No. A person who does not have a gun (readily available in the moment) is always going to be less stupid than the person who does have one. Guns facilitate short-sightedness and reduced mental function by their very presence.
Yes, I admit that I have made some mildly or wildly ignorant posts (on other threads). The majority of them only appear stupid to you because they greatly exceed the capacity of the mustard seed that provides your cerebral function.
Not sure what point you are making to me, but I don’t believe any amount of registration would lead to confiscation later.
If I illegally buy a gun on the street or if I steal a gun, then no, it doesn’t.
I don’t think you know how cites work.
Of course its very rare. But when you need a gun you really need a gun there are very few substitutes that would suffice in some situations.
I was pointing out that we don’t need to speculate about what the government would do if it got its hands on a registry. We have an example of a federal registry and the federal government has never tried to confiscate those guns. I mean if you were going to confiscate guns, wouldn’t you start with the machine guns?
I may be mis-remembering, but wasn’t there a registry of assault rifles in one of the New England states (CT?) that was later used to implement a ban?
Just asking questions?
Yes, you are misremembering. The ban was put in place. Assault weapons may not be sold in NY and CT. Those who already have them may keep them if they register them. Presumably, that means that anyone found to be in possession of au unregistered assault weapon will be in violation and will have that weapon confiscated.
So basically … non-registration leads to confiscation. Chrissakes, the gun-clutchers can’t catch a break can they?
Only if the authorities actually find out you have one.
The vast majority of guns “on the street” start off as guns legally purchased from an FFL.* Registration helps us keep track of these legally purchased guns and over a period of time would restrict the flow of these legally purchased registered guns into the hands of criminals. It would become more and more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns and the flow of guns into criminal hands would be slower than the flow of guns out of criminal hands and would eventually lead to an equilibrium level (of criminals with guns) well below today. Its probably a bit slower and less effective than a total ban on guns but this method correctly puts the squeeze on criminals and not law abiding citizens. That’s the theory at least.
*There are some guns smuggled in from places like Brazil and the Philippines but the vast majority of them were legally purchased at some point.
States do all sorts of crazy shit. California has used registries for confiscation after a ban. And if the Senate and House of the United States starts to look like the California general assembly then the presence or absence of a registry is not going to make much difference. But I can’t name 30 states that would elect senators that would vote to confiscate guns. Heck I don’t think I can name 20 states that would do that.
Well before you get to confiscation the political environment for registration will already have occurred and that registration will not be designed to protect the rights of gun owners with HIPAA type protections or come with a national carry license or pre-emption of state and local laws. I think you can craft a handgun registration law that would provide more freedom to law abiding citizens while restricting access to criminals.
OTOH, its not like the gun control side is open to the idea of a national gun license or pre-emption of state and local gun laws. They want the registry without any compromise from their side.
Well, you can’t blame them, can you? All gun owners want to overthrow the government. All of them.
OK, so obviously you think I am overgeneralizing. So tell me which gun control advocates are willing to preempt all state and local gun laws and a national carry license in exchange for a national registry?
And failing that, what exactly is the gun control side willing to compromise on in exchange for a national registry?
Because as far as I can tell the compromise is that they won’t ask for anything else… … for now.
That is a pretty shitty compromise for the gun control side giving up something that many of its members consider pretty fucking horrible.
What is your obsession with a national registry? I mean, since gundamentalists like to analogize guns with cars, why not envision an analogous form of registration? There is no “national registry” of cars, but in this day and age, when a guy from Maine who gets in trouble in Arizona, the car gets identified in very short order.
IOW, state-based registration with interchange would serve the function without being a tyrannical national registry.
Gun owner loses all common sense when drunk, commits felony with gun. So, as they should, authorities come down on him with lead boots.
Tell us what the *real *problem is here. :rolleyes:
No doubt you understand exactly how he felt. He was having a bad day and now look.
One of those guns that recognizes only its owner wouldn’t work in the drunk case. Perhaps a built-in breathalyzer - “just exhale forcefully into the barrel”.