A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

     

    Please explain how filing off a serial number can make a gun inoperable.

     

    Just forget about the millions and millions of guns that are currently available??? That's some plan. You do realize the guys we'd want to track are the one that are currently on the streets illegally right??? Sigh




    If we have the technology to get a 2000 lb bullet to fly 2 miles, or have the technology to make bullets fly around corners, then i'm sure we have engineers that can figure out how to tie a serial number to the firing mechanism.

    As I said...the guns that are already out there need a different approach.  A combination of police work, and buy back initiatives....funded by a draconian tax on guns and ammo would be my preference.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    the crooks are off to another source




     

    Which is why the proposals would close off other sources.

    Stop drinking so much so early. It's hurting your brain cell



    Sigh.

    You are just plain stupid.

    Closing off LEGAL sources disrupts a couple of crooks, and no crazies.

    Proposals to close off LEGAL sources of guns does not impact ILLEGAL sources of guns.

    Face it:  The gross stupidity of the left in understanding market theory is really impinging on your ability to make a cogent argument about gun control.

    Proof that liberals are dumber than boxes of rocks on top of two planks nailed together.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

     

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I'm referring to guns purchased now.  Its 2013.  We have the ability to track locations with tiny microchips, we could make guns inoperable if the serial is tampered with, and we can make it just plain harder to get guns.

    You've been watching too many movies.

    So you doubt we have this technology?  Make it a requirement and watch how fast it gets done. 




     

     




     

     



    Please explain how filing off a serial number can make a gun inoperable.

     

    Just forget about the millions and millions of guns that are currently available??? That's some plan. You do realize the guys we'd want to track are the one that are currently on the streets illegally right??? Sigh



    Liberals tip their hand here.  What they want is to track LEGAL guns.  they just don't see illegal guns as a problem.  After all, those using illegal guns, i.e. innercity gang bangers, if they vote at all, vote Democrat.

    Legal gun owners, on the other hand, generally dfon't vote Democrat, and represent an obstacle, at least in spirit, to their plan to change "government of the people" to government on the people".

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:



    Bullets fly around corners do they? And what type of gun shoots a 2000 lb "bullet"???

     

    So there IS no technology available to make guns inoperable if a seriel number is filied off. Thanks!

     




    The answer to both questions is military weapons designed by military weapons contractors.

    You don't have much faith in engineers do you?  Regulations are always pushing engineers to build safer and more efficient items.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

     

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

     

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I'm referring to guns purchased now.  Its 2013.  We have the ability to track locations with tiny microchips, we could make guns inoperable if the serial is tampered with, and we can make it just plain harder to get guns.

    You've been watching too many movies.

    So you doubt we have this technology?  Make it a requirement and watch how fast it gets done. 




     

     




     

     



    Please explain how filing off a serial number can make a gun inoperable.

     

    Just forget about the millions and millions of guns that are currently available??? That's some plan. You do realize the guys we'd want to track are the one that are currently on the streets illegally right??? Sigh

     



    Liberals tip their hand here.  What they want is to track LEGAL guns.  they just don't see illegal guns as a problem.  After all, those using illegal guns, i.e. innercity gang bangers, if they vote at all, vote Democrat.

     

    Legal gun owners, on the other hand, generally dfon't vote Democrat, and represent an obstacle, at least in spirit, to their plan to change "government of the people" to government on the people".

     



    Hey dummy....the supply of illegal guns is legal guns.  Sorry you don't grasp that.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:


     



    So again, what type of gun shoots a 2000 lb "bullet". And what type of gun shoots bullets that can change direction by flying around corners?

     

     

    shooting around corners


    http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/print/volume-13/issue-7/news/new-small-arms-weapon-helps-soldiers-shoot-around-corners.html

     

    battleship artillary info.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armament_of_the_Iowa_class_battleship

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:


     



    Ummmm yeaaaaah....ok...the first one is not bullets that "fly around corners" as you claimed. The bullets explode to hit targets that are around corners. Much MUCH different than bullets flying around corners.

     

    The other is an artillery shell....not a bullet. Again, two VERY different things. Unless you think people shoot .22 caliber artillery shells out of handguns.

     




    Nevermind....you're right.  Personal weapon's technology has already been pushed as far as it can go.  Putting a tracking device in a handgun is Star Trek stuff.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to UserName99's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

     


     



    So again, what type of gun shoots a 2000 lb "bullet". And what type of gun shoots bullets that can change direction by flying around corners?

     

     

     

     

    shooting around corners


    http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/print/volume-13/issue-7/news/new-small-arms-weapon-helps-soldiers-shoot-around-corners.html

     

    battleship artillary info.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armament_of_the_Iowa_class_battleship



    Alrighty then.  you seem to think it is important, let alone feasible or financially possible, to take leading edge technology and make it immediately mainstream.

    When I made the comment about "knock-out gas", I should have said "laughing gas".

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    the crooks are off to another source




     

    Which is why the proposals would close off other sources.

    Stop drinking so much so early. It's hurting your brain cell

     



    Sigh.

     

    You are just plain stupid.

    Closing off LEGAL sources disrupts a couple of crooks, and no crazies.

    Proposals to close off LEGAL sources of guns does not impact ILLEGAL sources of guns.

    Face it:  The gross stupidity of the left in understanding market theory is really impinging on your ability to make a cogent argument about gun control.

    Proof that liberals are dumber than boxes of rocks on top of two planks nailed together.




    As far as the original proposal goes, there wouldn't be a closing off or a banning of any kind - that's why I think it's a serious proposal.  Once you say ban this or ban that, you start to close off discussions.  If we're just talking about presenting proof that you're a lawful gun owner before buying ammunition, then there is no infringement on legal sources of guns.

    The effect is that the legal guns can easily be used for their lawful intent, and the illegal guns are more difficult to use at all.  Yes, illegal guns are still out there, but how do you use them?  Yes, there will be illegal bullets out there, but they will be much more difficult and expensive to obtain.  

    Yes, you would need a gun registry to verify lawful ownership, but that's far from infringement.  How many times did we see posts about a car being as dangerous as a gun? Guess what - you have to register your car.  Also, it doesn't have to be a national program, so long as there is accountability if records are missing.  Heck, let the NRA keep the records - they could use it as both a registry and a marketing list!

    This is a cogent argument.  "You're dumber than a box of rocks" isn't a cogent rebuttal.  

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    The catalyst for the current gun control  "safety" debate was Sandy Hook coupled with a recent string of mass shootings in Virginia Tech,  Arizona and Colorado.  There is outrage over the needless loss of young innocent lives.  As horrific as these events were; our real gun problem is driven by urban violence and gun death numbers like in Chicago with over 500 gun related deaths last year.

     

    The mass shootings have preponderantly been the result of young men who slipped through the mental health system and came out of college situations.  If these guys couldn't have been identified and appropriate interventions prescribed what makes us think that any changes in gun laws or screening could catch them before they act.   We have a mental health problem not a gun problem for these horrific instances.

     

    Now the urban gang banger violence; that's a whole other problem that needs early anti-gang intervention and alternatives for today's inner city youth.  Their guns are black market guns and no restrictions on legal purchasing will really change that.

     

    But that being said it doesn't mean we should do nothing.  Enforcement of existing laws would help; having Mass report mental health concerns to the Feds instead of them being precluded in doing so by a 1970's law could help.  Requiring all purchases of weapons to include background checks; thus closing the gun show and private sale loopholes, could help in preventing those guns from being diverted into the black market. 

     

    That being said I don't support a uniform nationwide gun registry, it's a big brother thing. 




    The mental health argument is both 100% true, and a total crock of sh1t.  Yes, if everybody in country were healthy and responsible, we wouldn't be having problems with mass shootings or crime or climate change or debt or anything really.  If you're serious about it, then you should support a mental health screening for all gun purchases.

    What happens when the science of psychology says that MassModerateJoe has the potential to be a shooter?  Do we lock you up?  Take away your guns?  Medicate you against your wishes?  Will the republicans be OK with this - sure, they revere science, but it seems like that's a lot less constitutional than preventing you from performing your duties in the militia.

    Verifying ownership of a gun when ammo is purchased would exactly address inner city crime.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    The catalyst for the current gun control  "safety" debate was Sandy Hook coupled with a recent string of mass shootings in Virginia Tech,  Arizona and Colorado.  There is outrage over the needless loss of young innocent lives.  As horrific as these events were; our real gun problem is driven by urban violence and gun death numbers like in Chicago with over 500 gun related deaths last year.

     

    The mass shootings have preponderantly been the result of young men who slipped through the mental health system and came out of college situations.  If these guys couldn't have been identified and appropriate interventions prescribed what makes us think that any changes in gun laws or screening could catch them before they act.   We have a mental health problem not a gun problem for these horrific instances.

     

    Now the urban gang banger violence; that's a whole other problem that needs early anti-gang intervention and alternatives for today's inner city youth.  Their guns are black market guns and no restrictions on legal purchasing will really change that.

     

    But that being said it doesn't mean we should do nothing.  Enforcement of existing laws would help; having Mass report mental health concerns to the Feds instead of them being precluded in doing so by a 1970's law could help.  Requiring all purchases of weapons to include background checks; thus closing the gun show and private sale loopholes, could help in preventing those guns from being diverted into the black market. 

     

    That being said I don't support a uniform nationwide gun registry, it's a big brother thing. 

     




     

    The mental health argument is both 100% true, and a total crock of sh1t.  Yes, if everybody in country were healthy and responsible, we wouldn't be having problems with mass shootings or crime or climate change or debt or anything really.  If you're serious about it, then you should support a mental health screening for all gun purchases.

    What happens when the science of psychology says that MassModerateJoe has the potential to be a shooter?  Do we lock you up?  Take away your guns?  Medicate you against your wishes?  Will the republicans be OK with this - sure, they revere science, but it seems like that's a lot less constitutional than preventing you from performing your duties in the militia.

    Verifying ownership of a gun when ammo is purchased would exactly address inner city crime.

     



    Like I said I'm OK with background checks to buy weapons/ammo; a fire arms ID requiring some level of training, medical signoff and renewal every four years like a drivers license is all OK.

    If you have a valid card you can buy.  But I'm not OK with a registry.

    Laws won't have a direct positive impact on inner city crime as criminals don't abide by laws.  Laws could slow down the number of guns making it to the black market.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    if we could make a smart gun with serial numbers that match your social security number and then have specially made bullets with the same, and put a computer chip in each gun that can scan your retina, then make bullets that sense their target and decide whether or not to discharge, then the mentally ill, criminals and illegal aliens who are killing innocent people will not do it....

    these are the dumbest suggestions i have ever seen.....

    how about making better people, being better parents, making better choices in life and taking responsibility for your lives and your children????  THAT would lower the rate of violence in this country...and get a freakin job too!!!!!

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    Require every gun to have a ballistics report of a bullet fired from the gun and sent to the FBI.

    Make the last person who was registered to the gun liable for any crimes committed with the gun.  If you bought the gun and it was stolen from you and then used in a murder, then you can be sued.  You sold the gun at a gun show and it was later used in a murder - you can be sued.

    You bought the gun - you're responsible for the gun.

    And if your mentally disturbed child kills you and uses your guns to hunt down little children, your estate can be sued and your homeowners insurance policy has to pay.

    If they passed that law, then I would be OK with not banning Assault Rifles.

    This is America - force the insurance companies to do what the Government is afraid to do. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    The catalyst for the current gun control  "safety" debate was Sandy Hook coupled with a recent string of mass shootings in Virginia Tech,  Arizona and Colorado.  There is outrage over the needless loss of young innocent lives.  As horrific as these events were; our real gun problem is driven by urban violence and gun death numbers like in Chicago with over 500 gun related deaths last year.

     

    The mass shootings have preponderantly been the result of young men who slipped through the mental health system and came out of college situations.  If these guys couldn't have been identified and appropriate interventions prescribed what makes us think that any changes in gun laws or screening could catch them before they act.   We have a mental health problem not a gun problem for these horrific instances.

     

    Now the urban gang banger violence; that's a whole other problem that needs early anti-gang intervention and alternatives for today's inner city youth.  Their guns are black market guns and no restrictions on legal purchasing will really change that.

     

    But that being said it doesn't mean we should do nothing.  Enforcement of existing laws would help; having Mass report mental health concerns to the Feds instead of them being precluded in doing so by a 1970's law could help.  Requiring all purchases of weapons to include background checks; thus closing the gun show and private sale loopholes, could help in preventing those guns from being diverted into the black market. 

     

    That being said I don't support a uniform nationwide gun registry, it's a big brother thing. 

     




     

    The mental health argument is both 100% true, and a total crock of sh1t.  Yes, if everybody in country were healthy and responsible, we wouldn't be having problems with mass shootings or crime or climate change or debt or anything really.  If you're serious about it, then you should support a mental health screening for all gun purchases.

    What happens when the science of psychology says that MassModerateJoe has the potential to be a shooter?  Do we lock you up?  Take away your guns?  Medicate you against your wishes?  Will the republicans be OK with this - sure, they revere science, but it seems like that's a lot less constitutional than preventing you from performing your duties in the militia.

    Verifying ownership of a gun when ammo is purchased would exactly address inner city crime.

     

     



    Like I said I'm OK with background checks to buy weapons/ammo; a fire arms ID requiring some level of training, medical signoff and renewal every four years like a drivers license is all OK.

     

    If you have a valid card you can buy.  But I'm not OK with a registry.

    Laws won't have a direct positive impact on inner city crime as criminals don't abide by laws.  Laws could slow down the number of guns making it to the black market.



    The point of the proposal is that if you have an illegal gun, you can't buy ammo for it.  I'm hearing a bunch of talking points, but nobody's come up with a flaw in the logic.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to macnh1's comment:

    if we could make a smart gun with serial numbers that match your social security number and then have specially made bullets with the same, and put a computer chip in each gun that can scan your retina, then make bullets that sense their target and decide whether or not to discharge, then the mentally ill, criminals and illegal aliens who are killing innocent people will not do it....

    these are the dumbest suggestions i have ever seen.....

    how about making better people, being better parents, making better choices in life and taking responsibility for your lives and your children????  THAT would lower the rate of violence in this country...and get a freakin job too!!!!!



    Here, here!  Let's take responsibility for our lives by never knowing or caring where the ammunition used in gun crimes came from.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    the crooks are off to another source




     

    Which is why the proposals would close off other sources.

    Stop drinking so much so early. It's hurting your brain cell

     



    Sigh.

     

    You are just plain stupid.

    Closing off LEGAL sources disrupts a couple of crooks, and no crazies.

    Proposals to close off LEGAL sources of guns does not impact ILLEGAL sources of guns.

    Face it:  The gross stupidity of the left in understanding market theory is really impinging on your ability to make a cogent argument about gun control.

    Proof that liberals are dumber than boxes of rocks on top of two planks nailed together.

     




     

    As far as the original proposal goes, there wouldn't be a closing off or a banning of any kind - that's why I think it's a serious proposal.  Once you say ban this or ban that, you start to close off discussions.  If we're just talking about presenting proof that you're a lawful gun owner before buying ammunition, then there is no infringement on legal sources of guns.

    The effect is that the legal guns can easily be used for their lawful intent, and the illegal guns are more difficult to use at all.  Yes, illegal guns are still out there, but how do you use them?  Yes, there will be illegal bullets out there, but they will be much more difficult and expensive to obtain.  

    Yes, you would need a gun registry to verify lawful ownership, but that's far from infringement.  How many times did we see posts about a car being as dangerous as a gun? Guess what - you have to register your car.  Also, it doesn't have to be a national program, so long as there is accountability if records are missing.  Heck, let the NRA keep the records - they could use it as both a registry and a marketing list!

    This is a cogent argument.  "You're dumber than a box of rocks" isn't a cogent rebuttal.  

    I'm actually of a mixed mind on registration.  But:

    There isn't an amendment in the constitution indicating that your right to own a car would not be infringed.  We register cars, BTW, not to keep people safe, but so we can tax them, fine them, control them.  These things are not done for the benefit of people, but the government.  In comparison, the second amendment is for the benefit of people, and limits the ability of the government to infringe on your rights.  Plain and simple, our rights to own a car are infringed, and legally so.

    So registering guns can be honestly seen as an infringement. But, again, I'm not completely sold that it is an unreasonable idea. Jury is still out.

    HOWEVER, again, this does nothing to address the real problem, crooks, gang banger, and crazies, to whom gun registration is a meaningless thing.  Parroting The dufus senator dopey durban, what is so hard about this concept that you do not get?

     

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BilltheKat. Show BilltheKat's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    Ban assault type weapons.

    Ban large magazines.

    Make gun owners responsible for their guns via fines...

    ..therefore making gun owners buy insurance for ownership.

     

    Lock 'em up and/or be responsible for your actions. (FYI: a conservative meme).

     

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    the crooks are off to another source




     

    Which is why the proposals would close off other sources.

    Stop drinking so much so early. It's hurting your brain cell

     



    Sigh.

     

    You are just plain stupid.

    Closing off LEGAL sources disrupts a couple of crooks, and no crazies.

    Proposals to close off LEGAL sources of guns does not impact ILLEGAL sources of guns.

    Face it:  The gross stupidity of the left in understanding market theory is really impinging on your ability to make a cogent argument about gun control.

    Proof that liberals are dumber than boxes of rocks on top of two planks nailed together.

     




     

    As far as the original proposal goes, there wouldn't be a closing off or a banning of any kind - that's why I think it's a serious proposal.  Once you say ban this or ban that, you start to close off discussions.  If we're just talking about presenting proof that you're a lawful gun owner before buying ammunition, then there is no infringement on legal sources of guns.

    The effect is that the legal guns can easily be used for their lawful intent, and the illegal guns are more difficult to use at all.  Yes, illegal guns are still out there, but how do you use them?  Yes, there will be illegal bullets out there, but they will be much more difficult and expensive to obtain.  

    Yes, you would need a gun registry to verify lawful ownership, but that's far from infringement.  How many times did we see posts about a car being as dangerous as a gun? Guess what - you have to register your car.  Also, it doesn't have to be a national program, so long as there is accountability if records are missing.  Heck, let the NRA keep the records - they could use it as both a registry and a marketing list!

    This is a cogent argument.  "You're dumber than a box of rocks" isn't a cogent rebuttal.  

     

     

    I'm actually of a mixed mind on registration.  But:

    There isn't an amendment in the constitution indicating that your right to own a car would not be infringed.  We register cars, BTW, not to keep people safe, but so we can tax them, fine them, control them.  These things are not done for the benefit of people, but the government.  In comparison, the second amendment is for the benefit of people, and limits the ability of the government to infringe on your rights.  Plain and simple, our rights to own a car are infringed, and legally so.

    So registering guns can be honestly seen as an infringement. But, again, I'm not completely sold that it is an unreasonable idea. Jury is still out.

    HOWEVER, again, this does nothing to address the real problem, crooks, gang banger, and crazies, to whom gun registration is a meaningless thing.  Parroting The dufus senator dopey durban, what is so hard about this concept that you do not get?

     

     




    My suggestion is that if it's not a legal, registered gun, then you can't buy ammo for it.  Let the criminals have all the illegal guns they want - just make harder for them to load.

    It's a huge stretch to suggest a registry infringes on the right to bear or keep arms, but even if it did - the makeup of the registry could be handled by the states, or even the merchants.  As long as there are sufficient penalties for missing records (well within the enumerated powers of Congress to enact) that would do just fine.

     

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    the crooks are off to another source




     

    Which is why the proposals would close off other sources.

    Stop drinking so much so early. It's hurting your brain cell

     



    Sigh.

     

    You are just plain stupid.

    Closing off LEGAL sources disrupts a couple of crooks, and no crazies.

    Proposals to close off LEGAL sources of guns does not impact ILLEGAL sources of guns.

    Face it:  The gross stupidity of the left in understanding market theory is really impinging on your ability to make a cogent argument about gun control.

    Proof that liberals are dumber than boxes of rocks on top of two planks nailed together.

     




     

    As far as the original proposal goes, there wouldn't be a closing off or a banning of any kind - that's why I think it's a serious proposal.  Once you say ban this or ban that, you start to close off discussions.  If we're just talking about presenting proof that you're a lawful gun owner before buying ammunition, then there is no infringement on legal sources of guns.

    The effect is that the legal guns can easily be used for their lawful intent, and the illegal guns are more difficult to use at all.  Yes, illegal guns are still out there, but how do you use them?  Yes, there will be illegal bullets out there, but they will be much more difficult and expensive to obtain.  

    Yes, you would need a gun registry to verify lawful ownership, but that's far from infringement.  How many times did we see posts about a car being as dangerous as a gun? Guess what - you have to register your car.  Also, it doesn't have to be a national program, so long as there is accountability if records are missing.  Heck, let the NRA keep the records - they could use it as both a registry and a marketing list!

    This is a cogent argument.  "You're dumber than a box of rocks" isn't a cogent rebuttal.  

     

     

    I'm actually of a mixed mind on registration.  But:

    There isn't an amendment in the constitution indicating that your right to own a car would not be infringed.  We register cars, BTW, not to keep people safe, but so we can tax them, fine them, control them.  These things are not done for the benefit of people, but the government.  In comparison, the second amendment is for the benefit of people, and limits the ability of the government to infringe on your rights.  Plain and simple, our rights to own a car are infringed, and legally so.

    So registering guns can be honestly seen as an infringement. But, again, I'm not completely sold that it is an unreasonable idea. Jury is still out.

    HOWEVER, again, this does nothing to address the real problem, crooks, gang banger, and crazies, to whom gun registration is a meaningless thing.  Parroting The dufus senator dopey durban, what is so hard about this concept that you do not get?

     

     

     




     

    My suggestion is that if it's not a legal, registered gun, then you can't buy ammo for it.  Let the criminals have all the illegal guns they want - just make harder for them to load.

    It's a huge stretch to suggest a registry infringes on the right to bear or keep arms, but even if it did - the makeup of the registry could be handled by the states, or even the merchants.  As long as there are sufficient penalties for missing records (well within the enumerated powers of Congress to enact) that would do just fine.

     

     



    What problem does serializing ammo solve? What's the identity of the shooter in question during any of these shootings over the past? 

    Again, I think you are trying to solve a problem of illegal activity by infringing legal activity.

    the left apparently does not want to infringe illegal gun owners rights, or Chicago would not have more people killed every year than coalition troops in all of Afghanistan.

    look, I think you will find that most gun owners don't want illegal guns any more than you do.  So, instead of trying to curtail their rights, how about curtailing illegal gun owners rights? it how about house by house sweeps of Chicago In the areas where gun violence is the worst?  Is that any more of an infringement of people's rights Than encumbering an entire nation of legal gun owners?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    the crooks are off to another source




     

    Which is why the proposals would close off other sources.

    Stop drinking so much so early. It's hurting your brain cell

     



    Sigh.

     

    You are just plain stupid.

    Closing off LEGAL sources disrupts a couple of crooks, and no crazies.

    Proposals to close off LEGAL sources of guns does not impact ILLEGAL sources of guns.

    Face it:  The gross stupidity of the left in understanding market theory is really impinging on your ability to make a cogent argument about gun control.

    Proof that liberals are dumber than boxes of rocks on top of two planks nailed together.

     




     

    As far as the original proposal goes, there wouldn't be a closing off or a banning of any kind - that's why I think it's a serious proposal.  Once you say ban this or ban that, you start to close off discussions.  If we're just talking about presenting proof that you're a lawful gun owner before buying ammunition, then there is no infringement on legal sources of guns.

    The effect is that the legal guns can easily be used for their lawful intent, and the illegal guns are more difficult to use at all.  Yes, illegal guns are still out there, but how do you use them?  Yes, there will be illegal bullets out there, but they will be much more difficult and expensive to obtain.  

    Yes, you would need a gun registry to verify lawful ownership, but that's far from infringement.  How many times did we see posts about a car being as dangerous as a gun? Guess what - you have to register your car.  Also, it doesn't have to be a national program, so long as there is accountability if records are missing.  Heck, let the NRA keep the records - they could use it as both a registry and a marketing list!

    This is a cogent argument.  "You're dumber than a box of rocks" isn't a cogent rebuttal.  

     

     

    I'm actually of a mixed mind on registration.  But:

    There isn't an amendment in the constitution indicating that your right to own a car would not be infringed.  We register cars, BTW, not to keep people safe, but so we can tax them, fine them, control them.  These things are not done for the benefit of people, but the government.  In comparison, the second amendment is for the benefit of people, and limits the ability of the government to infringe on your rights.  Plain and simple, our rights to own a car are infringed, and legally so.

    So registering guns can be honestly seen as an infringement. But, again, I'm not completely sold that it is an unreasonable idea. Jury is still out.

    HOWEVER, again, this does nothing to address the real problem, crooks, gang banger, and crazies, to whom gun registration is a meaningless thing.  Parroting The dufus senator dopey durban, what is so hard about this concept that you do not get?

     

     

     




     

    My suggestion is that if it's not a legal, registered gun, then you can't buy ammo for it.  Let the criminals have all the illegal guns they want - just make harder for them to load.

    It's a huge stretch to suggest a registry infringes on the right to bear or keep arms, but even if it did - the makeup of the registry could be handled by the states, or even the merchants.  As long as there are sufficient penalties for missing records (well within the enumerated powers of Congress to enact) that would do just fine.

     

     

     



    What problem does serializing ammo solve? What's the identity of the shooter in question during any of these shootings over the past? 

     

    Again, I think you are trying to solve a problem of illegal activity by infringing legal activity.

    the left apparently does not want to infringe illegal gun owners rights, or Chicago would not have more people killed every year than coalition troops in all of Afghanistan.

    look, I think you will find that most gun owners don't want illegal guns any more than you do.  So, instead of trying to curtail their rights, how about curtailing illegal gun owners rights? it how about house by house sweeps of Chicago In the areas where gun violence is the worst?  Is that any more of an infringement of people's rights Than encumbering an entire nation of legal gun owners?




    Serializing ammo allows you to trace it back to the point of sale.  How did the criminal get the ammo?  If the merchant did not verify ownership, he/she did not act responsibly, and should at the very least be accountable in civil suits.  If the transaction was valid, did the buyer then lose track of his ammo, or sell it on the black market?  In that case, shouldn't the buyer be held accountable?

    Where is the infringement in this case?  I don't see it - is it the registration?  Realistically, if you're on the fence about it, then the 95% of the country to the left of you is probably fine with it, right?  So other than that - what's the problem?  We're not banning anything.  Nothing gets taxed or made more expensive for lawful gun owners.  Where's the infringement?

     

     

Share