Wow...that sure is a lot of faith you have in the government. Reading the hearts and minds to determine intent. So not only do you want to piss on the second amendment, you want to prosecute crimes before they even happen. How efficient.
How is asking that people attain their guns legally pissing on the 2nd amendment? Please tell me a good reason why someone would want to have an illegal gun? What justifiable reason? For what purpose? It should be a crime to have an illegal gun. By definition!!!!
You are asking for a new law to require complete and total gun registration for any and all sales. Whether you want to admit it or not, it is tailored (by your very own verbiage) to "going after the last registered owner." This, in and of itself, will as an unintended byproduct (if not intentionally) will create a need for that last registered owner to prove his or her innocence of a gun crime committed with that weapon. This turns the presumption of innocence on its head and does, in fact, piss on out criminal justice system and the Constitution that created it.
A few days ago, you were "torn" by the idea of gun registration. Now, you're compare it to Hitler? By the way, the Hitler quote is propaganda. There's no evidence that Hitler said such a thing. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership
The reason why I find myself torn on the notion of gun registration is the argument that the information can (and naturally would) be used by police in deciding who to target in the event of a gun crime. While at first blush, that sounds great, upon reflection that would have the end result of requiring that person to establish their innocence rather than requiring the police to locate eyewitnesses, other evidence, etc. It is something that would be very prone to abuse by the government.
Why must a gun be held to lower standards than a car? Every car is registered - and done so very tightly. And if a car is used in a crime, they first person they go to question is the last registered owner. This happened with the Times Square Bombing attempt. They found the last registered owner, and did they throw him in jail? No, they asked them whom he sold the car to and then found the terrorist! You are making a gross assumption that the last owner would be accused of the crime. That's completely absurd. They'd only be accused if the evidence was sufficient. Owning a gun is a responsibility, and every owner should be accountable for where that gun goes and ends up. If someone steals your gun, you should report it. And you should keep your gun secure. Just like we do with cars. If you want to have a gun, fine. Go ahead and have your 2nd amendment. But if you want to have a gun and be a part of society, to have deadly weapon - then I think it's fair for the rest of us to want to make sure of three things: 1. You are sane and not prone to violence 2. That you know how to properly use a gun and only to use it in self-defense or hunting 3. That if someone uses your gun to commit a crime, you can explain how your gun go out of your hands. Otherwise, I say, ban guns.
Ridiculous. LINK Chicago police officer killed in gun battle with suspect A Chicago police officer was shot and killed Wednesday afternoon during a struggle with a suspect in a police facility parking lot, police said The officer was walking to his vehicle in the parking lot at 61st and Racine on the city's South Side, after completing a shift with the department's Operation to Protect Youth Program, when he encountered the offender, said James Jackson, assistant superintendent of police operations. "The 24-year-old suspect disarmed the police officer and then shot him," Jackson said at a news conference Wednesday night. The department believes the suspect was involved in an armed robbery a short distance away after the shooting, said Jackson. "Several officers quickly responded and there was an exchange of gun fire with the offender. The suspect was shot. His injuries are non-life threatening," said Jackson. The suspect was in stable condition at Advocate Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, according to a police spokesman. Police would not release the name of the 43-year-old officer until all family members were notified, Jackson said. He said the officer was a veteran of the police force and worked in the education and training division.
So is your point to suggest that police officers shouldn't be allowed to have guns? I mean, since the subject disarmed the officer and shot him with his own gun?
Of course that assumes that all criminals are smart and resourceful. It's also pretty easy to take the gun with you and make it disappear after a crime, but as we know, plenty of shooters don't do that.
And what is the difference between that and the police using a database of vehicle registration or any other number of legally obtainable public records? I mean this already effectively exists as a part of the Brady Bill anyway.
I am concerned because the mindset is different. On more than one occasion in this very thread the assertion was made that we should have registration so we "could go after" the last registered owner. It is that "get 'em" mentality that exists that is very troubling to me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/politics/27guns.html?hp Interesting study that shows how cowboy states lax gun laws are allowing for crimes to be committed in states with stricter gun laws. So what we see as to why gun laws don't work in reducing crime is because people just obtain the guns in places like kentucky. I don't see how tighter gun control, for instance requiring psych evaluation, classes, and a permit to carry any weapon as well as a database of owners is a bad thing, it will save lives as well as allow lawful gun owners to have their precious guns to defend their homes.
I hear this argument a lot. That bad people will get their hands on guns regardless. But why is that in the US? I see in many Asian countries like China and Japan outlaw guns. And they're almost non-existent in society. I don't understand why this wouldn't be the case with America. Is our society just that enamored with the ability to kill people with the pull of a finger? That if there are no guns available legally, we're going to have a repeat of the prohibition where people start making and selling illegal guns underground?
Because some countries never had a lot of guns to begin with. In the US, criminals already have guns and they're not giving them up, and if every privately owned firearm disappeared tomorrow, the strong would still prey on the weak and evil would still organize into mobs, and the innocent would be helpless to defend themselves against these dangers.
They're cheap, easy to get, and there's no paperwork? Rest assured, not everyone who owns an unregistered gun is a criminal. That is absurd.
