gun owners

[pgardn]

Which is why the founding fathers didn't specify what you just said, bifurcation man.

I don't want locks on my bedroom door, ergo I think all locks are bad.

That is NOT what was stated.

The paranoia is real. The odds of it actually ever happening seem to increase as things like registries develop. What makes it a remote possibility? Because you don't think of it? Or because of the cons ution?

Registries develop? What? Lists have always been around. We find lists that are 10,000 years old? If you mean the advent of lists becoming digital making it more efficient that's more valid. But they still have incredibly important uses in a heavily populated world. Case in point, vaccines.... Oh come right in, we don't need to quarantine you? We may need more.

You just arbitrarily decide what you want to accept based on which way you lean already since you have no compelling evidence either way. Its something you introduced then said you don't believe it.

What?

Guns are frkn everywhere in this country. Is this not the case? How do you possibly retrieve them at this point in time?

[mingus]

It's a fetish in a way, tied to their "masculinity" in a lot of cases IMO. If they don't have one attached at the hip they suffer from impotency & have weird ideas, like wishing their spouses/SOs would pound them in the ass w/ a 14-inch strap-on.

In other cases, I suppose it makes them feel more important. Buying a gun & showing it to everyone doesn't make them any more of a target for anything (eg. robbery, burglary), it just gives them an idea to think about that tells them that when/if by small chance one day, maybe, their miserable, boring & unsatisfying life turns into a Die Hard movie, they can be John McClane.

Then you got the paranoid nutcases who live their lives in fear of getting mugged or robbed, or that the govt. is after them (think John Nash from A Beautiful Mind, except w/ half the IQ).

Then you got the hunters, whose gun enthusiasm is tied to that. And I respect that. I like hunting for both its social interaction &/or compe iveness. If having big gun collection that you like to show off enhances that, then that's cool. I totally see that & I'm fine w/ that...However, it stops being fine when your fat, old cowboy hat wearing ass can't climb into a blind w/o getting short of breath or w/o risking re-braking the knee you broke when you were the 3rd string QB on your High School JV football team. At that point, you need to quit living in the past & hang up your guns, cowboy hat & boots & find a more suitable hobby, like sitting on a park bench people watching, eyeballing MILFS that give your old worm a small, fleeting tingle.

Then you got the target/range guys, who only seem to got to the range to use their gun & do so at a high frequency. They They don't have a hunting permit, don't own a ranch, don't have a friend w/ a ranch, but just really like shooting targets, & it is basically a continuation of an unhealthy childhood/adolescent preoccupation w/ Duck Hunter. They keep score, & they even go home & jerk off into a sock like they did back then, since, if they have one at the time, their SO probably has either generalized phobia, or is gold-digging with specific phobia & is out somewhere taking shots on her s by some other more socially adept dude.

Then you got the guys who buy a gun & hide it somewhere, talking it out to shoot at every one & a while to let off some steam, knowing that's prolly all the usage it'll ever get, realistically.

Then you got the gangstas, natcos, thugs, anti-social deviants etc. who pretty much need to pack, or so they feel they need to.

I'm pretty much in the 2nd to last camp. A lot of people stick their feet in s couple groups. Me, I'll go to friends' ranches & bring my pistol (.45) along to shoot rabbits or possums or a beer bottle or some on rare/special occasions, but otherwise the thing is collecting dust.

Gun owners fall under a pretty big umbrella. Seems there's a pretty sizable number of 'em based on my experience who have an unhealthy relationship w/ guns & should see a psychologist/psychiatrist & not a gun-dealer for w/e insecurity or problem they have & that they're trying to hide/compensate for/run from (eg. micropenis, feminine traits, erectile issues, fear of growing fat, old & frail, schizophrenia etc.)

I respect the 2nd Amendment, there's integrity behind it & I like it pretty much how it's applied today (except for a few but still important exceptions). Needs some work, but overall keep it pretty much the same.

Still though I LMAO when I see all the dumb s riding the dignified activism's coattails, hoping to blend in, but actually sticking out like the obvious, eternally confused loony dunces they are. It dilutes the activism. Half the damn gun rights activists & supporters is made up of clowns, circus acts. It's amazing to me how Republicans have been able aggregate so much support--which like I said I'm in full-support of--for 2nd Amendment activism from these dumpsters. But I guess you take wherever you can take from in politics, dumpster dive if you have too. It's flies attracted to fudge cake though, & way more hyped up as legit activism when it's actually a lot phony activism.

[pgardn]

Finding out goes against the purpose, to apprehend someone. If you know, you'll go elsewhere.

It's not an argument that any list is bad. It's an argument that gun registries are bad. I'm all for voter registration and ID's and all forms of that . I have TSA precheck clearance because of all the personal information the feds have on me that I gave them. I don't care if they know what guns I own, personally. That's on a micro-scale. On a larger scale, it matters because it signals something. A list means something. You need a voter list to know who's voting to prevent someone from voting illegally. Why do you need a gun registry?

Oh it started off as lists are bad. Once the cons ution was invoked and the "this could happen" start. The overused slippery slope. My argument stands soundly. We keep lists because they can be very practical for the functionality of a society.

As for guns my reason given to CC was mostly in jest. I would think we would want lists of military weapons made that can kill lots of people at once. But apparently that line has become blurred.

[ElNono]

This is the key:

Laws are always set against practical concerns.

Maybe I should have stated the word practical with something more strongly worded.
Some lists are necessary. Voting lists are very practical. I would not dare set voting lists against no fly lists. This slippery slope stuff often is used for purposes of creating paranoia IMO.

And I stated nothing about the ability of the individual to find out if they are indeed listed. I can't think of near as many cases in which an individual should NOT be allowed to find out if they are apart of a list. It seems reasonable that in the vast majority of the many lists we make people should be able to find out if they ARE on them.

My point is that something might be practical, but when dealing with rights, they deserve a higher level of scrutiny.

I'm not really on any side of the fence on this particular case, I don't particularly think a registry would be the begginning of tyrannical era, but I do also understand that in this country, culturally, it does bring a relatively high level of paranoia. We could argue whether that's 'right' or 'wrong', but bottom line, I think it's a realistic characterization.

[pgardn]

My point is that something might be practical, but when dealing with rights, they deserve a higher level of scrutiny.

I'm not really on any side of the fence on this particular case, I don't particularly think a registry would be the begginning of tyrannical era, but I do also understand that in this country, culturally, it does bring a relatively high level of paranoia. We could argue whether that's 'right' or 'wrong', but bottom line, I think it's a realistic characterization.

Sure.

But the practicality/ safety for a society is always weighed against the rights of the individual. This is a terribly old theme.

Right now, in Texas, people do not have to give information about the vaccines children are given to any state health agency. They can however, choose to be on a list. (And public schools require parents waive the responsibility of telling the school in order to get into the school; so the PUBLIC school does not know for sure) IMO this is not good for the society. We need to know what vaccines children are given so they don't possibly infect others (who we also may not know about) Yet I do understand giving out medical facts about yourself and insurance concerns.

Its the same theme. My use of the word practical was lazy.

[Th'Pusher]

"Guns" in a thread le equals click bait tbh. Too many emotional men just can help but respond.

Adam Lambert

[Rust Cohle]

"Guns" in a thread le equals click bait tbh. Too many emotional men just can help but respond.

Adam Lambert

just precious snowflakes being triggered when someone dares threaten "muh guns"

[DMC]

Oh it started off as lists are bad. Once the cons ution was invoked and the "this could happen" start. The overused slippery slope. My argument stands soundly. We keep lists because they can be very practical for the functionality of a society.

As for guns my reason given to CC was mostly in jest. I would think we would want lists of military weapons made that can kill lots of people at once. But apparently that line has become blurred.

No it didn't. It's about a national firearm registry, not lists in general. Your argument never stood. If you need to move to the absurd ends to try to have a point, you really don't have one.

[Th'Pusher]

just precious snowflakes being triggered when someone dares threaten "muh guns"

Has "shall not be infringed" ever not been dropped in a thread with guns in the le?

I know I read it in this gem, but don't remember who dropped it. Had to have been TSA.

[pgardn]

Boats, cars, homesteads... to gather a tax for for roads, bridges, schools, lakes and such. It's only a tax. For guns, it would be to track gun owners. You pay the sales tax when you buy a gun. Do you register your television?

This is BS.

I applied another group of lists which we used to track people and you deflected it.
It has a point. You just don't get it.

Why does the CDC want to track guns and why are they not allowed to?

[pgardn]

No it didn't. It's about a national firearm registry, not lists in general. Your argument never stood. If you need to move to the absurd ends to try to have a point, you really don't have one.

I don't have a point because you don't get my point.

[DMC]

I don't have a point because you don't get my point.

A few of you are not considering the fact that these things don't happen in a vacuum (space notwithstanding). You still haven't said how it would be used.

[DMC]

This is BS.

I applied another group of lists which we used to track people and you deflected it.
It has a point. You just don't get it.

Why does the CDC want to track guns and why are they not allowed to?

It's not about tracking people. It's about tracking which people have guns. You keep getting away from the gun aspect of the argument as if I am arguing for privacy rights.

The CDC thing is a red herring, has nothing to do with a national gun registry.

[ElNono]

Even if the argument is that the only reason would be as a tool to aid confiscation, the latter is already happening (Felons, court-ordered, etc).

I think the inherent issue here eventually boils down to the fairly typical conservative distrust that government won't abuse the power. Which is why I said there's really a cultural barrier here, and why what worked in other places will probably not apply here.

[DMC]

Even if the argument is that the only reason would be as a tool to aid confiscation, the latter is already happening (Felons, court-ordered, etc).

I think the inherent issue here eventually boils down to the fairly typical conservative distrust that government won't abuse the power. Which is why I said there's really a cultural barrier here, and why what worked in other places will probably not apply here.

It's why the 2nd Amendment exists. I find it odd that the left thinks the police are militant against minorities yet trusts the federal government won't kill them all at the first sign of civil unrest.

[ElNono]

It's why the 2nd Amendment exists. I find it odd that the left thinks the police are militant against minorities yet trusts the federal government won't kill them all at the first sign of civil unrest.

Thats one opinion, but the actual meaning of the 2nd amendment, and it's extent has been debated publicly and in court for many many decades. It doesn't help that the wording is fairly abstract, the founding fathers are dead, that England isn't looking over our shoulders anymore, and as noble as it sounds, it's a right that didn't apply to second-class citizens.

But I do know a lot of people feel the way you do, and I think that's really what this boils down to. Instead of discussing corner cases, like what good will it do?, we can probably head straight to the elephant in the room.

[ElNono]

Here's the shortcut version: do you trust the federal government with that list?

Go.

[spurraider21]

Thats one opinion, but the actual meaning of the 2nd amendment, and it's extent has been debated publicly and in court for many many decades.

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh it started off as lists are bad. Once the cons ution was invoked and the "this could happen" start. The overused slippery slope. My argument stands soundly. We keep lists because they can be very practical for the functionality of a society.

As for guns my reason given to CC was mostly in jest. I would think we would want lists of military weapons made that can kill lots of people at once. But apparently that line has become blurred.

Again, what purpose would that list serve? Say a crime is committed and the police forensics show the bullet was a 5.56. What good does a list of 6 million law abiding citizens that own guns that shoot 5.56's do?

Same thing with a 9mm diameter bullet in forensics....do you start going down the list of the millions that own a 9mm? and oops...it could have been a .357 or a 38 special? They are all basically the same bullet going down rnge...I have a three screw ruger that shoots all three...what good does it do to know that 20 million law abiding people own guns that shoot that size bullet?

[Spurminator]

Again, what purpose would that list serve? Say a crime is committed and the police forensics show the bullet was a 5.56. What good does a list of 6 million law abiding citizens that own guns that shoot 5.56's do?

Same thing with a 9mm diameter bullet in forensics....do you start going down the list of the millions that own a 9mm? and oops...it could have been a .357 or a 38 special? They are all basically the same bullet going down rnge...I have a three screw ruger that shoots all three...what good does it do to know that 20 million law abiding people own guns that shoot that size bullet?

Fundamentally you're asking how law enforcement would use a registry to find criminals, but I'm not sure the goal of a registry would be to aid in law enforcement after the fact. Whatever system they decide on, the goal should be to reduce the ability of criminals to get the guns in the first place.

[pgardn]

Again, what purpose would that list serve? Say a crime is committed and the police forensics show the bullet was a 5.56. What good does a list of 6 million law abiding citizens that own guns that shoot 5.56's do?

Same thing with a 9mm diameter bullet in forensics....do you start going down the list of the millions that own a 9mm? and oops...it could have been a .357 or a 38 special? They are all basically the same bullet going down rnge...I have a three screw ruger that shoots all three...what good does it do to know that 20 million law abiding people own guns that shoot that size bullet?

Have gun accidents and violence become a public safety concern in your opinion?

[pgardn]

The BJS National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS) data for 1993-97 show
that of the 19.2 million incidents of
nonfatal violent crime, excluding simple
assault --
* 28% were committed with a firearm
* 4% were committed with a firearm and resulted in injury
* less than 1% resulted in gunshot wounds.

Yeah, idiot. We need a trauma ward for the 1%.

Here is some help.

Why is the above pretty much crap as reliable data?

[Adam Lambert]

It's why the 2nd Amendment exists. I find it odd that the left thinks the police are militant against minorities yet trusts the federal government won't kill them all at the first sign of civil unrest.

Again, what purpose would that list serve? Say a crime is committed and the police forensics show the bullet was a 5.56. What good does a list of 6 million law abiding citizens that own guns that shoot 5.56's do?

Same thing with a 9mm diameter bullet in forensics....do you start going down the list of the millions that own a 9mm? and oops...it could have been a .357 or a 38 special? They are all basically the same bullet going down rnge...I have a three screw ruger that shoots all three...what good does it do to know that 20 million law abiding people own guns that shoot that size bullet?

you guys be sure to tickle the nra's nut sac when you go down on them, i hear they like it when you do that
*choke* *gag*

[I. Hustle]

you guys be sure to tickle the nra's nut sac when you go down on them, i hear they like it when you do that
*choke* *gag*

Just curious, because I am not going to read through all that crap, are you against gun ownership or just against owners not registering? Just a question. I'll hang up now and let you answer.

[CosmicCowboy]

Have gun accidents and violence become a public safety concern in your opinion?

How does gun registry solve either issue?

Be specific.