The point being is the govt didn’t go on a house to house search all over the US for Japanese citizens like the govt would have to regarding guns. The reason? The US census bureau identified the homes of Japanese citizens for the govt. Whereas with guns there is no way for the govt to know which homes have guns. Therein lies the logistical impossibility of the govt confiscating guns in the US.
This is why the left pushes universal background checks -- they know UBC cannot be enforced without universal registration.
So the US Census Bureau records were used to aid in locating persons of Japanese heritage and the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the process. Interesting. I can see your point now. I guess you are right. The US Government will never ever consider a door to door search for guns. There is not even a remote possibility of that ever happening. (No, I'm sure no one in the Government would ever keep records from background check done through the NICS. I'm sure they would never think to go to gun dealers and confiscate records to see who bought guns.) Yeah, you are right.
Correct there is no possibility. Unless you think the 2nd amendment is going to be abolished. Do you know what it takes to abolish an amendment? You also realize, we had been attacked by the Japanese and therefore at war. Context is everything.
Exactly; context is everything. The US had been attacked by Japan. The US had not been attacked by Americans of Japanese heritage. Remember, context. You are exactly the kind of person the gun control advocates are looking for. The "Oh, it will never happen here" type. There is no need to abolish the Second Amendment. The plan of the un-gun crowd is to just chip away at it and undermine it by passing a little law here and a little law there; allowing States to pass their own laws. Talk about unconstitutional.
If there is not a federally licensed firearms dealer who can perform the background check, forcing both participants to travel to the location of one just to ensure all paperwork is in order, very few individuals are going to be motivated to do such when the firearms in question are not registered to them. This is especially so when the nearest federally licensed firearms dealer may be the next town over, and who knows how many miles and/or hours away.
Also if a FFL is involved a 4473 must be completed by the buyer, and in some states a waiting period kicks in requiring the buyer to make two trips to the FFL to complete the transfer. That stated, I would never transfer a firearm to a non-family member without getting a FFL involved, failing to do so leaves the seller in a position of being sued for a personal injury or wrongful death should the buyer injure or kill someone with the transferred firearm, running the firearm through a FFL will not totally eliminate the liability it greatly reduces' the liability by shifting it to the FFL.
But without gun registration, UBCs will be ineffective and unenforceable, meaning it will cost the law abiding time and money without imposing on the criminals at all.
The same thing was stated prior to the revelations by Edward Snowden that the united states government is spying on everyone, and monitoring and maintaining records of all online and phone data.
Indeed not. Such cannot actually be done if there is no method of enforcement, and the proposal is so easy to subvert without even trying.
Then why do so many politicians continually call for the registration of firearms? What possible reason could there be for maintaining up-to-date lists of who owns what firearms, and where those firearms are located?
Some think that we can have universal background checks with out having gun registration. I would agree that is likely possible but don't see the purpose of it. Background checks didn't seem to make any difference with Nikolas Cruz, Stephen Paddock, or Adam Lanza. So why bother with background checks?
