Gun Registration. Why should gun owners be opposed?

Yet I cannot seem to find in historical data that supports your claim, and it has never been done in this country. You are speculating and coming up with theories, but at this time you have yet to proved the factual data to prove your theory.
I will add that I agree with the idea of registering only once as a gun owner, no need beyond that, what good it does is anyones guess. Law enforcement always treats every home as if there are guns present so that cannot be the reason and no one is coming around to take them away, as if they even could, so that isn't it, my guess is registration is another "feel good" rule that changes nothing but makes some feel more secure, just like any new gun controls or bans they want to pass, it will change nothing when it comes to security.

 

ok, on principle, i am against feel good laws, that change nothing. because there are already to many laws on the books, and if registration is a law that has no effect onk crime, then the only possible effect it does have is to identify the owners, and locations of firearms. for the purpose of finding them.

now why would someone want to find guns?

well, he government persons who are now pushing for legislation, have not been shy about saying on the record why they might want to find guns.

that is to take them

 

Gun registration was in effect when Hitler took power. He quickly passed gun bans and used those registration forms to locate firearms, detain what once were law-abiding citizens, and kill those who refused to surrender their guns. This is the same methodology, registration, then ban/seize, used by Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Castro. Just because a leader of today is a nice guy, there is no guarantee that the next guy is going to be. No guns under Obama, we could end up with Pelosi at the helm. Then we'd be in it really deep and no "shovel" to dig our way out.
It is smoke and mirrors..............take a look at the list and compare them to what kinds of weapons were used to commit crimes. Why all the extra guns on the list?

 

I did a quick search on this... As it turns out, the Weimar Republic (the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s) actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. That's right, the ALLIES forced these laws on Germany.

In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them. Hitler's 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years. In other words, he was pro-gun and relaxed the gun control laws.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/67-harcourt.pdf

Guess that myth is busted.

 

difference being, seat belt laws save lives, and are instituted as traffic laws that drivers of cars that are operated on public roads must follow.,

carb standards kill people.......

did you know that there is no mandate to register a car? to wear a seat belt, have a drivers licence, auto insurance. or even follow traffic laws. if i take care to only drive a car on my own land and never take it on a public road. i am not subject to traffic laws. of coarse, i do take on the consequences of driving in an unsafe manner anywhere i drive.

on carb standards, well, in effect, that is congresses attempt to repeal the laws of physics, thus, costing many american there lives, by forcing them into cars that are "unsafe at any speed"

but, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

first off, i did not say run the business, you said (quote) 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,(end quote)

I say, that opinion is logically unsupportable, because first,

even your wanna be straw man gangster has access to crack cocaine, where dose it come from, why, the coca tree. and that don't grow here. same for heroin, the opium poppy is not native to america. that grows in Asia. street thugs are commonly, either users, sellers, or both. and your straw man gangster-iod, may very well know someone with guns, and drugs for sale, even if he is not a member of XIV.

second.

a significantly large number of serious "gang banger's" (for instance, XIV, and all the others you conveniently left out) have been found to be as young as 11, commonly use, and sell guns on the street, are members of criminal conspiracies (the gang). are extremely violent. distribute drugs smuggled into the us. will not become CI'S under any circumstances.and are a huge crime problem in the us, many other countries. and, are not straw men. they also are known to deal with the drug smuggling cartels, and mafia family's and organised crime.

you brought up street gangs (your strawman gang banger), then made the ridiculously unsupportable assertion that street gangs had no contacts with international smugglers. and now, you still hold on to this patently false claim?

.....unbelievable.....

my advice, you are wrong, admit it, get over it, and move on!

a question on the point i think you may have been stumbling for.

can you in any way, support the legal fiction, that the law abiding american citizen must surrender the right to keep and bear arms, because it is possible that if they have guns, they will be stolen, and fall into the hands of criminals?

Afghanistan, Iraq. Switzerland, israel, just off the top of my head. are country, have less restriction than the us. most lawless regions of Africa. have either legal access. or guns are for the most part, prevalent, and uncontrollable in the region. including fully automatic battle rifles, not commonly for sale in the us.

and isn't it interesting, that England is an island, and has a drug, and gun smuggling problem? seems they can't stop criminals from getting guns if they want them. and our borders are harder to secure.

and isn't it interesting, that gunbanners in England don't have to contend with a constitution?

and isn't it interesting that you mist overcome the issue of the constitution in the us. in a legal manner, before you can ban guns?

all that aside.

can you tell me why England has a lower crime rate? i'm sure you think you know. but...i noticed you have a tendency toward logical fallacy.

Switzerland has almost universal gun ownership (as in most adult males, in the militia, have an automatic battle rifle, and ammunition in there home) and they have a lower crime rate than England... mexico, very restrictive gun control, but the crime rate is higher than ours, with more gun murders, and more significant mass murders. japans crime rate is likely lower than england's with strict gun control.

my point. i would say it dose not logically follow that more gun control is the controlling factor that equals less crime. as the test dose not stand, true when applied universally, to all nations.

in the context of only the american culture, more gun control has equaled more crime consistently, less gun control, equals less crime.


(and before you go there, about mexico. most of the cartels guns come from the black markets outside of north america. with the exception of the guns the "bureau of alcohol tobacco and firearms" had smuggled into mexico. and the military arms sold legally to the Mexican army from us manufactures, that made there way into the hands of the cartels so far, there is no evidence of significant non government sponsored gun smuggling from the us, into mexico. in reality, the military arms the cartels want, are less expensive elsewhere, or easily available from the Mexican police, and army arsenals)

 

and how did Hitlers liberality as far as gun control effect Jews, gypsy's, and other undesirables? how'd that work out for them hmm?

ohh ya. good Nazi's members that is, the government, and its registered supporters, they got guns. most regular citizens, had to ask, and the gestapo was i'm sure well aware of who had a permit, and where they lived.

the undesirables, well, they got confiscation, and then the ovens........

and, the dutch, the danish, the polish, checks, slovaks, France, all those other nations invaded by Nazi Germany. could the citizens there own guns? (note, we did not disarm the iraqi, or the afgan citizen when we invaded).


how about Hitlers best bud in 1938, Josef Stalin, already well into a Holocaust in his own country. how about him, liberal on gun control, or insanely restrictive.

 

He was pro-gun for anyone that was not declared an enemy.
Germany was the agressor in WWII.
The Allies forced an agressive nation that started WWII to surrender their guns? Why, hell, I guess the Allied forces should have laid their guns down, instead.
You are supporting Hitler? We were the bad guys?
You cite the perfect example of gun registration leading to seizure. Without registration, how could we have found all those guns held by German citizens? My God, how inhuman of us!!!!!

 

While this is an excellent link on stalking and violence against women I hardly see the relevance. The best possible defense a woman can have against a man stalking her and potentially attacking her is possessing a firearm for self-defence, being trained in how to use it, and being willing to use it to defend herself from an attack if necessity dictates. She sure can't reasonably defend herself from a stronger man and the crime statistics related to violence against women support this.

It has nothing to do with the issue I addressed that a private citizen cannot run an instant background check on either the person wanting to purchase a firearm or on the firearm to determine if it's stolen. The government has the database but has refused to allow individuals to access it online. All law abiding gun owners I know don't want to sell a firearm to someone prohibited from owning one nor do they want to purchase a stolen firearm. We would voluntariy use those two databases if the government would allow us to do so because it's in our best interests to use them. We don't require a law to require us to do that which we would do anyway. We need access and not mandates.

 

Couple of points;
I am against any more bans, they will change nothing,
Pelosi will never be President,
The next President, most likely a Repub next time around, will remove the bans imposed by this administration,
No one is coming to take you guns away, even the extremists are not stupid enough to try,
Being a student of history in particular World, US and German (my roots), I never saw anything about rounding up people with guns, in fact their civilian brown shirts had military weapons and were using them to fight the communists in the streets of German cities. Most Germans that owned guns in those days only had hunting guns and I know they did not come and take them since my own relations still had theirs after the war.
In conculsion, no one is going to take away our guns and if they tried then you truely would see an uprising in America.

 

You're right, when Hitler relaxed the gun laws in Germany for most citizens, he didn't change the laws (put in place by Allied countries) as they pertained to certain miniorities. This hardly makes him an example of a gun control implementer, which was the original argument.

That only goes to show that positions on gun control have nothing to do with tendency to tyranny. There are lunatics on both sides.

 

This is especially true when we cancel "socialist" programs to help battered women and then implement a program that makes it easier for stalking psychos to find them.

 

That sound familiar... How many pro-gun folks have you heard argue that the only real issue is with black males between 15 and 24?

Agreed. What does this have to do with whether or not Hitler implmented gun control?

Actually, they did this at the end of WWI, before Hitler rose to power.

Are you smoking crack? Saying Hitler did relaxed gun control policies in Germany doesn't mean I'm supporing anything he did. Stop making up stuff and blaming me for saying it.

What does this have to do with implementig registration in the United States unless you believe the United States is going to get it's ass kicked in WWIII, and the winners will use registration to take your guns away...?

 

you have conveniently left out some critical facts, at least two:
Jews in Germany were not allowed to own guns, so not everyone was allowed to posses or keep. Jews were forbidden
There were hardly any Jews left in the final months of WWII, so an opened season of buying guns served one purpose, to arm the civilians because Hitler knew the Allies were knocking on his door, of course he's want the citizens to buy to protect herr Motherland, Jews were still forbidden to own.
When the Allies finaly crushed the Germans, they used the gun registration to secure these items. So, registration does lead to confiscation.

 

Actually, I addressed this in another post above. You're just not special enough for me to repeat myself any more than necessary.

Actually, Hitler loosened the gun laws long before "the final months of WWII".

Only when a foreign power kicks your @ss and uses the registration records to disarm your conquered civilians. You see that happening to the world's only superpower any time soon?

 

no, somebody alreay dressed you down for this....I am merely following through.
to your last statement, yep. Maobamba and his ilk. You know, those people you you love so dearly...the one's who, like you, would see the Constitution demolished and replaced with Sharia Law

 

Fine, I'll repeat myself just to shut you up...
"You're right, when Hitler relaxed the gun laws in Germany for most citizens, he didn't change the laws (put in place by Allied countries) as they pertained to certain miniorities. This hardly makes him an example of a gun control implementer, which was the original argument."

Seriously grandpa, stop making stuff up, you're just advertising the fact that you've got nothing valid to say; not to mention harming what's left of your credibility. As for the president implementing sharia law, I'm not sure that his stated position on gay marriage is copacetic with the muslims...

 

Me? You're the one with visions of killing kids.....................
http://www.politicalforum.com/gun-c...ed-professionals-obligated-protect-you-9.html #81

 

LOL, the fact that I can easily picture you chasing kids off your lawn does not equate to me having visions of killing kids. That's not even close.

 

you're the one with that vision ..that is a product of a very sick mind.

 

Chuckling about some old geriatric chasing kids off his lawn isn't anywhere near as sick as maintaining the ability to kill because you're convinced THEY are out to get you...

 

who's out to get me?

 

I'm referring to your previous posts indicating I was collaborating with some kind of foreign invaders... and your constant paranoia about the (democratically elected) government waging war on it's own people... and your insistance that Obama is going to implement Sharia law right before he shows up in a black helicopter to personally take your weapon...

In other words, you're suffering from paranoid delusions- and you call ME sick... LOL.

 

paranoia is rooted in fear....I'm merely concerned about the growing trend. I'd say you've been a bit over the top, lately as evidenced in this post of yours.

 

Amen brother, all the antis here seem to be a bit over the top here lately, Me thinks they are struggling with facts and the rejection of their concepts

 

Agreed. Obviously these people have no information on the kind of nuttery our current government is getting up to.
What about the President deciding he can use drones to kill American citizens without due process?
What about the (for Chrissakes) Social Security Service purchasing large amounts of firearms and bullets?