HR 127 is a way to confiscate guns

[Flash]

Registration precludes confiscation. Learn from history and look up "1938 Nazi weapons".
https://citizenwells.com/tag/nazi-weapons-act-of-1938/

Do not expect it to go that way in America. Grab that bobcat if you want to, I think you're a dumbass if you try.

If they wanted to confiscate American guns they don't need registration first. But, we both know Americans would strongly oppose confiscation and it would not be constitutional.

Let's worry about things that might actually happen instead of wild scare tactics. I got my vaccine shot this morning and heard on a right-wing talk show that it would make me gay.

 

[Flash]

Compulsory gun registration violates the 2nd and 5th amendments. Both of those amendments applies to States, you know.

Yes, I know it applies to the states because both of those amendments have been incorporated.

Registration has been upheld as constitutional (depending on its requirements):

"D.C.’s basic requirement that guns be registered was upheld, because it imposed only a “de minimis” burden, similar to the burden of registering an automobile. Fingerprinting was valid because it can deter people fraudulently obtaining firearms by using a counterfeit driver’s license. Photographing helps police determine that a person who has a gun registration certificate is indeed the person named on the certificate. The D.C. fees of $35 for fingerprints and $13 per gun for registration were constitutional because they simply covered the costs of administering laws that were themselves constitutional."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-gun-registration-law-ruled-unconstitutional/

 

[Concart]

If you want to restrict my right to own and bear arms then yes, that is the only constitutional path available. Personally I think you will fail to get that to pass with a 2/3 vote from congress let alone getting 3/4 of the states to agree as well.

That's not the only way. The Heller ruling made that pretty clear. Eight states have banned semiautomatic weapons in some form or another. Last I looked, those laws have not been declared unconstitutional. We had a federal ban for years. So there is no reason we can't do that again. Every enumerated right is limited in some way. Your second amend right to keep and bear arms is no different.

 

[CASPER]

Two questions:

What actual good would registration actually provide is reducing shootings?

How much impact would banning "certain firearms" in reducing shootings?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Just checking in.

Can I see a show of hands of those that had their arms taken away?

 

[Concart]

Two questions:

What actual good would registration actually provide is reducing shootings?

How much impact would banning "certain firearms" in reducing shootings?

How much does making murder illegal reduce murder? The reality is that states with stricter gun laws generally have lower gun death rates. Countries that have stricter gun laws have fewer gun deaths. There is no reason to think those are not correlated, and there are lots of data points. After 9/11, in order to prevent another attack, we spent billions of dollars and passed all kinds of restrictive travel measures. And yet to avoid all of these mass shootings, people aren't willing to give up the ability to purchase a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill as fast as possible? Is that really asking too much? Is it possible to absolutely quantify this? Probably not. But what do you think would have happened on January 6th if Washington D.C. was an open carry area?

This is NOT a constitutional question. Courts have made it very clear that bans on semiautomatic weapons are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. So it becomes a common sense and pubic safety question.

 

[CASPER]

How much does making murder illegal reduce murder? The reality is that states with stricter gun laws generally have lower gun death rates. Countries that have stricter gun laws have fewer gun deaths. There is no reason to think those are not correlated, and there are lots of data points. After 9/11, in order to prevent another attack, we spent billions of dollars and passed all kinds of restrictive travel measures. And yet to avoid all of these mass shootings, people aren't willing to give up the ability to purchase a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill as fast as possible? Is that really asking too much? Is it possible to absolutely quantify this? Probably not. But what do you think would have happened on January 6th if Washington D.C. was an open carry area?

This is NOT a constitutional question. Courts have made it very clear that bans on semiautomatic weapons are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. So it becomes a common sense and pubic safety question.

You said a lot there, but I did not see where you addressed registration or the impact of strict firearms ownership laws since States such as California have seen an increase in violent crime.

 

[Concart]

You said a lot there, but I did not see where you addressed registration or the impact of strict firearms ownership laws since States such as California have seen an increase in violent crime.

The data says states with more strict gun laws have lower gun death rates. That's a factual statement. Of the 10 states with the strictest gun laws, eight of them are in the bottom 10 in gun death rates, and all 10 are in the bottom 20. A single state rise in violent crime doesn't change that. It's a single data point, and 'violent crime' is a generic term for things like assault and rape which is different than the more specific gun death metric.

As for registration, the burden imposed by having to register a firearm is minimal, and it allows a gun to be traced to an owner. It may make it easier after the fact to identify a criminal who used that weapon. Laws per se don't stop any kind of crime. No law does. If I want to do something illegal a law won't stop me, so why have any laws? Because they DO have an impact on crime rates, even though that impact is difficult to quantify.

 

[CASPER]

The data says states with more strict gun laws have lower gun death rates. That's a factual statement. Of the 10 states with the strictest gun laws, eight of them are in the bottom 10 in gun death rates, and all 10 are in the bottom 20. A single state rise in violent crime doesn't change that. It's a single data point, and 'violent crime' is a generic term for things like assault and rape which is different than the more specific gun death metric.

As for registration, the burden imposed by having to register a firearm is minimal, and it allows a gun to be traced to an owner. It may make it easier after the fact to identify a criminal who used that weapon. Laws per se don't stop any kind of crime. No law does. If I want to do something illegal a law won't stop me, so why have any laws? Because they DO have an impact on crime rates, even though that impact is difficult to quantify.

True, except that most of the States that have strict gun laws also have and have had some of the lowest gun ownership per their population, so correlating strict gun laws with a reduction is crime is not as clear cut as it may seem. I would also bring up the fact that most violent crimes that involved a firearm were committed by criminals that had no legal right to own the firearm they used, hence the laws really only impact those that legally obtain their firearms.

Correct on registration, as Canada has had it for years and they have not shown any real use for it, well except for now, since they passed their Bans they now know exactly who legally owns firearms and what kinds, meaning they know who has what and who needs to turn them in or face legal issues.

So what it comes down to is that bans are really no more than feel-good laws that in reality would not impact crime in any significant way, and registration really serves no other purpose than to use the information to take away firearms. The bigger problem is bans and registration would actually turn Millions of Americans into criminals, because few would be willing to turn in their firearms and most would not register those firearms and as a result any such effort would be a failure.

Maybe instead of focusing on Firearms we focus on the causes of violent shooting, criminals and the mentally ill, or would that be too hard?

 

[Concart]

True, except that most of the States that have strict gun laws also have and have had some of the lowest gun ownership per their population, so correlating strict gun laws with a reduction is crime is not as clear cut as it may seem. I would also bring up the fact that most violent crimes that involved a firearm were committed by criminals that had no legal right to own the firearm they used, hence the laws really only impact those that legally obtain their firearms.

Correct on registration, as Canada has had it for years and they have not shown any real use for it, well except for now, since they passed their Bans they now know exactly who legally owns firearms and what kinds, meaning they know who has what and who needs to turn them in or face legal issues.

So what it comes down to is that bans are really no more than feel-good laws that in reality would not impact crime in any significant way, and registration really serves no other purpose than to use the information to take away firearms. The bigger problem is bans and registration would actually turn Millions of Americans into criminals, because few would be willing to turn in their firearms and most would not register those firearms and as a result any such effort would be a failure.

Maybe instead of focusing on Firearms we focus on the causes of violent shooting, criminals and the mentally ill, or would that be too hard?

I see no reason why we can't do both.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

True, except that most of the States that have strict gun laws also have and have had some of the lowest gun ownership per their population, so correlating strict gun laws with a reduction is crime is not as clear cut as it may seem. I would also bring up the fact that most violent crimes that involved a firearm were committed by criminals that had no legal right to own the firearm they used, hence the laws really only impact those that legally obtain their firearms.

Correct on registration, as Canada has had it for years and they have not shown any real use for it, well except for now, since they passed their Bans they now know exactly who legally owns firearms and what kinds, meaning they know who has what and who needs to turn them in or face legal issues.

So what it comes down to is that bans are really no more than feel-good laws that in reality would not impact crime in any significant way, and registration really serves no other purpose than to use the information to take away firearms. The bigger problem is bans and registration would actually turn Millions of Americans into criminals, because few would be willing to turn in their firearms and most would not register those firearms and as a result any such effort would be a failure.

Maybe instead of focusing on Firearms we focus on the causes of violent shooting, criminals and the mentally ill, or would that be too hard?

Agreed. 2/3s of all "gun deaths" are suicides. Anthony Bourdain, Kate Spade and Robin Williams didn't use a gun to kill themselves. Only half of all US suicides use a firearm.

The critical need here is better mental health care.

 

[CASPER]

I see no reason why we can't do both.

I do not see why we should do both.

 

[CASPER]

Agreed. 2/3s of all "gun deaths" are suicides. Anthony Bourdain, Kate Spade and Robin Williams didn't use a gun to kill themselves. Only half of all US suicides use a firearm.

The critical need here is better mental health care.

Agree 100%.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Yes, I know it applies to the states because both of those amendments have been incorporated.

Registration has been upheld as constitutional (depending on its requirements):

"D.C.’s basic requirement that guns be registered was upheld, because it imposed only a “de minimis” burden, similar to the burden of registering an automobile. Fingerprinting was valid because it can deter people fraudulently obtaining firearms by using a counterfeit driver’s license. Photographing helps police determine that a person who has a gun registration certificate is indeed the person named on the certificate. The D.C. fees of $35 for fingerprints and $13 per gun for registration were constitutional because they simply covered the costs of administering laws that were themselves constitutional."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-gun-registration-law-ruled-unconstitutional/

Question... Then if voting is such an important Right and duty why are the same people who want to impose such things on gun owners unwilling to impose even the minimal burden of producing an ID at the polls when voting...?

 

[Concart]

Question... Then if voting is such an important Right and duty why are the same people who want to impose such things on gun owners unwilling to impose even the minimal burden of producing an ID at the polls when voting...?

Because no one dies if someone votes illegally. And because there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, therefore those laws are more likely to disenfranchise voters than they are to prevent illegal votes.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Because no one dies if someone votes illegally. And because there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, therefore those laws are more likely to disenfranchise voters than they are to prevent illegal votes.

And, someone dies if you purchase a firearm? If someone votes illegally and a person undeservedly gets elected as a result, yes people could die, just like illegally getting a firearm. Politicians make decisions all the time that could result in the deaths of people.
You then offer proof of a negative as an argument against voter ID. We know that most people who gain guns illegally do so by means other than legal purchase. So, since few legal gun purchases result in guns directly going to illegal hands--except maybe things like Eric Holder's Fast and Furious operation--the same argument you are making could apply.

 

[Concart]

I do not see why we should do both.

Why? Why wouldn't doing both be a benefit. We know that veteran suicides are a huge problem. Doesn't it make sense for example to get them treatment for mental health AND make their firearms less accessible? Why do you think these two things are mutually exclusive? I'm curious, however it's a moot point. We agree on mental health. We disagree on gun laws, so it makes more sense to focus on resolving that issue.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I see no reason why we can't do both.

Sure, do both. Why are the Democrats only focused upon banning guns? Even Obama had gun bans as his focus in 2013. When it failed the first time they tagged mental health on the bottom without a specifying what would be done differently.

Look at the gun bill in question. There is nothing about suicide prevention or mental health care. The only time it mentions mental health is as a reason to deprive an American of their Constitutional rights.

Consider this scenario in light of HR127: A college student's roommate commits suicide. In some schools, that's a free pass for a semester, but it doesn't help a person depressed with grief. The student seeks out school counseling for depression and, after a year of treatment, is both healthy and finishes school. The former student does well in life. Thirty years later he wants to take his grandkid rabbit hunting on some land he'd bought. He goes to the gun store to purchase a .22 bolt-action single-shot rifle and is denied the purchase because of his previous mental health issues 30 years prior.

Is that fair? No, it is not. It's an example of the Democrats seeking to deprive Americans of their rights forever and without ever seeing those rights restored since HR 127 has no provision for restoration of rights.


Also, consider this: If we require Americans to take a psych eval for guns, then I will only support if if we require the same psych eval to run for political office, drive, have kids and vote.

 

[Concart]

And, someone dies if you purchase a firearm? If someone votes illegally and a person undeservedly gets elected as a result, yes people could die, just like illegally getting a firearm. Politicians make decisions all the time that could result in the deaths of people.
You then offer proof of a negative as an argument against voter ID. We know that most people who gain guns illegally do so by means other than legal purchase. So, since few legal gun purchases result in guns directly going to illegal hands--except maybe things like Eric Holder's Fast and Furious operation--the same argument you are making could apply.

Huh? People that get guns illegally don't get them legally? Ah, DUH. Why does that lessen the need for laws that make those means illegal? Your lame attempt to tie death to an illegal vote is laughable. There is no direct or even loose connection. I guarantee there is a connection between the purchase of a gun and that gun being used to kill someone.

Another logic fail on your part. Complete fail BTW. If a straw buyer purchases a gun legally and then illegally provides it to someone else, that is a legal gun purchase resulting in a gun going directly into an illegal persons hands. And it happens all the time.

 

[Concart]

Sure, do both. Why are the Democrats only focused upon banning guns? Even Obama had gun bans as his focus in 2013. When it failed the first time they tagged mental health on the bottom without a specifying what would be done differently.

Look at the gun bill in question. There is nothing about suicide prevention or mental health care. The only time it mentions mental health is as a reason to deprive an American of their Constitutional rights.

Consider this scenario in light of HR127: A college student's roommate commits suicide. In some schools, that's a free pass for a semester, but it doesn't help a person depressed with grief. The student seeks out school counseling for depression and, after a year of treatment, is both healthy and finishes school. The former student does well in life. Thirty years later he wants to take his grandkid rabbit hunting on some land he'd bought. He goes to the gun store to purchase a .22 bolt-action single-shot rifle and is denied the purchase because of his previous mental health issues 30 years prior.

Is that fair? No, it is not. It's an example of the Democrats seeking to deprive Americans of their rights forever and without ever seeing those rights restored since HR 127 has no provision for restoration of rights.


Also, consider this: If we require Americans to take a psych eval for guns, then I will only support if if we require the same psych eval to run for political office, drive, have kids and vote.

We are pretty much in agreement here. The rub of course is that trying to make a complex sausage in Washington is really difficult. That doesn't make it less appropriate, I much prefer a bigger solution. I don't think a psych eval to get a gun is appropriate. So I wouldn't support it for any of those things.... except maybe the kids parts. We already know that anyone who runs for political office is by definition insane.