First of all, that's not at all what I said. What I said is these measures protect your reputation as a responsible gun owner, as well as make the logical sense of reducing gun related crime.
that is not at all what you said. What you said was:
...Those who truly want a gun for responsible purposes should have no problem with background checks. They should have no problem with required training to obtain a gun. They should have no problem with their guns being registered....
As a gun-owner I have a helluva lot of problems with the notion of the government registering my guns. I wouldn't mind weapons handling courses in High Schools the same as we do with Drivers' Ed - and I wouldn't mind a
State making it a requirement for CC. But a national gun registry? No thanks.
Great red herring. Could you please come back to THIS discussion and what I said please?
It is precisely the same logic - simply applied to the first amendment instead of the second. The idea that we require permission from the
government to exercise one of our most basic human rights of self-defense is an an incredible perversion of the principles of our form of government as the idea that we should require permission from the government to have and express a political opinion or religious belief.
You're missing the point. Illegal gun owners are less likely to get the gun. That's the point.
No, I get that you think that. You are simply missing the point that "illegal" gun owners are
ILLEGAL gun owners, and therefore do not give a rats patootie what the legal restrictions are.
So? They can care and they can get them. My dad's wife carries concealed, it didn't seem to bother her to go through the "hassles" of getting her permit.
:shrug: and I'm glad for her that nothing happened in the mean-time. The fact remains that criminals are not going to be hampered by any of the restrictions you have suggested.
The fact you think that is what I'm saying shows you're obviously not "listening" to me.
On the contrary, that is precisely your argument.
Let me ask you, where do you think the criminals get their guns? Do they just snap their fingers and guns appear? Are there drive-thru gun shops, where a criminal can obtain a gun the same way I obtain a 32 oz soda? Do you think every potential criminal has a cartel connection in Colombia?
Mostly from other criminals, friends, and family members -
the kind of people who are not covered under this legislation, whom it is impossible to effectively regulate, and who are least likely to voluntarily cooperate with gun laws.
If you strengthen the laws in obtaining guns, many of those so-called straw buyers tend to lose interest much faster. Register the gun and it's used in a crime, then suddenly the straw buyer becomes legally responsible.
If the straw buyer makes a habit of having guns "stolen", then the straw buyer is denied his next firearm. And if a legal gun owner really does have a gun stolen multiple times, then they are not a responsible gun owner.
As a responsible gun owner, you should be pushing for measures which only allows legitimate gun owners to purchase guns. Will these laws prevent all gun related crimes? Of course not. But there is no doubt in my mind it will lower the gun related crime, while at the same time, not prohibit those who wish to legally and responsibly own a gun from doing so. Will you be more inconvenienced? Absolutely. But I think that's a small price to pay.
Marijuana is outright banned - it is a federal crime to possess or sell or grow it (some small state level gaps apply for select individuals). Can you name me a single county in America where I cannot walk into any
high school and get it? There is no doubt in my mind that you will
increase violent crime by making it harder and less likely for
good people to be armed.
