Gun Registration. Why should gun owners be opposed?

I am a firearm owner and opposed to registration. When asked why distrust of government is my first response. That is often when we are accused of being paranoid. I will have to agree that in a perfect world registration would be effective in tracing weapons used in crimes. It would also provide more accurate data that could even show legal owners to be a benefit to society. Instead of the burden we are assumed to be by many scholars.

Another thing gun owners are often ridiculed over is the statement gun laws only effect law-abiding citizens not criminals. While technically true since once you stop obeying laws you become a criminal, it is at least slightly intellectually dishonest in many cases.

However when it comes to registration it is 100% correct it only applies to legal gun owners.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

What do those on both side of the issue think?

 

Because gun registration would do little to nothing to prevent crime. Gun control advocates know this.
The only reason they want gun registration is so the government will know exactly which doors to go knocking on when they eventually try to confiscate guns. This historical pattern has repaeted itself over and over again, and we have only to look at what happened in the UK and Australia. A gun that is registered is already as good as banned.

Now, it depends what type of registration you are talking about. Each gun can just be registered with the government without the government knowing who owns the gun. Or each gun owner could be registered, without revealing how many guns this gun owner has. If the registration was just limited to this, the opposition from gun owners would not be nearly as strong.

I have no problem if you just want to force convicted felons to register their guns though. (as long as the "felony" conviction was not just for the possession of an illegal type of gun )
Adding additional punishments to people already not allowed to own a gun seems rather redundant, though.

 

It would be unconstitutional to force them to register their guns. It can only be done to legal owners.

 

Seems like the same logic behind "hate crime" enhancements. The crime already has a punishment. It is non-sensical to add extra punishment on top of that. This is typical of Liberal lawmakers.

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/nsa...acility-can-process-yottabytes-of-information

So combine this, with a gun registry, and see if you can't answer the question yourself.

 

More gun control wont solve the problem. Educating the mentally ill will and keeping guns from criminals but not from good citizens.

 

I have already answered the question. I oppose it, was wanting other peoples opinion.

If the above is true they would already know who has weapons, so not sure a extra list would hurt us much though.

 

I registered my car years ago... Obama's bound to personally show up in a black helicopter to take my car away at any moment! Better grab my unregistered anti-aircraft missiles and get ready!

All jokes aside, you are right in one sense... Registration would only be relevent to legal gun owners. But where do you think the criminals get their guns? Do you seriously believe every 15 year old gang banger who has dropped out of high school to smoke pot and get tats with his friends has a network of ties to a massive web of international smugglers, or is it more likely he stole it from some inattentive gun owner in his neighborhood?

 

Its a lot easier than you think to get an illegal gun and for half the price. Registration leads to confiscation and a blatent overthrow of the most important amendment of the constitution.

 

To Texsdrifter: In answer to your title question:

1. Once the government knows where the guns are they can confiscate them at will.

2. Registration is imperative in abolishing the 2nd Amendment without actually repealing it.

3. From the government’s perspective United Nations treaties are the next best thing to registration.

4. The last thing the United Nations and American quislings want is a well-armed American citizenry should UN “peacekeepers” be called in to help the federal government put down a rebellion.

5. Registration is so important to the government Hussein is trying a backdoor approach to get there. Stronger background checks will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the criminally insane. Background checks help the government identify gun purchasers. Once the government does a background check the law-abiding American is tagged as a gun owner forever no different than registration.

I’m willing to bet that “background checks” will be the “compromise” Hussein has been after all along. Look for him promising to expunge the records of law-abiding citizens after they pass a background check.

 

I agree that the fact of the government knowing where the guns are, who has them and where to go to get them when/if they do bann them is the main reason for opposing registration of private transfers of guns. The salient point is that registration of guns, like police departments, does not prevent murders, only helps investigate them after the fact. So what is its importance to reducing violent crime?

 

The problem with background checks for private transfers is that, if they come to get your guns, you are either guilty of conceal them from being taken or transferring them illegally, without registration and background check. So, like the felon who failed to register, an otherwise law-abiding citizen is now a criminal unless he surrenders his gun.

 

If you could point to a history of cars being confiscated afterwards it would be a better analogy. While you might think it is unreasonable to fear it, you can not say it has never happend. Cars only have to be registered if you drive them on public roads. They are usually titled however that is more for tax reasons however.

Well, yes actually if you are purchasing a product like pot you usually have some ties to international smugglers. I agree however that most weapons at least currently are from this country. Theft from what I have seen is only responsible for 5-10% of weapons used in crimes. Straw purchases are the most common method according to reports I have seen. I grew up in the inner-city area of a large city, I assure you almost anything you want is available on the black-market. I do not claim that registration is useless it would be valuable for research. It is also expensive Canada ended their long gun registry due to cost and limited benefit. Most registration is limited to hanguns since that is the weapon of choice of criminals. Even in the most pro-control states, registration of long guns is not seen as worth the expense.

 

Because, if you are able to invesitgate crimes effectively and identify/apprehend/prosecute/sentence offenders who commit those crimes - as well as destroy the weapon(s) used - you are preventing every crime that person would have committed during the period of their incarceration.... Seems pretty self-evident to me.

 

Pot grows naturally in all 50 states. It's a pretty resiliant. I don't think we import that much pot, and I used to live in California...

It's nice to see someone comparing the US to a first-world democracy for a change. Usually I'm arguing when people are comparing the US to Mexico, or some random African nation... Back to the point... Wouldn't the application of registration laws to firearms that are currently in use for cars go a long way toward addressing the straw puchases?

 

I think it is completely ridiculous to think a criminal will be carrying a gun registered to him/her. I guess in the ******* world, the criminal would be considered legally unarmed? LOL Perp holding up a liquor store.....Owner says: "HEY that gun is ILLEGAL! You can't shoot me!"

 

Wow, that's really thick...
Obviously, if a gun was not registered, it would give the police something to arrest the carrier for BEFORE he walked into the liquor store.

 

So..That means that all criminals will have their guns confiscated? Surely you see the complete fallacy of your scenario...Talk about thick.

 

In most cases, if the guy was robbing a grocery store, it would already be illegal for him to have a gun, therefore the police could have already arrested him. Very rarely would that be his first crime, so if he had any drug convictions, violent crime convictions or any felony, the police already have a reason to arrest him for the gun. Registration would have done nothing.

 

So if I have jungle rot in my toe, it would be logical to cut off my leg, because without a leg, there is nothing that I would need a toe for and no pathway for the rot to reach my torso? Do we still subscribe to the principle that we maintain the liberties that we are guaranteed absent some close connection between the deprivation of that liberty and a compelling state interest? Here is a better thing--let's stop sending the message to those reared in our society that human life has no value by allowing mothers to kill their unborn children on the pretext of the absolutely, transparently specious argument that they are not really babies if they are still in the womb. We could send the unequivocal message that human life has uncompromisable value, and then people might understand that we really mean it and not think that a suitable way to garner national attention was to kill kids.

Oh, I'm sorry, is abortion a "right" that you might like to use? Then, of course, we cannot infringe that one. What article or amendment to the constitution was it again that contains the "penumbra" that contains that inalienable "right"? The politicians used to have a little ditty that went, "don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the man behind the tree". That describes perfectly your attitude that you don't care what or whose rights are done away with as long as you don't see any effect on your lifestyle from it on your horizon. And you don't care whether they will have any effect at all (they would not). A writer said it best the other day, when he explained that the real detrimental effect of this silly "response" to the killing of children is that 1) it will have no effect beyond the false sense of security that they have done something, when they have not and 2) that false sense of security will delay real solutions for as much as a decade.

 

Well medical marijuana has limited smuggling in some states. California always had humbolt county which is famous for it product. The rest of the US where prohibition is still very much the law of the land. Importation is I would guess 90% of the product. (Hawaii and Alaska excluded) The indoor hydro is very high dollar most people can not afford. The homegrown is such low quality not much demand. The DEA bust huge amounts yet that is only a tiny percentage of what comes in. I grew up in the "hood" the same people that sold marijuana sold more dangerous products as well. Not the best info been awhile since I researched this issue.

Our only comparison to Mexico is location. The only time I would even consider making a Mexico comparison would be comparing EL Paso vs Juarez. Since they are just seperated by a river.

As much as I would like to say no, I can not. Yes, It would be helpful in preventing straw purchases. That said since the vast majority of crimes are committed with a handgun. Not sure a long gun registry would be cost effective. It is not unconstitutional to require registration. Much like cars it is has always been a
state that makes it's own rules on registration.

 

Registration of large trucks may also not be cost effective in many cases, but is accepted as a component of "vehicle registration". So common sense that it's been accepted by every state in relation to transportation, but not firearms...

As if the ability to put holes in things gives you more freedom than the ability to move from place to place...

 

Actually, vehicle registration is a huge profit maker for most states. The state usually collects a fee that more than pays all of the expenses associated with the registration program, then they collect taxes every year based on the value of the vehicle that help pay for the functioning of the state and are pure profit for the state.

But it would be different if the federal government ran it. The bureaucracy would have to be bigger, so the fees would have to be higher. The federal government wouldn't be able to collect taxes for it because the constitution doesn't give the federal government the ability to tax individual property. It would just be an expensive program.

Now for cost/benefit considerations. Canada has recently ended their long-gun registry because it didn't do any good and it cost too much. (Here is a pretty good article discussing why.) A registry doesn't do much to help catch criminals, doesn't protect people, doesn't seem to reduce crime and is very expensive. Why should we create one?

 

All states have the right to decide their own policy. The analogy to cars is flawed because my firearms are never on public property. I do not have to register my farm truck I use on my land. My four wheelers do not require registration. I can admit registration would be helpful in investigating crimes. I would also think cars would be safer with a regulator installed to prevent them going over 75. A breathalyzer system installed on all new cars would save lives as well. I would not agree to those being a requirement either. Even though that would save far more lives than registration of firearms. If states decide to require registration that is their right.

 

No, you're worried that registration leads to confiscation. It doesn't necessarily lead to confiscation at all. And a totalitarian government that wished to confiscate all privately held firearms wouldn't bother if weapons were registered or not, they'd simply go out and search for them.

- - - Updated - - -

Overblown rhetoric. No evidence, no argument, just a bunch of assertions.