Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights
I'm concerned about your view on these options...
1. What is the argument against having registration for firearms, besides you don't like it because you feel it infringes upon your rights?
Isn't the idea of a right being something you do not need permission from the government to exercise?
Registrations have been nothing more to a prelude to confiscation. There is no logical way that a fire arm registration will reduce crime nor does it help solve a crime(
especially seeing how criminals do not register their firearms).
Registration, the big lie. : RICHMARK SENTINEL
In 1997 Sydney Mufamadi in answers to questions stated in Parliament that the amount of violent crime committed by licensed firearm owners was “insignificant”. This is estimated to be 0.05%. Registering the 99.95% of firearms in the hope of finding the 0.05% is like registering each straw in a haystack to find the needle.
Universal firearms registration is ineffective because it cannot reduce firearms deaths, cannot help police to solve crimes, nor can it let police know who has what firearms. There is no factual support for the claim that firearms registration can help the police solve crimes. The police in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Switzerland have worked with firearms registration for a number of years, but in none of these countries have the police found firearms registration to be cost-effective.
• A secret report from the United Kingdom police admits that their extensive firearms database has not been useful in solving crimes in that country.
• The police in two Australian states recommended the termination of universal firearms registration. - Report of the Victoria Police on the Firearms Registration System, February 26, 1987; - Report of the South Australian Deregulation Task Force, Adelaide, October, 1985.
• The New Zealand government decided to discontinue firearms registration in 1983 after the New Zealand National Police recommended its termination since they had not found it useful. Despite drastic increases in funding in the 1970s, the New Zealand National Police were actually falling further and further behind. They discovered that after several decades, their firearm registry hadn't proved useful in solving crimes and it was diverting scarce resources away from more important duties.
• Canada’s recently elected Government has decided to abandon the firearms registry. It had been demonstrated that the Canadian licensing and registration system was not cost-effective and had not reduced crime. Research had shown that 71 per cent of firearm licenses were found to have errors, and over 250,000 guns were registered with the same serial numbers as stolen guns. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police had said that they had no faith in the registry’s information, which listed barely more than half the country’s guns or gun owners. Moreover, the firearms register had not saved any lives: while gun homicide numbers were indeed down, the proportion of domestic homicides involving guns had not declined. Nor had the overall homicide rate declined, stressing that the actual increase in homicides suggested that crime rates were driven by sociological factors, such as the percentage of youth in a total population, and social conditions, rather than the availability of one method of murder. No evidence had been found that blanket gun regulations, even firearms prohibitions, contributed to the reduction of criminal violence.
• Switzerland has joined Canada, New Zealand and Brazil in rejecting measures such as the mandatory registration of long arms, based on the growing awareness that such approaches were not cost-effective and do not reduce crime.
2. Would you like weapons normally reserved for the military open to civilians to buy? I'm sure some billionaire would love to buy a nuclear bomb, or a few tons of explosives, and then using them on us. After passing it to some friends to keep his hands clean of course.
I would have no problem with civilians having access to the same weapons the military has. Perhaps the government should not have nukes if they do not want civilians owning them.If the huge vast majority of gun owners do not commit crimes with there guns then I imagine that those same people with tanks, F-16s or what ever else are not going to commit crimes with them.
I find it amusing that anti-2nd amendment loons always bring the nukes into into the discussion as though wanting to ban on a weapon that can blow up a city or larger(
whom most people agree that not even governments should have themselves should not have) somehow equal to the anti-2nd amendment loons wanting registrations,licenses/permits, excessive taxes, limits and bans on all kinds of other weapons ranging from everything below a nuke all the way to a musket and probably a bb gun and plastic pellet gun as well.
3. Would you like murderers out on parole to be able to buy a firearm
If they can not be trusted with full rights as American citizens then they should not be let out of prison in the first place.
