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....
Yes, as part of my bigger point of....
"Responsible and law abiding gun owners SHOULD support these type of measures. "Crazies", as you have called them, make the rest of you look bad. I would think you'd work for a way to try and stamp down the crazies from reflecting poorly on you, rather than doing everything you can to make sure they can keep getting guns and keep harming people."
Please quote the whole thing. But even that had nothing to do with your red herring argument about government reading your mail.
As a gun-owner I have a helluva lot of problems with the notion of the government registering my guns.
Your car is registered. You are registered as a person, whether it be to vote or as part of Social Security or something else. And yet, your concern is if a gun you'll never use illegally is registered?
I don't understand this mentality.
But a national gun registry? No thanks.
Because...? And don't say gun confiscation, that's just a made up boogie man. Please provide a different reason for no national gun registry, a reason I can actually take seriously. Please note, that is not intended as disrespectful rhetoric. I would genuinely like to see a legitimate argument against a gun registry that does not include the word "confiscation".
It is precisely the same logic - simply applied to the first amendment instead of the second.
No, it isn't. The government isn't tracking when and where you take your gun. They are not tracking when you fire off some practice rounds. All I'm suggesting is that we know who is buying them. That's it. There's a big difference. If you want to compare it to something, compare it to voting (as I've seen many pro gun people do). You have to provide proof of identification to vote, to make sure you are who you say you are. That's a far better example.
The idea that we require permission from the government to exercise one of our most basic human rights of self-defense
I'm sorry, I have to stop you here. Owning a gun is not a "basic human right of self-defense". Human beings defended themselves for centuries upon centuries without guns. Guns in the hands of private citizens is a fairly new development in relation to the history of the world. It's not a basic human right. It's a right granted to you by the founders of our government.
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.
I have already explained this. Again, do you think illegal gun owners just will guns into existence? Do they snap their fingers and a gun appears? Do they rub a magic lamp and a genie grants them their wish of a gun?
There's a serious disconnect with your thinking. Mostly the part about HOW do they get the gun.
: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.
Sure they will. To suggest otherwise is short-sighted.
On the contrary, that is precisely your argument.
No, it is not. Do not tell me what my argument is, especially since you don't seem to understand it.
Mostly from other criminals, friends, and family members
And how do they get the guns? You're not following your line of thinking through. Keep going. Who gets the guns in the first place?
the kind of people who are not covered under this legislation
Ah, but we're not talking about THIS legislation right now, are we? Because this legislation does not include a gun registry or required training. Just because the legislation being debated is weak, that doesn't mean we shouldn't push for legislation with no loopholes.
whom it is impossible to effectively regulate
No it's not, it'd actually be quite simple. If I own a gun and I want to give/sell it to you, it would be no different than if I would give/sell you a car. The title to the gun would have to change hands, and in this case, we'd have to background check the recipient. If a gun is stolen, the gun should be reported stolen. If the gun is used in a crime (and not reported stolen), then the person the gun is registered to should be prosecuted for some type of crime for recklessness.
It'd be very easy to regulate and would be of great service to legal and responsible gun owners.
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.
I find this logic to be completely lacking.
Please do me a favor. Let's assume, for our argument's sake, there are universal background checks, required training (let's say 10 hours, for a good round number) and a gun registry for all guns. Now, take me through the path of a gun, from the manufacturer to the criminal act. Then explain how it is likely MORE guns will be in the hands of those with illegitimate intentions. Let's assume I don't have connections with a cartel in South America.
See, from where I sit, the NRA's lobbying has completely brainwashed gun owners, either directly or indirectly. Responsible gun owners SHOULD be pushing for legislation which protects their reputation. People like you see guns as a positive, a benefit to society. But thanks to the criminals, guns are seen not for their beneficial properties, but for their negative effects. You should be actively working to find ways to keep guns out of the hands of those who would do harm, in an effort to better your life and your reputation as a gun owner, as opposed to fighting for the criminals ability to continue obtaining guns.
But the NRA doesn't want that. The NRA is basically a lobbying group for gun manufacturers, and people who feel safe don't buy guns. So the NRA scares people into thinking Obama is going to take your guns or that a criminal is sitting outside of your house just waiting for the moment to come rape your family. They want to make you scared so people will buy more guns. Look at how gun sales spiked when Obama was elected. Look how gun sales spiked when Newtown happened. The NRA pushes this monster around every corner mentality, because they want more money.
The truth of the matter is things like gun registries and background checks and competency training are POSITIVES for responsible gun owners. Yes, it will be a little more inconvenient, just like taking my driving test before getting my license was for me. But at the end of the day, you'll still be able to get your gun, but you'll have a little less to fear from other people just giving away guns to anyone with a hand out. Not to mention, legislation like this would PROTECT responsible gun owners, not deny them. But too many gun supporters don't understand this. They aren't willing to look at the big picture. They just want to see what's immediately in front of them, whether it exists or not.
Your point was that you have no problem with open carry.
No, it wasn't. My point was there is nothing in the Constitution protecting your right to carry a firearm in your clothes, thus making the $200+ fine entirely his choice and not prohibiting him from exercising his right. I was responded to with a statement about how open carry is illegal, at which point I noted that the other poster should be upset with the law prohibiting, not the law restricting.
Does that make sense now?
