Shot heard around the world be fired first in Conneticut?

[seanD]

Why are people so against a gun registry?

CP sort of touched on this. But if I asked Tony Guglielmo why there was a need to register my guns, he would likely answer: "The goal is to have fewer of these types of weapons in circulation." So I would address your question with another question. How does registering these guns keep them from circulation? What did he mean by that?

[Raphael]

CP sort of touched on this. But if I asked Tony Guglielmo why there was a need to register my guns, he would likely answer: "The goal is to have fewer of these types of weapons in circulation." So I would address your question with another question. How does registering these guns keep them from circulation? What did he mean by that?

I'm guessing more red tape for people to jump through means less people who are going to bother to jump through the red tape.

I've only lived in countries where you have to have your guns registered. And the reason why I don't own any guns apart from my paintball markers, is I really couldn't be bothered dealing with the paper work, whereas a friend of mine who enjoys hunting happily did the paper work and has, between his roommate and him, a small arsenal of rifles and shotguns (no pistols as they are a LOT more restricted, i.e. lots more paper work hoops to jump through)

[seanD]

I'm guessing more red tape for people to jump through means less people who are going to bother to jump through the red tape.

I've only lived in countries where you have to have your guns registered. And the reason why I don't own any guns apart from my paintball markers, is I really couldn't be bothered dealing with the paper work, whereas a friend of mine who enjoys hunting happily did the paper work and has, between his roommate and him, a small arsenal of rifles and shotguns (no pistols as they are a LOT more restricted, i.e. lots more paper work hoops to jump through)

There are two things wrong with that assumption. It doesn't guarantee it will keep those arms out of circulation among law abiding gun owners, and certainly not unlawful gun owners. Lawful gun owners may not see it as an inconvenience, being that Connecticut already had strict gun laws prior. Secondly, the strict gun laws prior to the Sandy Hook tragedy still didn't keep them out of circulation and prevent the attack (I'm referencing the attack because this was the lynchpin that inspired it). So if it didn't stop the circulation of arms before the policy, then it seems like a pointless legislative redundancy.

So you can see from the standpoint of a gun owner why they'd suspicious of the policy. That should answer PM's question.

[Cow Poke]

So you can see from the standpoint of a gun owner why they'd suspicious of the policy. That should answer PM's question.

Exactly. Unless they have a compelling reason (probable cause) to know what guns (if any) I have, they don't need that information. I am a law abiding citizen, and innocent until proven guilty.

(I do believe there are reasons to know -- such as I am mentally ill*, a convicted felon, have threatened my neighbors with violence, etc)



*Rogue has long made this assertion

[Carrikature]

That's another interesting issue that could lead to an even deeper debate. What if a government employee/employer feels that a law is unconstitutional.

I think you could skip the government employees and jump straight to citizenry. There's nothing particularly special about most government employees. The sheriff (and perhaps military) are in a unique position of having been sworn to uphold the law. To then publicly state that they will refuse seems to be dereliction of duty, plain and simple.

Well, that's how we get "sanctuary cities". I'm just saying that there's a lot of hypocrisy when somebody demands that officials "faithfully execute their office" by upholding laws, while, at the same time, implementing a policy of ignoring laws like immigration of "whatever". So much of it comes down to politics, not justice.

Definitely. For what it's worth, I'd be less in favor of police showing leeway if we could get some of the stupid laws off the books.

Exactly. Unless they have a compelling reason (probable cause) to know what guns (if any) I have, they don't need that information. I am a law abiding citizen, and innocent until proven guilty.

(I do believe there are reasons to know -- such as I am mentally ill*, a convicted felon, have threatened my neighbors with violence, etc)



*Rogue has long made this assertion

I agree to an extent. I'd much rather they focus the efforts on the true root causes like mental illness. You and I both know that labels for any gun are very arbitrary, and that stopping semi-automatics doesn't hinder anyone with experience from throwing a hail of lead.

[KingsGambit]

CP sort of touched on this. But if I asked Tony Guglielmo why there was a need to register my guns, he would likely answer: "The goal is to have fewer of these types of weapons in circulation." So I would address your question with another question. How does registering these guns keep them from circulation? What did he mean by that?

From his perspective, I think this registry might be a viable means to lower the number of guns only if guns were a relatively new invention and there weren't already so many out there. The genie is already out of the bottle; there are guns everywhere, and even outright banning them would simply shift it to a newly lucrative black market. Meanwhile, the people who plan on misusing their guns aren't the ones who are going to register them.

[lilpixieofterror]

Why are people so against a gun registry?

You mean beyond the fact that such measures would have done nothing to prevent mass shootings and are just (at best) a knee jerk reaction that doesn't solve the actual problem, but ends up costing lots of money to implement?

[Psychic Missile]

If the government isn't going to do anything with it, why are they so interested in a gun registry?

I think doing something with it would be the point.

have you seen Red Dawn?

Who's coming to take over swaths of the country?

Just curious -- what other personal property (kept in our homes) does the government routinely require us to "register"?

And the government has demonstrated a willingness to abuse "collected information", like IRS filings, applications for tax exemptions, etc. Who gets to see this "registry"? What is its purpose? What guaranty do we have it won't be leaked?

Source: Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

© Copyright Original Source

What probable cause does the government have that gives them an interest in what I keep in my own home?

If it's that you don't trust the government, other countries that have gun registries haven't had them abused, to my knowledge. Is there a reason to be particularly distrustful of the US government? I also don't think a registry qualifies as a search or seizure.

CP sort of touched on this. But if I asked Tony Guglielmo why there was a need to register my guns, he would likely answer: "The goal is to have fewer of these types of weapons in circulation." So I would address your question with another question. How does registering these guns keep them from circulation? What did he mean by that?

Maybe in regard to gun show and private sale?

You mean beyond the fact that such measures would have done nothing to prevent mass shootings and are just (at best) a knee jerk reaction that doesn't solve the actual problem, but ends up costing lots of money to implement?

Not if you're just talking registration, but with other legislation in combination I do believe prevention would be possible.

[Cow Poke]

Who's coming to take over swaths of the country?

The dadburn liberals.

[lilpixieofterror]

Not if you're just talking registration, but with other legislation in combination I do believe prevention would be possible.

Like what?

[KingsGambit]

I think the notion of selectively enforcing laws is more widespread than we think. Remember that snake handling pastor who died? Snake handling is against the law in Kentucky but they openly said they weren't going to enforce that law.

[Darth Executor]

I think the notion of selectively enforcing laws is more widespread than we think. Remember that snake handling pastor who died? Snake handling is against the law in Kentucky but they openly said they weren't going to enforce that law.

To be fair, the law is probably unconstitutional.

[Jedidiah]

Like what?

Exactly! Gun control is not at all about protecting anyone. It is purely and simply about controlling people. No law will stop the evil we see in these mass killings in schools - or anywhere else.

[Zymologist]

I think doing something with it would be the point.



Who's coming to take over swaths of the country?



If it's that you don't trust the government, other countries that have gun registries haven't had them abused, to my knowledge. Is there a reason to be particularly distrustful of the US government? I also don't think a registry qualifies as a search or seizure.



Maybe in regard to gun show and private sale?



Not if you're just talking registration, but with other legislation in combination I do believe prevention would be possible.

Is "because it's untrustworthy" not good enough?

[Cow Poke]

To be fair...

You're getting soft.