I don’t want to confiscate any guns that are currently legal for unrestricted private ownership.
Firearms are not immune from regulation nor is any gun inherently violent. It’s an inanimate object.
we already have legal remedies for defective products.
There is no consensus on this at all. And we do not hold constitutional rights up to consensus nor should we.
Your concern for gun owners is duly noted and disbelieved.
That’s hardly an answer. I had to pass a federal background check when I bought my semi-auto handgun. Does that count as a restriction on private ownership?
spurious connection. you claimed gun registration leads to confiscation, and failed to prove your case. this was not registration.
Gun registration certainly makes confiscation a lot easier. In the case of the proposed Assault Weapon Ban, it’s explicitly for eventually banning the grandfathered firearms, by registering who the legal owner is so they can’t be sold or transferred, then making sure they’re impounded when the registered owner dies. That the government won’t be immediately going door to door rounding up guns doesn’t change the fact that it will be a slow-motion confiscation.
ed anger, did you just copy and paste that entire thing? Is there some reason you can’t come up with a cogent position yourself? Unfortunately, the website you found is not particularly cogent either.
This article is trying to draw a connection between regulation of unsafe consumer products and firearms. The problem is that firearms are demonstrably not unsafe. Gun owners would not tolerate an unsafe firearm, e.g. a firearm that was defective, likely to be fired unintentionally, likely to explode when fired, etc.
The argument for regulation of guns is that they can be used to intentionally harm others - not they are inherently dangerous or unsafe. So this whole little screed you lifted from the “Violence Policy Center” is based on a flawed and/or misleading premise.
Firearms are weapons, yes. That does not mean they are “inherently dangerous”. “Inherently dangerous” implies that firearms cannot be controlled by their user, and pose a danger by their very existence - like an automobile with a defective steering system that could fail at highway speed. This is not the case.
Again, this article is confusing the issue. Regulation of defective guns in the same manner as regulation of other defective consumer products is a non-issue in the gun control debate.
There is no category of guns shown to pose an unreasonable risk of injury. This is just absurd. A person can pick up any gun and intentionally shoot someone. Just like a person can pick up any knife and intentionally stab someone. Or get in any car and intentionally run someone over. Hell, you can beat the shit out of someone with a $5 tire iron if you want to.
Guns can be used to intentionally harm people. Fine, I am perfectly happy to discuss ways to keep guns out of the hands of people who are likely to want to harm people. But pretending that guns are “inherently dangerous”, and that this should be the basis of some kind of new regulatory scheme ,is stupid, and exposes the author as someone who has probably never even handled a gun.
The key word is registration. This is the line in the sand. And the argument for this line does not alter it’s movement by the width of an atom.
it’s called an Assault Weapon Ban, I don’t think the intent is hidden, no?
artemis was arguing that all people suggesting registration have a hidden agenda toward a complete ban of all firearms, I’m saying there’s absolutely no proof of that. be as paranoid as you want though, that seems to be a common gun owner refrain.
The existence of some people that would be satisfied with a registration program is irrelevant. I’m sure you are correct. But there exist plenty of people who want nothing short of a complete ban, and support a registration program because it would make it easier for them to achieve their goal. A year or two after a registration program was passed, they’d start pushing for more.
there’s people on all parts of the spectrum. it doesn’t negate the fact that registration and additional safety requirements could save lives and should be introduced.
Are you claiming that there has never been registration followed by seizure in the United States, or anywhere?
read the thread.
If I believed that a gun registration program would not be hijacked as part of a later total ban, I would agree with you. Unless, in exchange for a gun registration program, the gun control advocates would accept passing a constitutional amendment that clearly and explicitly states semi-auto handguns/rifles/large-capacity magazines/etc. will never be banned, I would not support a firearm registration program. Of course, they’d never agree to that.
I think a reasonable solution would be a gun owner registration/licensing program. I don’t see any problem with requiring that every gun owner or operator have a license. And I don’t see what additional benefit a firearm registration program would provide over that anyway.
All people? No. A couple hundred politicians, yes.
ah, so this is an anti-government thing. good luck with that.
If you quote someone–even an article–make sure that you use the QUOTE tags, (or, at least, quotation marks" to show that you are using someone else’s words.
In addition, the text you quoted was about at the outer limit of the amount of text that could be quoted without exceeding fair use guidelines.
[ /Moderating ]
You might not realize that I’m actually pretty much in favor of a fairly comprehensive suite of laws concerning licensing, mandatory training, and even registration.
Unfortunately, due to the actions of anti-gun politicians in many metropolitan areas in this country and due to a large amount of anti-gun rhetoric expressly calling for bans, political feasibility is at an all-time low for any changes to law that might make confiscation easier.
No, it’s the anti-citizen thing they promote.
well then, we agree on a position.
and i agree it would take a considerable amount of political capital to get anything passed. imho time spent better elsewhere until more people come around, but it’s still in the news.
Really? REALLY?
What if a violent, truly random act were ever to happen to your spouse and a gun could prevent it? Your elderly parent? Your child?
Wonder what they’d say about your stance?
If a gun could help protect me or a loved one from a violent, truly random act I’d be glad the 9mm was nearby.
A few years ago my girl friend and I woke up in our bedroom at 2 am to find an intruder standing there. I chased the guy out of the house. In the 32 minutes it took for the call to the authorities to the arrival of the police, my girl friend went from a tree hugging gun hater to a committed gun owner.
She hasn’t changed her mind sense.