The Gun Control Debate will continue until we find solutions that make sense for people on both sides of the issue.

[Ace Nova]

This can only be done if you choose to understand what you are told.

USSC in v Bruen, 2024:

when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

No such demonstration can be made for universal registration or any sort of background check.
Thus, unconstitutional.

Now then...
Do you choose to understand, and thus, choose enlightenment?
Or do you choose to proceed outside the reality that the pro-gun side will not accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions that violates the constitution?

Ironically, the case you quoted is about issuing a gun permit in the state of New York. The permit itself is a form of regulation - interesting that it does not seem to considered "unconstitutional" by the very same court. (More on that later).

It was not a unanimous decision, (6-3)similar issues could (and likely will) resurface in future cases.

The dissenting opinion raised valid points:

First, the Court decides this case on the basis of the pleadings, without the benefit of discovery or an evidentiary record. As a result, it may well rest its decision on a mistaken understanding of how New York’s law operates in practice. Second, the Court wrongly limits its analysis to focus nearly exclusively on history. It refuses to consider the government interests that justify a challenged gun regulation, regardless of how compelling those interests may be. The Constitution contains no such limitation, and nei- ther do our precedents. Third, the Court itself demonstrates the practical problems with its history-only approach. In applying that approach to New York’s law, the Court fails to correctly identify and analyze the relevant historical facts. Only by ignoring an abundance of historical evidence supporting regulations restricting the public carriage of firearms can the Court conclude that New York’s law is not “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”




The reason they were able to overturn the case, citing that the

the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

is because requiring the permit (which is regulation) is considered to be constitutional but denying one the right to have the permit is not.

Back to why regulation and gun registration would absolutely (without question) not be considered unconstitutional by this decision is because there is a long history of gun registration, dating back to the colonies:

...Gun ownership (was not) a free-for-all in the colonial period and the early republic. Because of the importance of the militias to public safety, gun registration was mandatory and government officials had the right to come into your home to inspect your musket. The government had opinions as to which weapons you should buy and even as to how you should keep your weapon—mandating, for example, that gunpowder be stored in a safe manner.

Automatic for the People

Armed militias were essential to the creation of America. But times have changed, and so has the firepower.

www.topic.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

Back to why regulation and gun registration would absolutely (without question) not be considered unconstitutional by this decision is because there is a long history of gun registration, dating back to the colonies:

Heh.
Someone lied to you. And you let them.
To wit:

...Gun ownership (was not) a free-for-all in the colonial period and the early republic. Because of the importance of the militias to public safety, gun registration was mandatory and government officials had the right to come into your home to inspect your musket.

If you were in the militia.

If you were in the militia, you -sometimes- had to state what weapon you would bring to service..
-You did not need to bring that firearm, if you had another suitable for service
-You did need to 'register' any of your other firearms
-If you were NOT in the militia, you did not need to 'register' ANY of your firearms.

That is, registration of firearms was not precondition for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
Thus, your example does no demonstrate a relevant historical analogue.

Try again -- and this time address background checks.

 

[Ace Nova]

You stated:
Actually, a large number of folks that are on "the pro gun side" aren't against background checks and gun registration

Quantify this, specifically.

And then tell us how this affects those of us who do -not- agree.

If 92% of the country is in favor of mandatory background checks - that means only 8% of the country "does not agree". As for how that affects the 8%? I wouldn't know. How do you think it affects the 8%?

The opinions on a national gun registry is much closer with 57% in favor.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ironically, the case you quoted is about issuing a gun permit in the state of New York. The permit itself is a form of regulation - interesting that it does not seem to considered "unconstitutional" by the very same court.

Because the constitutionality of the permit itself was not a question before the court.

It was not a unanimous decision, (6-3)

So?

similar issues could (and likely will) resurface in future cases.

Yes- - magazine bans, assault weapons bans, waiting periods, background checks the NFA -- all will surelt reference back to the Bruen decision.
Under Bruen, all will be struck.

The dissenting opinion raised valid points:

The dissenting opinion lost, 6-3.
This, it is meaningless.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If 92% of the country i...

Your failure to address my post is noted.

 

[Ace Nova]

Heh.
Someone lied to you. And you let them.
To wit:

If you were in the militia.

If you were in the militia, you -sometimes- had to state what weapon you would bring to service..
-You did not need to bring that firearm, if you had another suitable for service
-You did need to 'register' any of your other firearms
-If you were NOT in the militia, you did not need to 'register' ANY of your firearms.

That is, registration of firearms was not precondition for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
Thus, your example does no demonstrate a relevant historical analogue.

Try again -- and this time address background checks.

Semantics.

There is a clear history of gun regulation in the U.S. Whether it was a stringent as my source stated or less stringent as you are implying, is irrelevant. The history is there.


"With regard to background checks, the Court included examples of “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.” According to the majority, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

These courts ask whether “a particular provision impinges upon a right protected by the Second Amendment.” In applying this first step, the courts have found that a regulation that is “long-standing” is “presumptively lawful” because it has been long accepted by the public and unlikely to burden a constitutional right. Second, the courts ask whether “the provision passes muster under the appropriate level of scrutiny.” In applying this crucial second step, these circuit courts have chosen to apply intermediate, rather than strict, scrutiny, which allows the government to engage in a reasonable balancing between public safety and the individual right.

Neither the Supreme Court nor the federal courts of appeals have held these restrictions on possession to violate the Constitution. As the Supreme Court observed in Heller, its decision does not “cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.” If these restrictions do not violate the Second Amendment, it is difficult to find that a background-check system would violate it, as a background-check system is only a means of enforcing the underlying rules. Indeed, the background-check system would appear to be a vital mechanism to ensure that firearms sellers do not violate the terms of the national Gun Control Act.

A Universal-Background-Check Law Would Not Violate the Second Amendment | National Review

Debate whether it would be effective, not whether it’s allowed.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[Ace Nova]

Your failure to address my post is noted.

How so?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Semantics.

An interesting way to concede the point - but accepted.

There is a clear history of gun regulation in the U.S. Whether it was a stringent as my source stated or less stringent as you are implying, is irrelevant. The history is there.

There is ZERO ratification-era history of a requirement to register a firearm as a condition to exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
The example you provided was an example of registration as a requirement for service in the militia, not the exercise of the righ to keep and bear arms.

"With regard to background checks, the Court included examples of “presumptively lawful regulatory measures.” According to the majority, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

That's Heller.
Bruen, which expands up and clarifies Heller says:

...when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

There is ZERO ratification-era history of a requirement to undergo a background check as a condition to exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

These courts ask whether “a particular provision impinges upon a right protected by the Second Amendment.” In applying this first step, the courts have found that a regulation that is “long-standing” is “presumptively lawful” because it has been long accepted by the public and unlikely to burden a constitutional right. Second, the courts ask whether “the provision passes muster under the appropriate level of scrutiny.” In applying this crucial second step, these circuit courts have chosen to apply intermediate, rather than strict, scrutiny, which allows the government to engage in a reasonable balancing between public safety and the individual right.

Bruen not only discarded the means-tests that sprang up after Heller, it rejected and invalidated their very concept:

Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[2aguy]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Where?

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

As Haynes found, punishing a criminal for not registering an illegal gun violated their 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination....

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4]

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[2aguy]

If it doesn't deter the rapist, at the very least, it could help police track down the suspect and send him back to jail. If he's in jail, he's not raping. (At least not anyone outside of jail).

Actually, a large number of folks that are on "the pro gun side" aren't against background checks and gun registration. As a matter of fact, I'd wager most responsible gun owners aren't against it at all. Once again, it's the extreme minority that screams the loudest and tend to create the illusion that all gun owners are against background checks and gun registration. It's simply not true.

Most gun owners who don't pay attention to the issues involved don't understand that universal background checks are just the gateway gun banners want to use to get gun registration....which is what they need before they can really ban or confiscate guns...they need to know who has them.......

Those of us who have studied the issue over decades know this is true......and why we oppose it while people who simply buy a gun without understanding the politics involved answer poll questions without knowing what they are anwering.....

 

[2aguy]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Where?

As to registration.....

Countries such as Canada, the U.K., and Australia aren't the only ones to use registration to ban and confiscate guns. California, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. have also used registration to know who legally owned different types of guns before banning them.

Conducting background checks to see if someone can legally buy a gun is different from the government keeping a searchable record of those who own guns. Indeed, federal law has always required that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System erase background check information within 24 hours of its completion.


Gun control activists push for registration as a way to solve crime. In theory, if criminals leave registered guns at a crime scene, they can then be traced back to the perpetrator.

But in real life, a gun is usually left at the scene of a crime only when the gunman has been seriously injured or killed. Also, guns used in crimes are rarely registered. In the exceedingly unusual instances that they are, they aren't registered to the person who committed the crime. However, with both the criminal and weapon present at the scene, police can solve these crimes even without registration.

In a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania state police could not identify any crimes solved by their registration system from 1901 to 2001; however they did claim that it had "assisted" in a total of four cases, for which they could provide no details.

In a 2013 deposition for District of Columbia v. Heller II, the plaintiffs recorded that the Washington, D.C. police chief could not "recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime, except for possession offenses."

During testimony before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, Honolulu’s police chief stated that he couldn't find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours to registering and licensing guns each year. This is time that could have been spent on traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.


New York and Maryland spent tens of millions of dollars putting together a computer database on all new guns sold in the past 15 years, even recording the ballistic fingerprint of each gun. But even these states, which strongly favor gun control, eventually abolished their systems because they never solved a single crime.

In 2010, Canada conducted a detailed examination of its program. It found that, from 2003 to 2009, 1,314 out of 4,257 Canadian homicides involved firearms. Of the identified weapons, about three-quarters were not registered. Among registered weapons, the registered owner was rarely the person accused of the homicide. In just 62 cases – only 4.7 percent of all firearm homicides – was the gun registered to the accused, and an unknown number of these homicide cases involve instances of self-defense. But the Royal Canadian Mounted Police failed to identify any cases where registration was integral to solving the crime.



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/02/04/democrats_pushing_gun_registry_as_precursor_to_gun_ban_147139.html

So....gun registration

1) actual criminals are exeempt

2) they don't solve crimes

3) They are the precursor to gun bans and confiscation....

So what other selling points do you have?

 

[2aguy]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Where?

And more on registration....

Eighty percent of illegal guns recovered in Michigan have been on the street for at least three years.

The average time between a firearm being stolen and turning up in a criminal context — what police call the “time to crime” — is a long 13 years.

Editorial: How to get illegal guns off the streets

Do you think 13 years from the original owner will help solve any crime?

 

[2aguy]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Where?

Here....more information to help sell gun registration......Canada already tried it.......and failed......

And the last link and quote covers your idea to keep a record of bullets......it failed too....

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

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.


As to solving crimes....it doesn't...
10 Myths About The Long Gun Registry

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.


-----

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?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

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.
====
In the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Pa. gun registry waste of money, resources - Crime Prevention Research Center

Gun-control advocates have long claimed that a comprehensive registry would be an effective safety tool. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.

Nice logic, but reality has never worked that way. Crime guns are rarely left at crime scenes. The few that are have been unregistered — criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun that’s registered to them. When a gun is left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed. These crimes would have been solved even without registration.

Registration hasn’t worked in Pennsylvania or other places. During a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania State Police could not identify a specific crime that had been solved through the registration system from 1901 to 2001, though they did claim that it had “assisted” in a total of four cases but they could provide no details.

During a 2013 deposition, the Washington, D.C., police chief said that she could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.”

When I testified before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, the Honolulu chief of police also stated that he couldn’t find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours each year to registering and licensing guns. This time is being taken away from traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.

Of course, many are concerned that registration lists will eventually be used to confiscate people’s guns. Given that such lists have been used to force people to turn in guns in California, Connecticut, New York and Chicago, these fears aren’t entirely unjustified.

Instead of wasting money and precious police time on a gun registry that won’t solve crime, Pennsylvania should get rid of the program that we already have and spend our resources on programs that matter. Traditional policing works, and we should all be concerned that this bill will keep even more officers from important duties.


Bullet tracking..

Maryland scraps gun "fingerprint" database after 15 failed years


Millions of dollars later, Maryland has officially decided that its 15-year effort to store and catalog the "fingerprints" of thousands of handguns was a failure.

Since 2000, the state required that gun manufacturers fire every handgun to be sold here and send the spent bullet casing to authorities. The idea was to build a database of "ballistic fingerprints" to help solve future crimes.

But the system — plagued by technological problems — never solved a single case. Now the hundreds of thousands of accumulated casings could be sold for scrap.

"Obviously, I'm disappointed," said former Gov. Parris N. Glendening, a Democrat whose administration pushed for the database to fulfill a campaign promise. "It's a little unfortunate, in that logic and common sense suggest that it would be a good crime-fighting tool."

The database "was a waste," said Frank Sloane, owner of Pasadena Gun & Pawn in Anne Arundel County. "There's things that they could have done that would have made sense. This didn't make any sense."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Gun control is a legal, philosophical and moral issue.

About half the country wants to live in a society where citizens have the right to buy and carry firearms. Given our country's history, many of them raise valid points. Our country was founded because of a revolution against England and would not have won that war had the citizens not had firearms. Most people back then lived in rural areas where having firearms was essential for both protection and hunting. (Which still holds true in many areas throughout the country, especially in smaller communities and very rural areas where it could take the police a very long time to respond)

Our country also has had somewhat of a violent past, if you think of the Wild West, the Civil War, and numerous other wars internationally. So "Gun Culture" is somewhat embedded in a large part of American Society.

The other half of the country wants to live in a society where most (if not all) firearms are used primarily for hunting purposes but rarely for self defense reasons. They've witnessed the alarming amount of gun violence that's plagued many of the cities throughout the country for decades now. They've also witnessed the increased amount of mass shootings and school shootings over the past few decades. They're also tired of fearing for their lives over road rage incidents, bar fights, sporting event fights, etc etc.

The debate over gun control will likely continue until people on both sides of the issue have a reason to "change" their opinion on the matter.

A good start (in my humble opinion) would be figuring out a way to drastically reduce inner city gun violence. How do you do it? Well, let's take a look at why there's so much violence in some of our cities. It's common knowledge that a large part of the violence is related to various networks of illegal drug trade, human trafficking and various other criminal enterprises.

Our current "War on Drugs" has been going on for 50+ years, yet the violence in most cities hasn't decreased. Is it time for a different approach? Decriminalization of possessing a small amount of drugs could be a start. Decriminalization is NOT legalization. It would simply treat drug possession cases as a civil infraction instead of a criminal infraction. It would also do wonders for our Criminal Justice System, incarceration rates, facilities, etc. It would likely save billions of dollars, which then could be used for rehabilitation programs, etc. Rehabilitating people involved with drugs, instead of sending them to prison, where many come out even more violent than when they went in.

Think of it like this: If you're a drug dealer or drug user, you won't go to jail for the drugs you possess but you will likely face heavy jail time for possessing a gun. The smart ones will likely figure it out pretty quickly and not carry guns. If you're a police officer, how much better would it feel knowing that the drug dealer you just pulled over probably won't shoot you, since he knows he won't go to jail for drugs. Decriminalization won't necessarily end the higher level trafficking but it certainly could help with the street-level drug trade. And could likely drastically reduce street-level gun violence.

The first thing that comes into the minds of gun advocates nowadays when a progressive talks about gun regulation, etc is, "They want to regulate our guns when most of the gun violence is in the cities and they can't even get that under control, despite heavy regulation in many cities". And they have a valid point. BUT if pro-gun culture folks see that inner city gun crime has finally been reduced, would they be more willing to listen to the other side of the argument? I would think so.

There are many other ways to help resolve the gun control issue within the US, including better education, better mental health programs and various other programs that can gradually change our "gun culture".

Mandatory background checks, including gun shows and private trade should be standard. I would also look into mental health screenings, classes, tests, etc If we need to take a class and a test to drive a car, we should require something similar to possess a firearm. I (and I'm assuming most people) would want the peace of mind knowing that if someone legally owns a gun, they are: A. Mentally stable. and: B. They know how to safely use it.

My 2 cents.

You might want to retune your math. What you did was lump all Americans together and decide half Americans want his and the other half want that. Why don't you retune your math by those who can legally buy and own a firearm vs. those who cannot. I'm pretty sure the math will show More Americans do not want more gun control

 

[Donald H]

I've never bought one. I knew it to be a good platform and fun to shoot from my many years enlisted and commissioned in various chosen combat arms positions training on and training hundreds of others on a variety of weapons and weapons systems, an evaluated expert in all. I bought the parts and assembled, thinking it well within my training and mechanical ability, and liked choosing the parts (all interchangeable, as the platform is the platform) from specific manufacturers (several) based on where I thought the money best spent to build from the ground up, a highly accurate, heavier barrel, totally reliable, most resistant to wear in critical points, or specially hardened and of material more resistant to carbon build up such as the bolt (easier to clean), some for added versatility weapon, best suited to the way I shoot (and been known to abuse) put together by hand, myself and prove it on the range, so I did. It is everything I built into it. I took pride in the work and it will be passed down, a well built custom artifact of my construction. I passed down shooting skills and training to my kids, long before they were adults, just as was passed down by my father and his father before him, here in Tennessee.

1. No. I certainly do not have or would I attempt to have weapons equal to the weapons in the arsenal of US Military, as it is simply not possible, not even a desire. I am on their side.
2. There will be no chance of war on US soil. Don't be stupid. Only the nut-balls think like that.

Your line conversation is not on any kind of different level. You haven't heard any of the bullshit you have heard from some someone, coming from me. You are just as bad as non-weapons owners, lumping all weapons owners together, but you simply have a hard on, against AR-15s and their owners, as if you think you could know them. How naive, you really are.

As I''ve said numerous times, I have nothing against guns. They're all just machines or tools.

I do have something against those who choose to have an AR-15 or similar weapon, in black. At least 90% of them own them for reasons that don't meet my expectations of them being totally legitimate.

I allow for 10% because they're like you, like what you claim to be, or are liars. Most have no apologies to offer.

But isn't it ironic that your opinions voiced all of a sudden turned to you defending your reasons why you didn't buy one, etc., etc., while earlier you didn't demonstrate any need to explain or apologize.

And now you're even calling me stupid for thinking there will be a war on US soil. Didn't you understand that is what half the pro-gunners are suggesting and it has nothing to do with what I think?

 

[Donald H]

Yeah, doesnt work that way. You watch too many movies.

If the gun is registered to Bob smith and it is stolen....passed around doe yeara by various criminals....it doesnt matter that it belonged to bob.....

When i have a chance ill show you that Canada tried to juat register ling guns and not only did it fail tohwlp solve crimes....it was completwly useless....dittos an attempt to log bullets from guns in ine of our states....

doe yeara?

The f under the left trigger finger you ignorant fanatic. You're not even capable of accepting that nobody says the guns are to blame!

 

[Donald H]

You might want to retune your math. What you did was lump all Americans together and decide half Americans want his and the other half want that. Why don't you retune your math by those who can legally buy and own a firearm vs. those who cannot. I'm pretty sure the math will show More Americans do not want more gun control

better than 2/3 want gun control, but they're barking up the wrong tree. They need to lose a lot more children yet before they accept America's problem of a huge number of mass shootings of the children.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

better than 2/3 want gun control, but they're barking up the wrong tree. They need to lose a lot more children yet before they accept America's problem of a huge number of mass shootings of the children.

More Americans who can legally buy a gun want nothing to do with more gun control than those who can legally buy a gun and don't have one. Those who can't legally buy a gun don't count.

 

[Donald H]

More Americans who can legally buy a gun want nothing to do with more gun control than those who can legally buy a gun and don't have one.

Another fatass gungoon who can't string words together for a sentence.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Another fatass gungoon who can't string words together for a sentence.

Oh gee I see you're stumped. Because more Americans do not want anymore gun control