The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

I thought I would see how sane and rational some of our residents are.

Proposal for gun registration. (Gun registry is NOT currently in any federal proposal)

1) All guns manufactured, imported, or sold in the United States should be registered
2) The registry should contain all information needed to identify each gun uniquely
3) The registry should contain the manufacturer or importer information
4) The registry should contain the information on all gun brokers, retailers, and repair facilities who have ever handled the gun.
5) The registry should NOT contain information on private owners of the gun.
6) The registry should be available online to all legal authorities with standing. That is with a need to know gun registry information.

BilboBagend wrote:I thought I would see how sane and rational some of our residents are.

Proposal for gun registration. (Gun registry is NOT currently in any federal proposal)

1) All guns manufactured, imported, or sold in the United States should be registered
2) The registry should contain all information needed to identify each gun uniquely
3) The registry should contain the manufacturer or importer information
4) The registry should contain the information on all gun brokers, retailers, and repair facilities who have ever handled the gun.
5) The registry should NOT contain information on private owners of the gun.
6) The registry should be available online to all legal authorities with standing. That is with a need to know gun registry information.

Except when you combine that with Background checks, since the information in a BG contains the gun make/model and serial number, and since it's kept on file permanently, you make gun registration completely traceable to individual owners at all times.

In every country that has put "Registration" in place, it has lead to Confiscation.

Registration does not reduce gun crimes, the democrat mass murderers that did Columbine, the Aurora Theater, Sandy Hook, all used guns that would have still be available with registration and background checks.

Where the protection of the public fails is that liberal/progressive judges/doctors/police will not properly identify people that are a risk - and we already have systems in place for that, and they would block sales, but they are not being used - no additional laws needed.

The news has said that the gun registration number is NOT kept with the background check.

BTW:

Thanks for playing and failing. The task was to evaluate this proposal, it's intent, it's effect, it's desirability.

BilboBagend wrote:The news has said that the gun registration number is NOT kept with the background check.

And the "Background" check information was not supposed to be kept for more than 90 days, but the FBI has kept it on file and is not deleting any records.

And by "Kept" you mean, we're keeping the registration number in one database and the background check number in another database, but, both databases share common identifiers so that we can cross the registration to the background check and end up with the private owner of any gun that was registered because the background check information contains the gun make/model & serial number.

BilboBagend wrote:BTW:

Thanks for playing and failing. The task was to evaluate this proposal, it's intent, it's effect, it's desirability.

I did evaluate the "Proposal" and explained why the Proposal is not what it claims to be, why it's actually Private Registration, under the current system.

You fail because you can't see the truth and how things work, you only follow what you are told, and you are wrong, again, on this.

Ah, yes. With your usual necessary lies, delusions, and distortions. All is as usual.

BilboBagend wrote:Ah, yes. With your usual necessary lies, delusions, and distortions. All is as usual.

You can't even hold a conversation with discussion, you have to, always, resort to attacks and hate when your ideas are countered by real world evidence. Shame on you.

Right, liar leroy.

Let's see. Your reason for why this proposal won't work is that it will allow guns to be traced back to their owners. The method of tracing back this ownership is not because the data in is this database but because it is already in another database that is accessible to police authorities and that therefor this database will be able to be used to trace back gun ownership.

WTF?

No, that's just a mindless bullshit attack, not an analysis or anything valid for any reason.

If what you say is true then the whole issue is moot. The gun ownership database is ready available and already accessible. Total gun registration including ownership information already exists. There is no reason to have any discussion about a better way to do gun registration or evaluate any proposal.

Just more liar leroy lies, distortions, and diversions. No analysis, no discussion, no reasoning, no rationality.

Just more liar leroy attention whore behavior.

Dildumb, when was the last time you saw the government disband any database of information on people, completely, with no chance of keeping it and accessing it later? Even obama doesn't think you're that stupid.

Gun owner lists only exist to the first person, not past the first person, and most guns are not registered with individuals that currently have them. There is NO reason for gun registration, it doesn't reduce crime, it doesn't help solve crimes, it doesn't make you or anyone safer, it only allows a direct path to confiscation.

So, there you have it- the truth about your false proposal - it won't reduce crime, won't help authorities with crimes, and it only leads to confiscation.

Good idea liar leroy. All gun sales/transfers must be certified by a licensed gun broker and the broker must record the required data (exclusive of the names of the seller and purchaser) in the database.

Yes, it will have a positive effect. It will quickly show which dealers/brokers are dealing to criminals. It will add to the penalty from those operating outside the system. Oh, I am sorry7. We all know the "law and order" bigots hate "law and order" when it comes to guns.


BTW: You do know the term for those who threaten "2nd Amendment Remedies". The legal term is "traitor", punishable by death.

Proposal for gun registration. (Gun registry is NOT currently in any federal proposal)

1) All guns manufactured, imported, or sold in the United States should be registered
2) The registry should contain all information needed to identify each gun uniquely
3) The registry should contain the manufacturer or importer information
4) The registry should contain the information on all gun brokers, retailers, and repair facilities who have ever handled the gun.
5) The registry should NOT contain information on private owners of the gun.
6) The registry should be available online to all legal authorities with standing. That is with a need to know gun registry information.

Why?

BilboBagend wrote:Yes, it will have a positive effect. It will quickly show which dealers/brokers are dealing to criminals. It will add to the penalty from those operating outside the system. Oh, I am sorry7. We all know the "law and order" bigots hate "law and order" when it comes to guns.

You really are stupid - you even said that the registration won't be traceable to individuals, so, how can your proposal tie a gun to a criminal (since criminals are individuals too?).

You do know that the only real dealers putting weapons in the hands of the criminals is the Federal Government under Obama.

So, your "registration" can't have a positive effect, even if it does link the registration to the gun to the individual, because almost every criminal doesn't get his guns legally to start with.

Sorry liar leroy. Politics is a matter of compromise and getting the best one can to do the most good one can. It's not your ideal of doing only the most harmful. The proposal includes not tracing ownership because that is the most controversial issue. Thus it allows tracing sales/brokers/retailers/manufacturers but not private ownership. Not optimal, but effective compromise with much great potential.

You may go on about your irrational absolutist drivel with only malignant intent.

We don't need new gun laws, we need to prosecute criminals who miss use guns, we have a ton of gun laws already on the books. Currently liberals let the criminals who use guns walk rather than prosecuting them, so leave law abiding gun owners the hell alone.

Chicago, Los Angeles, New York Prosecuted Fewest Federal Gun Crimes

By Elizabeth Flock | March 28, 2013

The districts that contain Chicago, Los Angeles and New York City ranked last in terms of gun law enforcement in 2012, according to a new report from Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which tracks federal data. gun crimes include illegal possession of a firearm in a school zone, illegal sale of a firearm to a juvenile, felon, or drug addict, and illegal transport of a firearm across state lines. In Chicago, the majority of gun charges last year were for firearms violations such as a shootings. Data disclosed that a person using a gun in a crime is 90% more likely to be fully prosecuted in Kansas than in Chicago.

The districts of Eastern New York, Central California, and Northern Illinois ranked 88th, 89th and 90th, respectively, out of 90 districts, in prosecutions of weapons crimes per capita last year.
These cities also have some of the nation’s most restrictive gun laws, as well as the most active mayors in championing gun control. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa are all members of the national Mayors Against Illegal Guns campaign. While the districts that ranked lowest last year for gun crime prosecutions all contained major cities, the districts at the top of the list for its enforcement were almost exclusively rural. The districts of Alaska, Kansas and Western Tennessee ranked first, second and third in prosecutions of weapons laws per capita last year

The districts that contain Chicago, Los Angeles and New York City ranked last in terms of gun law enforcement in 2012 ....These cities also have some of the nation’s most restrictive gun laws, as well as the most active mayors in championing gun control.

It's not about prosecuting criminals committing gun crimes. It's about confiscating guns from law abiding citizens.

It always has been.

Yes brandon,

According to wackos and the NRA that's what it is about. The rest of the sane world knows better.

Now back to the issue. Does anyone want to comment or provide a counter proposal to the proposal rather than shoot at false strawmen? No one yet.

Now back to the issue. Does anyone want to comment or provide a counter proposal to the proposal rather than shoot at false strawmen? No one yet

Enforce the gun laws and stop putting criminals back on the streets...it's that simple

BilboBagend wrote:Now back to the issue. Does anyone want to comment or provide a counter proposal to the proposal rather than shoot at false strawmen? No one yet.

Your proposal invalidates itself with this item

5) The registry should NOT contain information on private owners of the gun.

You claim it will help reduce crime, but, if the guns can't be traced back to an individual, then they can't be connected to the person that committed the crime.

Additionally, there is no way to know if the gun was purchased legally or if it was sold or stolen by a private party and then ended up being used in a crime.

So, again, the only purpose of Gun Registration, which we technically already have thanks to the FBI background check, is to have a list available so that the government can, as it always does when this gets put in place, can confiscate weapons from law-abiding citizens, leaving the law-abiding citizens unable to protect themselves from criminals or a fascist government as our 2nd Amendment intended.

With people like Bilbo, it always comes down to other Americans giving up their rights and freedoms and religion to "accommodate" him.

So, no one with any honest real critique. Just the usual dishonest actors espousing predetermined positions without any thought or reason.

Ok.

Biblo, tell us why you want to do those things and what are you trying to accomplish? It's like telling a person they have to show up in person in New York to register their car for California, why? Tell us Bilbo, your recommendations make no sense, please explain.

You do come up with some strange shit.

I'll answer some questions if someone with some creditablity asks some questions. As to you justupid, I am not going to bother with disingenuous shit.

BilboBagend wrote:You do come up with some strange shit.

I'll answer some questions if someone with some creditablity asks some questions. As to you justupid, I am not going to bother with disingenuous shit.

The facts about your proposal have been presented, and we've even included the history of items that have been tried, and the reason they failed - you've provided NOTHING except personal attacks.

Try and defend your position, if you can.

Bilbo, suggestions to improve something only has merit if you can explain what those suggestions are to accomplish something positive.

Once you established that a suggestion can accomplish something positive then you have to determine if the suggestion can be done.

Once you established the suggestion accomplishes something positive and can be done, then you have establish if the value it adds out weighs any negatives.

We are waiting...

He won't reply with anything on topic or constructive - he got the list from a blog and doesn't understand it himself, so he can't really comment on it in any constructive manner - that's why he resorts to personal attacks.

If someone meets the standards and qualifications to possess a gun, then how is gun registration is a violation of the 2nd amendment???

elklindo69 wrote:If someone meets the standards and qualifications to possess a gun, then how is gun registration is a violation of the 2nd amendment???

Gun registration, through all of history, has only been used to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens. What business does the Government have knowing what guns anyone has?

What you might mean is - how is a Background Check a violation of the 2nd Amendment - and from what we've seen, the Background check information is maintained for life by the FBI - in effect creating a REGISTRATION tracking back to law-abiding citizens. If the information was destroyed, or not recorded, it would not be violation.

Where does the 2nd Amendment give any indication that a person has to be "Qualified" to own a gun?

If someone meets the standards and qualifications to possess a gun, then how is gun registration is a violation of the 2nd amendment???

There's a difference between background checks and gun registration. Run the background check to insure I'm not an Obamabot, let me buy my gun then shred background results when it comes back clear. Don't stick me in some data base to be harassed by Obamabots.

elklindo69 wrote:If someone meets the standards and qualifications to possess a gun, then how is gun registration is a violation of the 2nd amendment???

While I think you've confused Registration and Background Check, I have to ask:

What is it that you think Background Checks and/or Registration is going to do to protect citizens?

From all the info we have, all of the mass killings were done by people that would have passed a Background Check and Registration would not have prevented them from killing or in the police finding them any sooner.

The reason that Background Checks failed was because of the Liberals failing to follow the laws in notifying the police of unstable persons - and that's the single and sole fact that allowed these people to kill masses of others.

Oh, and in the case of the New Town school killings - what part of Registration or Background Check would have prevented the unstable man from taking his mothers weapons from her safe?

It looks like any background check law will exempt transfers/sales to family, friends, and neighbors (a hole one can drive an aircraft carrier through). Now there is a reason for a registry. Transfers need to be checked and a background check needs to be made, even if it's post facto.

BilboBagend wrote:It looks like any background check law will exempt transfers/sales to family, friends, and neighbors (a hole one can drive an aircraft carrier through). Now there is a reason for a registry. Transfers need to be checked and a background check needs to be made, even if it's post facto.

Not a single gun background check would have prevented the mass killings in the last few years, or any, because the liberals always fail to notify the authorities and register that the person is unstable.

So, transfers by law-abiding people won't stop anything.

BilboBagend wrote:I thought I would see how sane and rational some of our residents are.

Proposal for gun registration. (Gun registry is NOT currently in any federal proposal)

1) All guns manufactured, imported, or sold in the United States should be registered
2) The registry should contain all information needed to identify each gun uniquely
3) The registry should contain the manufacturer or importer information
4) The registry should contain the information on all gun brokers, retailers, and repair facilities who have ever handled the gun.
5) The registry should NOT contain information on private owners of the gun.
6) The registry should be available online to all legal authorities with standing. That is with a need to know gun registry information.

Actually I am going to go back to "why"?
Every gun manufactured or imported into the US with extremely limited exceptions already is registered by the manufacturer or importer.
Each gun can be uniquely identified by it's serial number.
Every FFL dealer who buys or sells the gun must keep a record of doing so.
Why should it be online? If the police have a Glock 26 serial number XXXX they can make a call and get who imported it and who initially sold it. Yes, more work and requires probable cause to get search warrants. But it will do the job.

The main thing holding up the idea of universal background checks is unrestricted and permanent use of those checks. I am all for universal checks, with statutory required deletion of the record in 90 days with no copies. The exception would be active, reported, criminal investigation. However we currently don't even investigate or charge felons who we catch lying on the background checks, so it's not like the current laws are doing any good.

Here is a novel idea, when the existing laws are fully enforceable and are enforced, we can see where we really are and what we need to do about more laws to safeguard against criminals.

The whole anti- gun movement is exactly that "anti-gun" and has nothing to do with gun violence. The long list of requirements that Bilbo outlined is all about stopping gun sales and tracking those who dare to "legally" own guns, it does nothing to fight gun violence. Conservatives are "anti-gun violence", liberals are "anti-gun", liberals cuddle gun violence criminals then return them to our streets, while conservatives want them locked up so we can stop gun violence.

It's time for every American who believes in our Constitution to vote against any politician who attempts to restrict the Constitutional rights of non-criminals to own a gun...no matter who they are. It's time to demand politicians start concentrating on getting the criminals (which they are not doing) and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

Carlos

Leroy wrote:

elklindo69 wrote:If someone meets the standards and qualifications to possess a gun, then how is gun registration is a violation of the 2nd amendment???

Gun registration, through all of history, has only been used to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens. What business does the Government have knowing what guns anyone has?

What you might mean is - how is a Background Check a violation of the 2nd Amendment - and from what we've seen, the Background check information is maintained for life by the FBI - in effect creating a REGISTRATION tracking back to law-abiding citizens. If the information was destroyed, or not recorded, it would not be violation.

Where does the 2nd Amendment give any indication that a person has to be "Qualified" to own a gun?

In the 1930s the government banned machine guns, and there were no mass government gun confiscations. And machine guns are used in how many crimes???

Also no right is absolute, it's perfectly fine to determine fitness of use. By allowing registration, it does not violate the constitution since you will be allowed to have a gun. The government requires registration for certain assemblies and for political fundraising...

Leroy wrote:

BilboBagend wrote:It looks like any background check law will exempt transfers/sales to family, friends, and neighbors (a hole one can drive an aircraft carrier through). Now there is a reason for a registry. Transfers need to be checked and a background check needs to be made, even if it's post facto.

Not a single gun background check would have prevented the mass killings in the last few years, or any, because the liberals always fail to notify the authorities and register that the person is unstable.

So, transfers by law-abiding people won't stop anything.

Not a single time has a "good guy with a gun" ever stopped a mass killing...

Not a single time has a "good guy with a gun" ever stopped a mass killing...

All of them were stopped when a good guy with a gun showed up, everyone one of them. Untold numbers of mass killings were never started because a good with a gun was already present.

There has ALWAYS in the history of the United States of America been certain weapons which the public has been allowed to have and others which they have not been allowed to have. Constitutional rights, all Constitutional rights, have always had limits. Even the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have limits. Strict regressive conservatives are strongly for limiting the right to life in many circumstances. I don't see how anyone can think that the right to life is a lesser right than the right to bear arms. Yet, many idiots on this board are for terminating lives and saving guns.

I don't see how anyone can think that the right to life is a lesser right than the right to bear arms. Yet, many idiots on this board are for terminating lives

Biblo I wasn't aware that you're a critic of abortions, good for you dude!

elklindo69 wrote:Not a single time has a "good guy with a gun" ever stopped a mass killing...

Elk, you're wrong - it happens in areas where guns are not banned or where people carry against the law, here is one example:

http://www.therightperspective.org/2012 ... l-shooter/

http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com ... eater.html

Just look for "man with gun stops shooting" in your favorite search engine - it happens all the time, mostly before it becomes a MASS KILLING.