Newspaper publishes list of gun owners
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
- Status
There's a lot of controversy these days about how First Sale doctrine is being whittled away, but I agree with stienman that this habit of making things "technically not illegal just unreasonably onerous" is getting eye-rollingly ridiculous.
--Patrick
--Patrick
Did you just alert your elite commando unit to start the operation in northern canuckistan?
Let's just say some forum members' houses will soon be swarmed by elite Mariachi op teams.
Let us pray they survive the night...
This could be a useful tool for parents to make sure their children never play at a house where someone owns a gun.
Cause all guns are registered, of course.
Wouldn't it be easier to just... teach kids not to play with guns? It's the whole alcohol thing again, if you demonize it when they're kids, they'll be all over it as soon as you turn your back.
Guns are more likely to kill a family member or accidentally shoot someone than ever to kill someone threatening the house/family.
Umm... ok? What the fuck does that have to do with the post you quoted, which was answering your quip about "not letting your children play in houses with guns"?
You said in your own post that telling kids not to do something makes them want to do it even more.
You already covered the reason I objected to what you said. I see you didn't mean that all dogs were a menace, so I retract my statement.
As the owner of a pit bull, who has been through much obedience training and is the nicest dog I've ever had, I grow tired of people assuming that all dogs are evil/dangerous/engines of destruction. I know some can be dangerous, like almost any other living thing, but it's a constant battle out here to keep cities from banning certain breeds or sizes outright. And then there's the panicked look people give me when I'm walking my dog on a leash. It's just a sore spot.
And just to be clear, I'm not really in favor increased gun control. I would actually favor loosening some of the restrictions here in California. Just make background checks mandatory (even private sales) for all would-be gun owners to make sure they aren't felons or otherwise dangerous.
Literally every setence here contradicts itself! Mandatory background checks for private sales would be a HUGE tightening of restrictions and increased gun control in EVERY definition of the word!
No I certainly didn't. I said DEMONIZING it does. Putting a full ban "NO NO GUNS NO!" is what makes them do it even more. If you sit down and talk to them and maybe even let them handle one in a shooting range, or buy them a BB or something, they won't go all crazy about it and handle it like they do everything they're familiar with.
Nice try to prevaricate my words, though.
Guns absolutely need to be demonized, it's completely sick to me to have them be some normal part of life, they fucking kill people
Guns don't need to be demonized. What we need is for society to not accept behavior which trivializes guns and their role in our society. Guns aren't the problem, our attitude toward them is. Our society does not properly respect the power of firearms because they are too busy arguing about the stupid shit like who gun control favors or how the NRA will react to some tragedy.
Cars kill more people.
Should cars be demonized? Or maybe just properly trained and educated on?
Beleive it or not, there are a lot of people in this world that want to go to the US and take everything you take for granted.
I'm not asking you to be afraid of the world, just don't be a naive tool.
that's why the military and police should have guns
also I hope everyone knows how much it kills me to think the only people having guns are the fucking police
It must give you a bit of cognitive dissonance.
You completely understand why people fear the police being the only ones with guns (Police corruption isn't just a possibility, it happens. Power corrupts, there are many people in this world that would love an opportunity to be a noble of the past and rule over the lower class with impunity.)
citation needed
I thought something like this must've been at work. Your reaction seemed too knee-jerk to not be personal.
Hey, it took us until the very end of 1994 before my home State finally legalized doomweasels, but even though they're legal now, the State is still pretty anal about them. Also, what with recent events, the general sympathy level around here is likely to be somewhat lower than usual, even though as a whole this area is traditionally more tolerant of the breed.[DOUBLEPOST=1357697476][/DOUBLEPOST]
I didn't realize you worked in the aerospace industry.
--Patrick
Actually, I think guns should be as regulated as cars. You should need to pass a test to get your license and the thing should be registered and insured.
This seems reasonable. I concur.
CARS KILL MORE PEOPLE LETS BAN CARS
is officially the worst argument of 2013
is officially the worst argument of 2013
GasBandit
Staff member
You don't have to register or insure your car if you never take it off your property (farm truck, for example). The only justification for it being registered is so it can be taxed because you use it on "public roads."
It'd be difficult to find a comparison more apples and oranges than cars and guns.
It'd be difficult to find a comparison more apples and oranges than cars and guns.
It's also a bit of a logical fallacy. Neither guns nor cars kill people, but the usage of either one can. Cars are likely used far more often than guns in our country, even on a percentage basis. Bare minimum, for the "cars kill more people" argument to work, you'd have to establish comparable time units of usage under which fatalities were achievable, determine how many of those units actually resulted in fatalities, and compare them as percentages.
You only have to license, register, and insure your vehicle if you use it on public roads. If you use it on private land, or you transport it using a trailer then it doesn't have to have any of that.
To make the same situation work for guns, you'd have to define simply carrying a gun in public as "using" it, which doesn't exactly translate. You'd also have to determine whether a loaded gun is usable or not - so could one carry an unloaded gun if it's not registered or licensed? States grapple with this a little bit for the open carry and concealed carry laws, if you transport guns without a concealed carry license there are rules for how it can be transported and whether it's loaded or not.
If you only plan on keeping it at home, and using it only on your property, and never taking it on public lands, usable or not, you can't legally be forced to register it - again without changing the second amendment, or its interpretation.
If you only hunt with it, and store the gun and ammo in separate locked containers or disassembled between home and private land where you have permission to shoot you again can't force licensing and registration.
But the real problem with licensing and registration is that you completely defeat the "tyranny" part of the second amendment. If the gov't has a list of gun owners and users, they can quickly reduce the gun ownership to near zero. Even if you somehow grappled with the issues above regarding public vs personal property and use, you'd still have to modify the second amendment. Either eliminate the word "infringe" or the whole "free state" bit.
Please keep in mind that this is also complicated by the fact that states have a desire to prevent federal tyranny, and so it's important for, say, texas to make sure its citizens are armed in such a way that the federal government can't dissolve the state of texas and replace all its leadership with federal leadership. This is important because the constitution forbids the states have their own standing army. Note that each state has a national guard - but it's a federal military, only employed by the state, and the federal government holds the reins.
Regarding the "well regulated militia" part, one can read the supreme court's interpretation of that passage here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
It does not mean that people have to be part of a militia in order to legally obtain guns, nor can the law restrict them in that manner.
We've done about all we can for gun control without changing the second amendment. The next step would actually be to redefine gun ownership nationwide by rewriting the second amendment. At that point all these, and many more, options are on the table. Until then, though, nothing else can be done.
- Status