the operation of one, appropriate the nessecary vehicle idnetification, and continuallly renew both that certification of skill and that registry.

What exactly is the problem with applying that model to firearms? Without going into some paroxysm about "rights" or "big government tyranny" of course.

Out of curiousity, who of the pro-gun group on NS is opposed to registration on the grounds that the government will know who has guns and will take them away from you before tyranny is enforced?

I am opposed to registration. Not because of "What ifs?" so much as "Why?"s. If someone ends up selling a rifle to someone else, all the paperwork has to be changed, etc., and this goes on for the life of the firearm. Rather than register, why not just make a safety and handling class mandatory before one is able to purchase a firearm? Flash your hunting license or what-have-you at the gun store, and they'll know you can legally own one. Make selling it to someone without one an illegal action.

Right, and when those firearms still end up in the hands of street gangs that kill not only their rivals on the streets but innocent bystanders how exactly did those licenses help anybody?

If filling out paperwork to own a device that makes killing effortless is too much of a hassle for a person then clearly they don't have the maturity to handle such a device. Especially if that paperwork confirms that they're not a convicted felon or have a mental disorder that tells them to kill at random.

[Grinning Dragon]

Ill bite.
I am against registration. For me it just boils down to, it is of no ones business on what I own.

Are you similarly opposed to registering your car and your computer software?

Since driving is a privilege and not a right, I do not have an issue with that, but in the same token you do not have to register a vehicle if it is not driven on public roads. I have never registered any computer software.

[Alidina]

amen to that, nobodys going to tell me what i do and don't need to defend myself or my family, law or no law.

Then move.[/quote]
Isnt that the idea of keeping it at the state level, if you dont like your states gun ownership laws move.

[North Calaveras]

amen to that, nobodys going to tell me what i do and don't need to defend myself or my family, law or no law.

Then move.

Isnt that the idea of keeping it at the state level, if you dont like your states gun ownership laws move.[/quote]

the problem is if this passes it's federal

Trust me, I don't plan on living in California as bueitifal as it is here the laws are ridiculous and are not based in logic.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Because registration helps track guns so it's easy to identify one that has been stolen and makes it near impossible for black market criminals to legally purchase guns which they go on to sell.

I can't imagine the paperwork would be any different to transferring registration of a car and I do that at least 20 times a day. You fill out some details and mail it off, simple.

The red tape of the ATF is hilarious, though.
I remember a video that said having all 314 million firearms in America suddenly registered and grandfathered would backlog the ATF for years. Considering it takes 6-8 months to have the paperwork for licences to take NFA items across state lines returned, I would not be surprised.

I'm glad to hear the incompetence of government is a worldwide phenomenon

[Samozaryadnyastan]

amen to that, nobodys going to tell me what i do and don't need to defend myself or my family, law or no law.

Then move.

Isnt that the idea of keeping it at the state level, if you dont like your states gun ownership laws move.[/quote]
Moving state isn't easy.
It requires vast amounts of money and research before doing so.

[Iowa the Nation]

A lot of the left here would not like any kind of compromise on gay marriage. I would not like any compromise on my gun rights. Fair?

[Iowa the Nation]

amen to that, nobodys going to tell me what i do and don't need to defend myself or my family, law or no law.

Then move.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Because registration helps track guns so it's easy to identify one that has been stolen and makes it near impossible for black market criminals to legally purchase guns which they go on to sell.

I can't imagine the paperwork would be any different to transferring registration of a car and I do that at least 20 times a day. You fill out some details and mail it off, simple.

Where is the proof of this; helps track weapons and easy to identify?

This seems like asking for proof that a kettle boils water.

Helps track weapons: by registering each weapon to an owner the government can trace who rightfully owns what.
Easy to identify: checking the registration of a weapon against a database and identifying the owner.

[Spreewerke]

Ironically the people who call the "gun lovers" paranoid sure are paranoid about firearms

Oh I'm not paranoid about firearms. Nor am I vehemently against them. You're free of course to try and paint me in any other light of course, but just bear in mind I do best with fall colors so some version of red or orange if you please.

Instead I am of the mind that while the base rights accorded by the 2nd Amendment should be left intact, a perfectly reasonable and logical revision due to the advance of time, circumstance, and firearm technology has been hijacked by a small but very vocal and unnaturally well funded group of firearms fetishists, ones that elevate the firearm from a tool that makes the act of killing virtually effortless into an object of holy significance that is to be revered and never questioned in its majesty. This group, this Cult of the Gun, has turned any civil discussion regarding common sense firearms regulation into a hysterical clarion call invoking provocative, paranoid, and delusional language usually involving some sort of variations on the themes of "tyrrany" or a bastardization of what the founding fathers had in mind.

The advent of the automobile and the liscensing in order to operate one in a public sphere serves as the perfect example of what new firearms regulation can be based on. To wit: there is no law saying an individual can't own a car, and if they have the money they can buy as many as they want and keep them on their property. However, in order to operate one on a public roadway a person must demonstrate competence and skill in the operation of one, appropriate the nessecary vehicle idnetification, and continuallly renew both that certification of skill and that registry.

What exactly is the problem with applying that model to firearms? Without going into some paroxysm about "rights" or "big government tyranny" of course.

I am opposed to registration. Not because of "What ifs?" so much as "Why?"s. If someone ends up selling a rifle to someone else, all the paperwork has to be changed, etc., and this goes on for the life of the firearm. Rather than register, why not just make a safety and handling class mandatory before one is able to purchase a firearm? Flash your hunting license or what-have-you at the gun store, and they'll know you can legally own one. Make selling it to someone without one an illegal action.

Right, and when those firearms still end up in the hands of street gangs that kill not only their rivals on the streets but innocent bystanders how exactly did those licenses help anybody?

If filling out paperwork to own a device that makes killing effortless is too much of a hassle for a person then clearly they don't have the maturity to handle such a device. Especially if that paperwork confirms that they're not a convicted felon or have a mental disorder that tells them to kill at random.

Just because a gun is registered doesn't mean it can't get stolen... or "stolen."

Besides, if a gun is used in a crime, they just run the serial number. Ask the manufacturer (if possible) what shipment that firearm was in, trace it back to the gun store it came from. The FFL (gun store) has to keep written records of every transfer with the persons name, date of birth, height, SSN, etc., etc., along with the firearms serial number. These papers (Form 4473s) can only be accessed if necessary for the investigation of a crime. Registering the weapon would make no difference other than the Government having to skip a middle man and kick in your front door, unannounced, not dissimilar from the Ruby Ridge incident.

I think that is a big reason why folks are against gun registration: they don't want their dogs to get shot.

[Alidina]

A lot of the left here would not like any kind of compromise on gay marriage. I would not like any compromise on my gun rights. Fair?

That is a very good point, lefties that would be fair give some amd take some right.

[Vitaphone Racing]

A lot of the left here would not like any kind of compromise on gay marriage. I would not like any compromise on my gun rights. Fair?

Not really because unregulated gay marriage doesn't pose a risk to the community.

[North Calaveras]

A lot of the left here would not like any kind of compromise on gay marriage. I would not like any compromise on my gun rights. Fair?

Not really because unregulated gay marriage doesn't pose a risk to the community.

guns don't pose a risk to the community the community poses a risk to itself, whether it uses guns to do that is another issue.

[Iowa the Nation]

A lot of the left here would not like any kind of compromise on gay marriage. I would not like any compromise on my gun rights. Fair?

Not really because unregulated gay marriage doesn't pose a risk to the community.

http://www.city-data.com/top2/co8.html
http://www.city-data.com/top2/co9.html

Do you see a pattern?

[Vitaphone Racing]

Not really because unregulated gay marriage doesn't pose a risk to the community.

guns don't pose a risk to the community the community poses a risk to itself, whether it uses guns to do that is another issue.

Guns in the wrong hands pose a risk to the community. Most gun control advocates and even some pro-gun advocates are in favour of regulation to keep guns out of the wrong hands, or attempt to at least.

The common quip in response to this is "regulate criminals not guns" however this is exactly what's being done.

Law abiding gun owners don't get affected by sensible gun regulations.

[North Calaveras]

guns don't pose a risk to the community the community poses a risk to itself, whether it uses guns to do that is another issue.

Guns in the wrong hands pose a risk to the community. Most gun control advocates and even some pro-gun advocates are in favour of regulation to keep guns out of the wrong hands, or attempt to at least.

The common quip in response to this is "regulate criminals not guns" however this is exactly what's being done.

Law abiding gun owners don't get affected by sensible gun regulations.

That's not what being done though the assault weapons ban is targeting the firearms themselves, not criminals so....no

[Iowa the Nation]

guns don't pose a risk to the community the community poses a risk to itself, whether it uses guns to do that is another issue.

Guns in the wrong hands pose a risk to the community. Most gun control advocates and even some pro-gun advocates are in favour of regulation to keep guns out of the wrong hands, or attempt to at least.

The common quip in response to this is "regulate criminals not guns" however this is exactly what's being done.

Law abiding gun owners don't get affected by sensible gun regulations.

Banning guns (or many types of them) only affects criminals?

[Vitaphone Racing]

Not really because unregulated gay marriage doesn't pose a risk to the community.

http://www.city-data.com/top2/co8.html
http://www.city-data.com/top2/co9.html

Do you see a pattern?

Yes.

The counties in the top list are rural and those in the bottom are urban.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Guns in the wrong hands pose a risk to the community. Most gun control advocates and even some pro-gun advocates are in favour of regulation to keep guns out of the wrong hands, or attempt to at least.

The common quip in response to this is "regulate criminals not guns" however this is exactly what's being done.

Law abiding gun owners don't get affected by sensible gun regulations.

Banning guns (or many types of them) only affects criminals?

Who said anything about banning guns?

[Vitaphone Racing]

Guns in the wrong hands pose a risk to the community. Most gun control advocates and even some pro-gun advocates are in favour of regulation to keep guns out of the wrong hands, or attempt to at least.

The common quip in response to this is "regulate criminals not guns" however this is exactly what's being done.

Law abiding gun owners don't get affected by sensible gun regulations.

That's not what being done though the assault weapons ban is targeting the firearms themselves, not criminals so....no

Jesus.... where did I say anything about supporting the AWB? Seriously?

[North Calaveras]

That's not what being done though the assault weapons ban is targeting the firearms themselves, not criminals so....no

Jesus.... where did I say anything about supporting the AWB? Seriously?

I never said you did....

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Banning guns (or many types of them) only affects criminals?

Who said anything about banning guns?

Feinstein's proposed AWB2013 bans 200+ firearms by name, countless more that have 'detachable magazine plus one military-type (read, cosmetic) feature' aside from 900 'named sporting exceptions', while grandfathering (prohibiting from private sale as well as public) all 'assault weapons' currently in circulation.