HYPOCRISY, Thy Name Is 'DEMOCRAT': Democrats Leave Capitol To March For Gun Control With Students

[2aguy]

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=ff0d01-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

And yet the states where the guns are coming from have less gun violence than in the democrat controlled, extreme gun controlled cities where the criminals sell them to other criminals....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

If states with strict gun control laws could keep guns from flowing into the state from states that have practically no regulations, they would certainly be more effective. The only way state gun control laws would have any major effect would be if all states followed suite and that's not going to happen.

That isn't the issue......you have no idea what you are talking about....New York and Baltimore are in the same region...they both have access to states with less extreme gun laws....and Baltimore has a gun murder rate that dwards New York even though New York has a much larger population......

Chicago has a higher gun murder rate than L.A. and New York combined.....and the criminals in L.A. and New York both have access to states with less extreme gun laws..the difference is that Chicago lets gun criminals out of jail over and over again, we have a revolving door for gun killers that Rudy Guiliani cleaned up in New York, and the L.A. gangs don't murder as easily or often as the Chicago gangs.....

Chicago and Houston have similar populations......Chicago has extreme gun control and won't let any gun stores open in the city....Houston has gun stores on every corner, has open and concealed carry, and has a border with the Drug cartel state of Mexico...and has a gun murder rate lower than Chicago...

So tell me, genius...how is that possible if access to guns is the reason these extreme gun control cities have so much gun murder?

Dittos New York and Houston...according to you, Houston should have a higher gun murder rate than New York, since they have less extreme gun control laws........

You guys can never explain how the states where the guns are coming from have lower gun murder rates than the cities where the illegal guns are being sold, the cities with extreme gun control laws........

Murder rate 2017
Baltimore......343
Population of cities 2016:

Chicago........2.7 million
L.A................3.9 million
N.Y................8.5 million
Houston........2.3 million
Baltimore......620,961


Murder rate 2016:

Chicago........765
L.A.......... .....293
N.Y................335
Houston .......301
Baltimore......318

 

[2aguy]

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=ff0d01-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

Gun registration does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters....however, you mopes need gun registration in order to confiscate guns when you get enough power......

The purpose of gun registration is not to limit access to guns but to ensure gun owner accountability and help law enforcement solve crimes and disarm criminals. Despite the clear advantages inherent in registration laws, few states have such laws on the books—and some prohibit them outright.

Wrong.....do you realize that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns......do you even understand that?

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshalldid not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

That fact...right there, undermines your entire point.....and on top of that, registration does not solve one crime, and it doesn't stop any criminal or mass shooter......

The only reason to register guns is to later confiscate them....we know this from actual experience...Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California, Chicago....all registered guns and then later confiscated them

Here ..... a quick primer on gun registration.....

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million.


In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.




What's wrong with a registry?

But gun registries have a number of problems. For one, they don’t solve crimes.

Canada’s experience with a long-gun registry illustrates this. After having spent some two billion dollars, the program was found to be ineffective at solving crimes or keeping people safe.

The State of Maryland has had a similar experience with its ballistic fingerprint records, finding that in fifteen years, only twenty-six cases were aided by the registry, and in those cases, law enforcement already knew which guns were involved.

All of this, of course, is in addition to the major question of how we would register American guns in the first place, considering the hundreds of millions here presently and our porous borders.

What registries do allow is confiscation. The experience in Britain of gun control worsening over time illustrates this. The same is true for Australia. And we’ve seen attempts to do the same thing in New York and California.

And then there’s the more basic question of privacy.

This is a concern that goes broader and deeper than just gun rights. Whether we’re talking about the NSA’s spying on our e-mail and telephone calls or the FBI’s desire to have a door opened for them into iPhones, it is abundantly clear that government wants easy access to our personal lives, in spite of and in contradiction to the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

A gun registry would simply be yet another example of this.

I’m sure that all of these points are a case of preaching to the choir, but as I was told once, even the choir needs to hear a good sermon now and then. In the battles over gun control, we risk letting some things slip through when confronted with a flurry of demands, and it’s up to us to make sure bad ideas are not converted into laws.

---

The gun registry’s legacy – creating needless paperwork criminals

The latter statement may not sound like a direct threat to restore the registry. But going after thugs, gang members and smugglers with street guns is very dangerous and expensive. So Liberals often choose the easy way out and burden legitimate owners, instead, just so they can give the appearance of taking action.


Recall that during the tumultuous flooding in High River, Alberta in the spring of 2013, Mounties went door-to-door breaking into hundreds of homes looking for firearms. In the name of finding survivors, officers searched homes that were untouched by flood waters but where, it was later learned, there were registry records of guns in the home.

During some searches, Mounties also seemed to be checking list of guns from the registry, even though all registry records were supposed to have been deleted nearly a year earlier.

But what if the Liberals have figured out they don’t need a new registry to achieve their ultimate goal or a Canada in which only the police and military have guns?

A new study by emeritus business professor and firearms researcher Gary Mauser, released on Thursday, shows that despite gun-controllers rhetoric about concentrating on criminals misusing firearms, it has been legitimate gunowners who have born the brunt of federal firearms enforcement.

Mauser discovered that between 1998, when the Liberals’ registry came into effect, and 2016 there were an average 3,000 registration-related firearms charges laid each year. In 96 per cent of those cases, the registry-related charges were the only ones filed.

Put another way, in only four per cent of registry-related charges was any violence alleged.

The Chretien registry did exactly what gunowners predicted it would do – create a new class of paperwork criminal.

The registry did not scoop up a lot of real criminals in its net – murderers, robbers, drug dealers. Those criminals were never going to abide by laws requiring them to register their guns.

Instead, the registry, even under the Harper Tories, created upwards of 3,000 “criminals” a year. Their only crime was failing to complete Ottawa’s draconian paperwork or comply with the feds’ ultra-confusing “safe storage” rules.

But because the Liberals were so obsessed with their registry in the 1990s, they made administrative infractions into crimes and thus disarmed as many as 60,000 otherwise law-abiding citizens.

 

[2aguy]

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=ff0d01-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

Gun registration does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters....however, you mopes need gun registration in order to confiscate guns when you get enough power......

The purpose of gun registration is not to limit access to guns but to ensure gun owner accountability and help law enforcement solve crimes and disarm criminals. Despite the clear advantages inherent in registration laws, few states have such laws on the books—and some prohibit them outright.

Gun registration.....is not allowed for actual criminals....and does not help solve crimes..

From Canada...

What police have said about the gun registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association

A.B.J. (BEN) BEATTY: 23-YEAR VETERAN OF THE ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE:
In June of 2006 I will be commencing my 24th year as a member of the Ontario Provincial Police. For 18 of those years I have been assigned the rank of Detective, specifically assigned to major criminal investigations. I must point out that in all my experience as a police officer I have only investigated one homicide were a firearm was the weapon used in the slaying. In contrast, the majority of murders that I have been involved in as an investigator, a knives were preferred and two separate occasions a hammer was the weapon of choice.

I have however been involved in the investigation of countless offences such as robbery, where handguns were the weapon of choice and I must point out Sir, that the firearms registry did not assist in solving one, nor obviously in deterring one. The reasons that the firearms registry is so highly ineffectual are, I believe obvious, but basically it affects the wrong people, law abiding citizens and not criminals. [READ MORE] http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/2006_new/54.htm

---------

OHN GAYDER, SERVING POLICE OFFICER IN ONTARIO – LETTER TO PUBLISHER OF BLUELINE MAGAZINE:
Not only has the gun registry diverted billions of dollars from the blue front lines, it has also sowed the seeds of ill will amongst a growing portion of otherwise law abiding gun owners. This group was previously steadfast supporters of the law enforcement community. Many of them now increasingly view us as the enemy or as buffoons.

The registry is great at telling me what LAW ABIDING people duly registered their guns. These were never the people I needed to worry about. I don’t trust the registry because it will never be able to tell me what I need to know about the riskier anti social [expletive deleted] I may potentially be pulling over at 3am. Criminals and kooks DON’T REGISTER their guns.


Every just thinking person abhors gun deaths, but the registry is a costly and misleading flop. There were several technical reasons that guaranteed it would be a flop from the get go. The worst part is that the “gun lobby” warned us about them from the start. They were right and the Chiefs of police were wrong. Believe it.
SOURCE: Letter to the Publisher of Blueline Magazine, November 25, 2005



What police have said about the gun registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association

 

[2aguy]

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=ff0d01-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

Gun registration does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters....however, you mopes need gun registration in order to confiscate guns when you get enough power......

The purpose of gun registration is not to limit access to guns but to ensure gun owner accountability and help law enforcement solve crimes and disarm criminals. Despite the clear advantages inherent in registration laws, few states have such laws on the books—and some prohibit them outright.

And more on the pointlessness of a gun registration scheme...from a country that tried to register guns...Canada...

Those who want to register guns are lying to you....the only reason they want to register guns is so that they know who have them when they get the power to confiscate and ban them....a gun registration scheme does not help solve crime, and it doesn't stop gun crime....

Ten Myths Of The Long Gun Registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association

Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such:

“The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.

-------

Myth #6: The registry helps track stolen guns and forces firearms owners to be more responsible instoring their firearms. Over 50% of firearms used in crime are stolen from gun owners
False. Past Department of Justice studies found that among homicides where details were available, 84%of the firearms used in the commission of the crimes are unregistered and 74.9% are illegal guns smuggled into Canada, not the 50% some claim. Recently, Canada’s National Weapons Enforcement Support Team reported that 94% of crime guns were illegally imported into Canada. Vancouver Police report 97% of seized firearms are smuggled. Other government sources show between 9 and 16% ofcrime firearms originate in Canada.

That figure is speculative as the vast majority of firearms used in crime are never recovered and most recovered guns cannot be identified as the serial numbers areremoved.

 

[2aguy]

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=ff0d01-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

Gun registration does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters....however, you mopes need gun registration in order to confiscate guns when you get enough power......

The purpose of gun registration is not to limit access to guns but to ensure gun owner accountability and help law enforcement solve crimes and disarm criminals. Despite the clear advantages inherent in registration laws, few states have such laws on the books—and some prohibit them outright.

And if you can be reached by logic, here is some logic...gun registration is only useful for banning and confiscating guns from law abiding citizens....

https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry

Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to.

Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

 

[Humorme]

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=ff0d01-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

Gun registration does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters....however, you mopes need gun registration in order to confiscate guns when you get enough power......

The purpose of gun registration is not to limit access to guns but to ensure gun owner accountability and help law enforcement solve crimes and disarm criminals. Despite the clear advantages inherent in registration laws, few states have such laws on the books—and some prohibit them outright.

Registration is a precursor to confiscation.

 

[Humorme]

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=ff0d01-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

And yet the states where the guns are coming from have less gun violence than in the democrat controlled, extreme gun controlled cities where the criminals sell them to other criminals....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

If states with strict gun control laws could keep guns from flowing into the state from states that have practically no regulations, they would certainly be more effective. The only way state gun control laws would have any major effect would be if all states followed suite and that's not going to happen.

I wish all states would reject registration schemes.

 

[Flopper]

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=ff0d01-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

Gun registration does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters....however, you mopes need gun registration in order to confiscate guns when you get enough power......

The purpose of gun registration is not to limit access to guns but to ensure gun owner accountability and help law enforcement solve crimes and disarm criminals. Despite the clear advantages inherent in registration laws, few states have such laws on the books—and some prohibit them outright.

Wrong.....do you realize that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns......do you even understand that?

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshalldid not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

That fact...right there, undermines your entire point.....and on top of that, registration does not solve one crime, and it doesn't stop any criminal or mass shooter......

The only reason to register guns is to later confiscate them....we know this from actual experience...Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California, Chicago....all registered guns and then later confiscated them

Here ..... a quick primer on gun registration.....

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million.


In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.




What's wrong with a registry?

But gun registries have a number of problems. For one, they don’t solve crimes.

Canada’s experience with a long-gun registry illustrates this. After having spent some two billion dollars, the program was found to be ineffective at solving crimes or keeping people safe.

The State of Maryland has had a similar experience with its ballistic fingerprint records, finding that in fifteen years, only twenty-six cases were aided by the registry, and in those cases, law enforcement already knew which guns were involved.

All of this, of course, is in addition to the major question of how we would register American guns in the first place, considering the hundreds of millions here presently and our porous borders.

What registries do allow is confiscation. The experience in Britain of gun control worsening over time illustrates this. The same is true for Australia. And we’ve seen attempts to do the same thing in New York and California.

And then there’s the more basic question of privacy.

This is a concern that goes broader and deeper than just gun rights. Whether we’re talking about the NSA’s spying on our e-mail and telephone calls or the FBI’s desire to have a door opened for them into iPhones, it is abundantly clear that government wants easy access to our personal lives, in spite of and in contradiction to the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

A gun registry would simply be yet another example of this.

I’m sure that all of these points are a case of preaching to the choir, but as I was told once, even the choir needs to hear a good sermon now and then. In the battles over gun control, we risk letting some things slip through when confronted with a flurry of demands, and it’s up to us to make sure bad ideas are not converted into laws.

---

The gun registry’s legacy – creating needless paperwork criminals

The latter statement may not sound like a direct threat to restore the registry. But going after thugs, gang members and smugglers with street guns is very dangerous and expensive. So Liberals often choose the easy way out and burden legitimate owners, instead, just so they can give the appearance of taking action.


Recall that during the tumultuous flooding in High River, Alberta in the spring of 2013, Mounties went door-to-door breaking into hundreds of homes looking for firearms. In the name of finding survivors, officers searched homes that were untouched by flood waters but where, it was later learned, there were registry records of guns in the home.

During some searches, Mounties also seemed to be checking list of guns from the registry, even though all registry records were supposed to have been deleted nearly a year earlier.

But what if the Liberals have figured out they don’t need a new registry to achieve their ultimate goal or a Canada in which only the police and military have guns?

A new study by emeritus business professor and firearms researcher Gary Mauser, released on Thursday, shows that despite gun-controllers rhetoric about concentrating on criminals misusing firearms, it has been legitimate gunowners who have born the brunt of federal firearms enforcement.

Mauser discovered that between 1998, when the Liberals’ registry came into effect, and 2016 there were an average 3,000 registration-related firearms charges laid each year. In 96 per cent of those cases, the registry-related charges were the only ones filed.

Put another way, in only four per cent of registry-related charges was any violence alleged.

The Chretien registry did exactly what gunowners predicted it would do – create a new class of paperwork criminal.

The registry did not scoop up a lot of real criminals in its net – murderers, robbers, drug dealers. Those criminals were never going to abide by laws requiring them to register their guns.

Instead, the registry, even under the Harper Tories, created upwards of 3,000 “criminals” a year. Their only crime was failing to complete Ottawa’s draconian paperwork or comply with the feds’ ultra-confusing “safe storage” rules.

But because the Liberals were so obsessed with their registry in the 1990s, they made administrative infractions into crimes and thus disarmed as many as 60,000 otherwise law-abiding citizens.

The high court's ruling in favor of Haynes is exactly why, gun registration should be mandatory without exception. With the ease of transportation of guns across state lines, our current state laws that regulate gun ownership are ridiculous. It has to be at the federal level and it will happen eventually.

Secondly, owners, that do not secure their firearms should bear some responsibility for crimes committed with their guns. A study at John Hopkins found that 54% of gun owners do not store their guns safely. The researchers defined safe storage as being in a locked gun safe, cabinet or case; locked into a gun rack, or stored with a trigger lock or other lock. The favored places for storing guns were in unlocked desks and drawers, bedside tables, and on closet shelves, all of which are easily accessed by children and thieves.

 

[2aguy]

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=ff0d01-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

Gun registration does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters....however, you mopes need gun registration in order to confiscate guns when you get enough power......

The purpose of gun registration is not to limit access to guns but to ensure gun owner accountability and help law enforcement solve crimes and disarm criminals. Despite the clear advantages inherent in registration laws, few states have such laws on the books—and some prohibit them outright.

Wrong.....do you realize that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns......do you even understand that?

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshalldid not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

That fact...right there, undermines your entire point.....and on top of that, registration does not solve one crime, and it doesn't stop any criminal or mass shooter......

The only reason to register guns is to later confiscate them....we know this from actual experience...Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California, Chicago....all registered guns and then later confiscated them

Here ..... a quick primer on gun registration.....

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million.


In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.




What's wrong with a registry?

But gun registries have a number of problems. For one, they don’t solve crimes.

Canada’s experience with a long-gun registry illustrates this. After having spent some two billion dollars, the program was found to be ineffective at solving crimes or keeping people safe.

The State of Maryland has had a similar experience with its ballistic fingerprint records, finding that in fifteen years, only twenty-six cases were aided by the registry, and in those cases, law enforcement already knew which guns were involved.

All of this, of course, is in addition to the major question of how we would register American guns in the first place, considering the hundreds of millions here presently and our porous borders.

What registries do allow is confiscation. The experience in Britain of gun control worsening over time illustrates this. The same is true for Australia. And we’ve seen attempts to do the same thing in New York and California.

And then there’s the more basic question of privacy.

This is a concern that goes broader and deeper than just gun rights. Whether we’re talking about the NSA’s spying on our e-mail and telephone calls or the FBI’s desire to have a door opened for them into iPhones, it is abundantly clear that government wants easy access to our personal lives, in spite of and in contradiction to the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

A gun registry would simply be yet another example of this.

I’m sure that all of these points are a case of preaching to the choir, but as I was told once, even the choir needs to hear a good sermon now and then. In the battles over gun control, we risk letting some things slip through when confronted with a flurry of demands, and it’s up to us to make sure bad ideas are not converted into laws.

---

The gun registry’s legacy – creating needless paperwork criminals

The latter statement may not sound like a direct threat to restore the registry. But going after thugs, gang members and smugglers with street guns is very dangerous and expensive. So Liberals often choose the easy way out and burden legitimate owners, instead, just so they can give the appearance of taking action.


Recall that during the tumultuous flooding in High River, Alberta in the spring of 2013, Mounties went door-to-door breaking into hundreds of homes looking for firearms. In the name of finding survivors, officers searched homes that were untouched by flood waters but where, it was later learned, there were registry records of guns in the home.

During some searches, Mounties also seemed to be checking list of guns from the registry, even though all registry records were supposed to have been deleted nearly a year earlier.

But what if the Liberals have figured out they don’t need a new registry to achieve their ultimate goal or a Canada in which only the police and military have guns?

A new study by emeritus business professor and firearms researcher Gary Mauser, released on Thursday, shows that despite gun-controllers rhetoric about concentrating on criminals misusing firearms, it has been legitimate gunowners who have born the brunt of federal firearms enforcement.

Mauser discovered that between 1998, when the Liberals’ registry came into effect, and 2016 there were an average 3,000 registration-related firearms charges laid each year. In 96 per cent of those cases, the registry-related charges were the only ones filed.

Put another way, in only four per cent of registry-related charges was any violence alleged.

The Chretien registry did exactly what gunowners predicted it would do – create a new class of paperwork criminal.

The registry did not scoop up a lot of real criminals in its net – murderers, robbers, drug dealers. Those criminals were never going to abide by laws requiring them to register their guns.

Instead, the registry, even under the Harper Tories, created upwards of 3,000 “criminals” a year. Their only crime was failing to complete Ottawa’s draconian paperwork or comply with the feds’ ultra-confusing “safe storage” rules.

But because the Liberals were so obsessed with their registry in the 1990s, they made administrative infractions into crimes and thus disarmed as many as 60,000 otherwise law-abiding citizens.

The high court's ruling in favor of Haynes is exactly why, gun registration should be mandatory without exception. With the ease of transportation of guns across state lines, our current state laws that regulate gun ownership are ridiculous. It has to be at the federal level and it will happen eventually.

Secondly, owners, that do not secure their firearms should bear some responsibility for crimes committed with their guns. A study at John Hopkins found that 54% of gun owners do not store their guns safely. The researchers defined safe storage as being in a locked gun safe, cabinet or case; locked into a gun rack, or stored with a trigger lock or other lock. The favored places for storing guns were in unlocked desks and drawers, bedside tables, and on closet shelves, all of which are easily accessed by children and thieves.

With all of the facts about gun registration...that it does nothing to solve or prevent crimes...you are still pushing it......that shows that you are immune to actual facts, the truth and reality......

And the truth is this, gun registration = gun confiscation.......everywhere it is done, you end up with confiscation.....

And no.....gun locks were also found unConstitutional under Heller .... citing crap research doesn't help your cause.

 

[Norman]

This is what you are paying for the teachers to teach your children.

I don't understand how people aren't outraged, they just like to take it up the ass apparently.

 

[Humorme]

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=ff0d01-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

Gun registration does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters....however, you mopes need gun registration in order to confiscate guns when you get enough power......

The purpose of gun registration is not to limit access to guns but to ensure gun owner accountability and help law enforcement solve crimes and disarm criminals. Despite the clear advantages inherent in registration laws, few states have such laws on the books—and some prohibit them outright.

Wrong.....do you realize that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns......do you even understand that?

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshalldid not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

That fact...right there, undermines your entire point.....and on top of that, registration does not solve one crime, and it doesn't stop any criminal or mass shooter......

The only reason to register guns is to later confiscate them....we know this from actual experience...Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California, Chicago....all registered guns and then later confiscated them

Here ..... a quick primer on gun registration.....

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million.


In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.




What's wrong with a registry?

But gun registries have a number of problems. For one, they don’t solve crimes.

Canada’s experience with a long-gun registry illustrates this. After having spent some two billion dollars, the program was found to be ineffective at solving crimes or keeping people safe.

The State of Maryland has had a similar experience with its ballistic fingerprint records, finding that in fifteen years, only twenty-six cases were aided by the registry, and in those cases, law enforcement already knew which guns were involved.

All of this, of course, is in addition to the major question of how we would register American guns in the first place, considering the hundreds of millions here presently and our porous borders.

What registries do allow is confiscation. The experience in Britain of gun control worsening over time illustrates this. The same is true for Australia. And we’ve seen attempts to do the same thing in New York and California.

And then there’s the more basic question of privacy.

This is a concern that goes broader and deeper than just gun rights. Whether we’re talking about the NSA’s spying on our e-mail and telephone calls or the FBI’s desire to have a door opened for them into iPhones, it is abundantly clear that government wants easy access to our personal lives, in spite of and in contradiction to the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

A gun registry would simply be yet another example of this.

I’m sure that all of these points are a case of preaching to the choir, but as I was told once, even the choir needs to hear a good sermon now and then. In the battles over gun control, we risk letting some things slip through when confronted with a flurry of demands, and it’s up to us to make sure bad ideas are not converted into laws.

---

The gun registry’s legacy – creating needless paperwork criminals

The latter statement may not sound like a direct threat to restore the registry. But going after thugs, gang members and smugglers with street guns is very dangerous and expensive. So Liberals often choose the easy way out and burden legitimate owners, instead, just so they can give the appearance of taking action.


Recall that during the tumultuous flooding in High River, Alberta in the spring of 2013, Mounties went door-to-door breaking into hundreds of homes looking for firearms. In the name of finding survivors, officers searched homes that were untouched by flood waters but where, it was later learned, there were registry records of guns in the home.

During some searches, Mounties also seemed to be checking list of guns from the registry, even though all registry records were supposed to have been deleted nearly a year earlier.

But what if the Liberals have figured out they don’t need a new registry to achieve their ultimate goal or a Canada in which only the police and military have guns?

A new study by emeritus business professor and firearms researcher Gary Mauser, released on Thursday, shows that despite gun-controllers rhetoric about concentrating on criminals misusing firearms, it has been legitimate gunowners who have born the brunt of federal firearms enforcement.

Mauser discovered that between 1998, when the Liberals’ registry came into effect, and 2016 there were an average 3,000 registration-related firearms charges laid each year. In 96 per cent of those cases, the registry-related charges were the only ones filed.

Put another way, in only four per cent of registry-related charges was any violence alleged.

The Chretien registry did exactly what gunowners predicted it would do – create a new class of paperwork criminal.

The registry did not scoop up a lot of real criminals in its net – murderers, robbers, drug dealers. Those criminals were never going to abide by laws requiring them to register their guns.

Instead, the registry, even under the Harper Tories, created upwards of 3,000 “criminals” a year. Their only crime was failing to complete Ottawa’s draconian paperwork or comply with the feds’ ultra-confusing “safe storage” rules.

But because the Liberals were so obsessed with their registry in the 1990s, they made administrative infractions into crimes and thus disarmed as many as 60,000 otherwise law-abiding citizens.

The high court's ruling in favor of Haynes is exactly why, gun registration should be mandatory without exception. With the ease of transportation of guns across state lines, our current state laws that regulate gun ownership are ridiculous. It has to be at the federal level and it will happen eventually.

Secondly, owners, that do not secure their firearms should bear some responsibility for crimes committed with their guns. A study at John Hopkins found that 54% of gun owners do not store their guns safely. The researchers defined safe storage as being in a locked gun safe, cabinet or case; locked into a gun rack, or stored with a trigger lock or other lock. The favored places for storing guns were in unlocked desks and drawers, bedside tables, and on closet shelves, all of which are easily accessed by children and thieves.

Have your registered your religious views? Atheists should have to be registered as such as should Muslims.

 

[Flopper]

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

Gun registration does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters....however, you mopes need gun registration in order to confiscate guns when you get enough power......

The purpose of gun registration is not to limit access to guns but to ensure gun owner accountability and help law enforcement solve crimes and disarm criminals. Despite the clear advantages inherent in registration laws, few states have such laws on the books—and some prohibit them outright.

Wrong.....do you realize that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns......do you even understand that?

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshalldid not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

That fact...right there, undermines your entire point.....and on top of that, registration does not solve one crime, and it doesn't stop any criminal or mass shooter......

The only reason to register guns is to later confiscate them....we know this from actual experience...Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California, Chicago....all registered guns and then later confiscated them

Here ..... a quick primer on gun registration.....

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million.


In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.




What's wrong with a registry?

But gun registries have a number of problems. For one, they don’t solve crimes.

Canada’s experience with a long-gun registry illustrates this. After having spent some two billion dollars, the program was found to be ineffective at solving crimes or keeping people safe.

The State of Maryland has had a similar experience with its ballistic fingerprint records, finding that in fifteen years, only twenty-six cases were aided by the registry, and in those cases, law enforcement already knew which guns were involved.

All of this, of course, is in addition to the major question of how we would register American guns in the first place, considering the hundreds of millions here presently and our porous borders.

What registries do allow is confiscation. The experience in Britain of gun control worsening over time illustrates this. The same is true for Australia. And we’ve seen attempts to do the same thing in New York and California.

And then there’s the more basic question of privacy.

This is a concern that goes broader and deeper than just gun rights. Whether we’re talking about the NSA’s spying on our e-mail and telephone calls or the FBI’s desire to have a door opened for them into iPhones, it is abundantly clear that government wants easy access to our personal lives, in spite of and in contradiction to the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

A gun registry would simply be yet another example of this.

I’m sure that all of these points are a case of preaching to the choir, but as I was told once, even the choir needs to hear a good sermon now and then. In the battles over gun control, we risk letting some things slip through when confronted with a flurry of demands, and it’s up to us to make sure bad ideas are not converted into laws.

---

The gun registry’s legacy – creating needless paperwork criminals

The latter statement may not sound like a direct threat to restore the registry. But going after thugs, gang members and smugglers with street guns is very dangerous and expensive. So Liberals often choose the easy way out and burden legitimate owners, instead, just so they can give the appearance of taking action.


Recall that during the tumultuous flooding in High River, Alberta in the spring of 2013, Mounties went door-to-door breaking into hundreds of homes looking for firearms. In the name of finding survivors, officers searched homes that were untouched by flood waters but where, it was later learned, there were registry records of guns in the home.

During some searches, Mounties also seemed to be checking list of guns from the registry, even though all registry records were supposed to have been deleted nearly a year earlier.

But what if the Liberals have figured out they don’t need a new registry to achieve their ultimate goal or a Canada in which only the police and military have guns?

A new study by emeritus business professor and firearms researcher Gary Mauser, released on Thursday, shows that despite gun-controllers rhetoric about concentrating on criminals misusing firearms, it has been legitimate gunowners who have born the brunt of federal firearms enforcement.

Mauser discovered that between 1998, when the Liberals’ registry came into effect, and 2016 there were an average 3,000 registration-related firearms charges laid each year. In 96 per cent of those cases, the registry-related charges were the only ones filed.

Put another way, in only four per cent of registry-related charges was any violence alleged.

The Chretien registry did exactly what gunowners predicted it would do – create a new class of paperwork criminal.

The registry did not scoop up a lot of real criminals in its net – murderers, robbers, drug dealers. Those criminals were never going to abide by laws requiring them to register their guns.

Instead, the registry, even under the Harper Tories, created upwards of 3,000 “criminals” a year. Their only crime was failing to complete Ottawa’s draconian paperwork or comply with the feds’ ultra-confusing “safe storage” rules.

But because the Liberals were so obsessed with their registry in the 1990s, they made administrative infractions into crimes and thus disarmed as many as 60,000 otherwise law-abiding citizens.

The high court's ruling in favor of Haynes is exactly why, gun registration should be mandatory without exception. With the ease of transportation of guns across state lines, our current state laws that regulate gun ownership are ridiculous. It has to be at the federal level and it will happen eventually.

Secondly, owners, that do not secure their firearms should bear some responsibility for crimes committed with their guns. A study at John Hopkins found that 54% of gun owners do not store their guns safely. The researchers defined safe storage as being in a locked gun safe, cabinet or case; locked into a gun rack, or stored with a trigger lock or other lock. The favored places for storing guns were in unlocked desks and drawers, bedside tables, and on closet shelves, all of which are easily accessed by children and thieves.

With all of the facts about gun registration...that it does nothing to solve or prevent crimes...you are still pushing it......that shows that you are immune to actual facts, the truth and reality......

And the truth is this, gun registration = gun confiscation.......everywhere it is done, you end up with confiscation.....

And no.....gun locks were also found unConstitutional under Heller .... citing crap research doesn't help your cause.

With 99% of the guns in the nation being unregistered, the databases are of limited value. Thanks to the gun lobby, it is almost impossible to determine the ownership of a gun used in a crime from registration records. Since every state decides what data is be collected and from who there is little consistency. From the records, you can't tell who owns the weapon now, when it was owned, how it was acquired, or the location of owner. In effect, all you can say for sure is that somebody probably owned the weapon at some point in time. I agree with you. Registration does nothing to solve or prevent crimes. The NRA made sure of that.

 

[Flopper]

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=ff0d01-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

And yet the states where the guns are coming from have less gun violence than in the democrat controlled, extreme gun controlled cities where the criminals sell them to other criminals....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

If states with strict gun control laws could keep guns from flowing into the state from states that have practically no regulations, they would certainly be more effective. The only way state gun control laws would have any major effect would be if all states followed suite and that's not going to happen.

That isn't the issue......you have no idea what you are talking about....New York and Baltimore are in the same region...they both have access to states with less extreme gun laws....and Baltimore has a gun murder rate that dwards New York even though New York has a much larger population......

Chicago has a higher gun murder rate than L.A. and New York combined.....and the criminals in L.A. and New York both have access to states with less extreme gun laws..the difference is that Chicago lets gun criminals out of jail over and over again, we have a revolving door for gun killers that Rudy Guiliani cleaned up in New York, and the L.A. gangs don't murder as easily or often as the Chicago gangs.....

Chicago and Houston have similar populations......Chicago has extreme gun control and won't let any gun stores open in the city....Houston has gun stores on every corner, has open and concealed carry, and has a border with the Drug cartel state of Mexico...and has a gun murder rate lower than Chicago...

So tell me, genius...how is that possible if access to guns is the reason these extreme gun control cities have so much gun murder?

Dittos New York and Houston...according to you, Houston should have a higher gun murder rate than New York, since they have less extreme gun control laws........

You guys can never explain how the states where the guns are coming from have lower gun murder rates than the cities where the illegal guns are being sold, the cities with extreme gun control laws........

Murder rate 2017
Baltimore......343
Population of cities 2016:

Chicago........2.7 million
L.A................3.9 million
N.Y................8.5 million
Houston........2.3 million
Baltimore......620,961


Murder rate 2016:

Chicago........765
L.A.......... .....293
N.Y................335
Houston .......301
Baltimore......318

If you can drive a car, you can bring as many guns as you like into the city from states with weak gun laws and there's little the city can do to stop it. Thanks for proving my point. Local and state gun laws can do little to reduce gun crimes. As long as guns are easily acquired in other states, local laws will be ineffective.

 

[Humorme]

Gun registration does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters....however, you mopes need gun registration in order to confiscate guns when you get enough power......

The purpose of gun registration is not to limit access to guns but to ensure gun owner accountability and help law enforcement solve crimes and disarm criminals. Despite the clear advantages inherent in registration laws, few states have such laws on the books—and some prohibit them outright.

Wrong.....do you realize that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns......do you even understand that?

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshalldid not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

That fact...right there, undermines your entire point.....and on top of that, registration does not solve one crime, and it doesn't stop any criminal or mass shooter......

The only reason to register guns is to later confiscate them....we know this from actual experience...Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California, Chicago....all registered guns and then later confiscated them

Here ..... a quick primer on gun registration.....

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million.


In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.




What's wrong with a registry?

But gun registries have a number of problems. For one, they don’t solve crimes.

Canada’s experience with a long-gun registry illustrates this. After having spent some two billion dollars, the program was found to be ineffective at solving crimes or keeping people safe.

The State of Maryland has had a similar experience with its ballistic fingerprint records, finding that in fifteen years, only twenty-six cases were aided by the registry, and in those cases, law enforcement already knew which guns were involved.

All of this, of course, is in addition to the major question of how we would register American guns in the first place, considering the hundreds of millions here presently and our porous borders.

What registries do allow is confiscation. The experience in Britain of gun control worsening over time illustrates this. The same is true for Australia. And we’ve seen attempts to do the same thing in New York and California.

And then there’s the more basic question of privacy.

This is a concern that goes broader and deeper than just gun rights. Whether we’re talking about the NSA’s spying on our e-mail and telephone calls or the FBI’s desire to have a door opened for them into iPhones, it is abundantly clear that government wants easy access to our personal lives, in spite of and in contradiction to the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

A gun registry would simply be yet another example of this.

I’m sure that all of these points are a case of preaching to the choir, but as I was told once, even the choir needs to hear a good sermon now and then. In the battles over gun control, we risk letting some things slip through when confronted with a flurry of demands, and it’s up to us to make sure bad ideas are not converted into laws.

---

The gun registry’s legacy – creating needless paperwork criminals

The latter statement may not sound like a direct threat to restore the registry. But going after thugs, gang members and smugglers with street guns is very dangerous and expensive. So Liberals often choose the easy way out and burden legitimate owners, instead, just so they can give the appearance of taking action.


Recall that during the tumultuous flooding in High River, Alberta in the spring of 2013, Mounties went door-to-door breaking into hundreds of homes looking for firearms. In the name of finding survivors, officers searched homes that were untouched by flood waters but where, it was later learned, there were registry records of guns in the home.

During some searches, Mounties also seemed to be checking list of guns from the registry, even though all registry records were supposed to have been deleted nearly a year earlier.

But what if the Liberals have figured out they don’t need a new registry to achieve their ultimate goal or a Canada in which only the police and military have guns?

A new study by emeritus business professor and firearms researcher Gary Mauser, released on Thursday, shows that despite gun-controllers rhetoric about concentrating on criminals misusing firearms, it has been legitimate gunowners who have born the brunt of federal firearms enforcement.

Mauser discovered that between 1998, when the Liberals’ registry came into effect, and 2016 there were an average 3,000 registration-related firearms charges laid each year. In 96 per cent of those cases, the registry-related charges were the only ones filed.

Put another way, in only four per cent of registry-related charges was any violence alleged.

The Chretien registry did exactly what gunowners predicted it would do – create a new class of paperwork criminal.

The registry did not scoop up a lot of real criminals in its net – murderers, robbers, drug dealers. Those criminals were never going to abide by laws requiring them to register their guns.

Instead, the registry, even under the Harper Tories, created upwards of 3,000 “criminals” a year. Their only crime was failing to complete Ottawa’s draconian paperwork or comply with the feds’ ultra-confusing “safe storage” rules.

But because the Liberals were so obsessed with their registry in the 1990s, they made administrative infractions into crimes and thus disarmed as many as 60,000 otherwise law-abiding citizens.

The high court's ruling in favor of Haynes is exactly why, gun registration should be mandatory without exception. With the ease of transportation of guns across state lines, our current state laws that regulate gun ownership are ridiculous. It has to be at the federal level and it will happen eventually.

Secondly, owners, that do not secure their firearms should bear some responsibility for crimes committed with their guns. A study at John Hopkins found that 54% of gun owners do not store their guns safely. The researchers defined safe storage as being in a locked gun safe, cabinet or case; locked into a gun rack, or stored with a trigger lock or other lock. The favored places for storing guns were in unlocked desks and drawers, bedside tables, and on closet shelves, all of which are easily accessed by children and thieves.

With all of the facts about gun registration...that it does nothing to solve or prevent crimes...you are still pushing it......that shows that you are immune to actual facts, the truth and reality......

And the truth is this, gun registration = gun confiscation.......everywhere it is done, you end up with confiscation.....

And no.....gun locks were also found unConstitutional under Heller .... citing crap research doesn't help your cause.

With 99% of the guns in the nation being unregistered, the databases are of limited value. Thanks to the gun lobby, it is almost impossible to determine the ownership of a gun used in a crime from registration records. Since every state decides what data is be collected and from who there is little consistency. From the records, you can't tell who owns the weapon now, when it was owned, how it was acquired, or the location of owner. In effect, all you can say for sure is that somebody probably owned the weapon at some point in time. I agree with you. Registration does nothing to solve or prevent crimes. The NRA made sure of that.

Knowing who owns a firearm is irrelevant. Crimes are solved without the LEO community having all that information. Serial numbers and registrations do not make firearms any less lethal.

Your money would be better spent on rehabilitating criminals while they are incarcerated. It would be better spent on identity children with emotional and behavioral issues while they're in school and treating them so that they don't commit violent acts as they grow up.

 

[Humorme]

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=ff0d01-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

And yet the states where the guns are coming from have less gun violence than in the democrat controlled, extreme gun controlled cities where the criminals sell them to other criminals....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

If states with strict gun control laws could keep guns from flowing into the state from states that have practically no regulations, they would certainly be more effective. The only way state gun control laws would have any major effect would be if all states followed suite and that's not going to happen.

That isn't the issue......you have no idea what you are talking about....New York and Baltimore are in the same region...they both have access to states with less extreme gun laws....and Baltimore has a gun murder rate that dwards New York even though New York has a much larger population......

Chicago has a higher gun murder rate than L.A. and New York combined.....and the criminals in L.A. and New York both have access to states with less extreme gun laws..the difference is that Chicago lets gun criminals out of jail over and over again, we have a revolving door for gun killers that Rudy Guiliani cleaned up in New York, and the L.A. gangs don't murder as easily or often as the Chicago gangs.....

Chicago and Houston have similar populations......Chicago has extreme gun control and won't let any gun stores open in the city....Houston has gun stores on every corner, has open and concealed carry, and has a border with the Drug cartel state of Mexico...and has a gun murder rate lower than Chicago...

So tell me, genius...how is that possible if access to guns is the reason these extreme gun control cities have so much gun murder?

Dittos New York and Houston...according to you, Houston should have a higher gun murder rate than New York, since they have less extreme gun control laws........

You guys can never explain how the states where the guns are coming from have lower gun murder rates than the cities where the illegal guns are being sold, the cities with extreme gun control laws........

Murder rate 2017
Baltimore......343
Population of cities 2016:

Chicago........2.7 million
L.A................3.9 million
N.Y................8.5 million
Houston........2.3 million
Baltimore......620,961


Murder rate 2016:

Chicago........765
L.A.......... .....293
N.Y................335
Houston .......301
Baltimore......318

If you can drive a car, you can bring as many guns as you like into the city from states with weak gun laws and there's little the city can do to stop it. Thanks for proving my point. Local and state gun laws can do little to reduce gun crimes. As long as guns are easily acquired in other states, local laws will be ineffective.

The acquisition of firearms has NOTHING to do with the rate of crime anywhere in America.

 

[Vandalshandle]

It is critical that everyone be armed with semi-automatic rifles and 100 round drums, for when the zombie Apocalypse starts.

 

[Humorme]

It is critical that everyone be armed with semi-automatic rifles and 100 round drums, for when the zombie Apocalypse starts.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

 

[Vandalshandle]

It is critical that everyone be armed with semi-automatic rifles and 100 round drums, for when the zombie Apocalypse starts.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

Sounds like Russia is a country with a dangerous government. Maybe someone should mention this to Trump.

 

[JGalt]

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=ff0d01-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

Gun registration does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters....however, you mopes need gun registration in order to confiscate guns when you get enough power......

The purpose of gun registration is not to limit access to guns but to ensure gun owner accountability and help law enforcement solve crimes and disarm criminals. Despite the clear advantages inherent in registration laws, few states have such laws on the books—and some prohibit them outright.

Firearms registration does nothing to ensure gun-owner accountability. legitimate gun-owners seldom commit crimes and criminal couldn't give two hoots whether a firearm is registered or not. They purchase stolen firearms or steal them, themselves. Often-times they are scrubbed of the serial numbers, so registration is a moot point.

 

[JGalt]

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.

The Courts have ruled you have Right to Travel.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BHYB4P8/?tag=ff0d01-20

Most gun laws such as registration of firearms should be the same across the country because state boundaries mean little today. People move between states as easy as ones moves from one city to another.

And yet the states where the guns are coming from have less gun violence than in the democrat controlled, extreme gun controlled cities where the criminals sell them to other criminals....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

If states with strict gun control laws could keep guns from flowing into the state from states that have practically no regulations, they would certainly be more effective. The only way state gun control laws would have any major effect would be if all states followed suite and that's not going to happen.

Guns are not "flowing into the states" from states which have fewer regulations.The law prohibits the interstate trafficking of firearms without filling out the proper forms and submitting to a criminal background check.

You cannot simply go to a gun shop in a neighboring state and purchase a firearm if you don't have a picture ID from that state, fill out the BATFE forms, and submit to a criminal background check.

There are already laws on the books that prevent illegal interstate trafficking of firearms. Since there are already laws, what makes you think that criminals are going to obey even more laws?