Opinion Poll: Should all new guns be tracked cradle to grave?

[Higus]

That's because I was proving a point. You said how many countries have freedoms without all the guns.
My entire post was about our constitutionally protected freedom to bare arms.
So how the fuck can a country have that same freedom without guns? It was a stupid statement you made in the first place.
And if you are going to use Guatemala and Mexico as your shining examples of free countries just shut the fuck up.

???
I'm trying to dissect this. Help me out.
I was saying that there are countries that have a lot of freedoms associated with 1st world countries, like freedom of speech, religion, due process, voting, etc., with a fraction of the civilian arms possessed that the US has. This undermines the argument that the right to bear arms is essential to enjoying the other freedoms, because other countries get along just fine.

It seems as if you are asking if there are countries that have a constitutional right to bear arms, but also don't have the same amount of guns as the US? Is that correct? Because both Guatemala and Mexico fit that description
Or are you saying that countries with a right to bear arms are the most free, because they have the freedom to bear arms? That seems like circular reasoning.

 

[jlagman]

To hold "good honest hardworking law abiding" people accountable for illicitly putting guns on the streets.

So...criminalization.

 

[surrealworlds]

???
I'm trying to dissect this. Help me out.
I was saying that there are countries that have a lot of freedoms associated with 1st world countries, like freedom of speech, religion, due process, voting, etc., with a fraction of the civilian arms possessed that the US has. This undermines the argument that the right to bear arms is essential to enjoying the other freedoms, because other countries get along just fine.

It seems as if you are asking if there are countries that have a constitutional right to bear arms, but also don't have the same amount of guns as the US? Is that correct? Because both Guatemala and Mexico fit that description
Or are you saying that countries with a right to bear arms are the most free, because they have the freedom to bear arms? That seems like circular reasoning.

It was circular argument in response to your half hearted initial statement.

Sense you have actually made an argument this time let me try to reason with you.(Even though I know its pointless.)
We have a constitutionally protected right to bare arms. This does two things. The most important of which is protect us from tyrannical rule. For example look at Hong Kong right now and the trouble they have to go through to fight for basic rights.
The second thing it does is gives us a right to defend ourselves although I will admit this varies depending on the state due to decades of the erosion of our rights.

But the truth of the matter is I have very little desire to get into a semantics argument with you. I'd rather approach it from a common sense perspective. We have more guns in this country than people. We have the knowledge and tools to make more guns in our garages. This knowledge cannot be taken away regardless of laws.
Also know law will stop crazy,sick fucks from committing mass murder.
So please explain how restricting law abiding citizens from defending themselves will stop mass murders?
If you would like to discuss how to stop mass murders we can do that but it would derail the thread of gun grabbing which is what this is right?

 

[lfd0311]

So this is the only proposal I've seen or thought of that would stand a reasonable chance of allowing, in the distant future, true gun accountability. I'm not sure this is what I would want, but it seems worth thinking about. Here's a rough proposal:

All newly manufactured guns must be tracked by serial/lot/ID, which will identify the manufacturer, make, model, date and place created, other applicable info and a unique identifier for each gun. This will be stored permanently and centrally (federal database) and all transfers are notarized.

Each time the gun is transferred, a central database must be updated with the new owner of the gun, and only that person and their immediate family may possess the gun apart from reasonable temporary exceptions (hunting, target shooting, emergency, grace period for inheritance, safekeeping, repair, etc.).

It will be illegal to possess any gun manufactured after the date of the law that does not have those identifiers, and with reasonable exceptions it will be illegal to possess any gun that was not legally transferred to you.

Stolen guns must be reported immediately and fraud carries a mandatory minimum of 5 years. Illegal manufacture gets 10 years.

All legal guns before the date of the law are grandfathered in and only become tracked upon transfer for guns manufactured after 1990, and do not need to be tracked if manufactured before 1990.

It's assumed that all manufacturing of "printed" guns fall under the same rules.​

I don't expect much agreement with this, but I do like the idea a lot more than I like fighting over accessories and magazines and shit.

Yes, more unnecessary Federal oversight into the lives of people who haven't committed a crime is clearly the answer.

 

[lfd0311]

But we have to deal with the 2nd amendment and people clinging to "shallow not be infringed"

I think a registry would be bigger lift than what you suggested but it would hold better if challenged legally.

@Lord Coke I doubt you support either but what is more of an infringement (ignoring any slippery slope argument)?

Yes people clinging to that pesky Constitution, the bedrock of our system of government. How unwoke of them.

 

[lfd0311]

???
I'm trying to dissect this. Help me out.
I was saying that there are countries that have a lot of freedoms associated with 1st world countries, like freedom of speech, religion, due process, voting, etc., with a fraction of the civilian arms possessed that the US has. This undermines the argument that the right to bear arms is essential to enjoying the other freedoms, because other countries get along just fine.

It seems as if you are asking if there are countries that have a constitutional right to bear arms, but also don't have the same amount of guns as the US? Is that correct? Because both Guatemala and Mexico fit that description
Or are you saying that countries with a right to bear arms are the most free, because they have the freedom to bear arms? That seems like circular reasoning.

Are you seriously trying to hold Mexico and Guatemala up as shining beacons of countries that are amazingly free and don't have something like the 2nd Amendment?

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Yes people clinging to that pesky Constitution, the bedrock of our system of government. How unwoke of them.

We should probably amend that amendment

 

[lfd0311]

We should probably amend that amendment

Or not.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Or not.

Seems a bit undemocratic considering 80+% of people in the country support gun control

 

[lfd0311]

Seems a bit undemocratic considering 80+% of people in the country support gun control

Neat. did you know 78% of statistics are made up on the spot? On top of that, of this 80%, how many of those people wanted to change the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Higus]

Are you seriously trying to hold Mexico and Guatemala up as shining beacons of countries that are amazingly free and don't have something like the 2nd Amendment?

The opposite. Mexico and Guatemala have constitutional rights to bear arms, but that doesn't make them more "free" than first world nations. If the argument is that guns are needed to protect freedom, how is that observed contradiction reconciled?

 

[surrealworlds]

The opposite. Mexico and Guatemala have constitutional rights to bear arms, but that doesn't make them more "free" than first world nations. If the argument is that guns are needed to protect freedom, how is that observed contradiction reconciled?

Because the right to bare arms is not the only piece to the puzzle. Dont be obtuse.

 

[Higus]

It was circular argument in response to your half hearted initial statement.

Sense you have actually made an argument this time let me try to reason with you.(Even though I know its pointless.)
We have a constitutionally protected right to bare arms. This does two things. The most important of which is protect us from tyrannical rule. For example look at Hong Kong right now and the trouble they have to go through to fight for basic rights.
The second thing it does is gives us a right to defend ourselves although I will admit this varies depending on the state due to decades of the erosion of our rights.

You guys need to stop using Hong Kong as an example. The historical context between HK and China have very little in common with the United States. If you think going back in time and giving civilians a bunch of guns would solve an issue today, you should at least consider that it would likely create other issues you aren't accounting for. HK has a very dense population.

But the truth of the matter is I have very little desire to get into a semantics argument with you. I'd rather approach it from a common sense perspective. We have more guns in this country than people. We have the knowledge and tools to make more guns in our garages. This knowledge cannot be taken away regardless of laws.
Also know law will stop crazy,sick fucks from committing mass murder.
So please explain how restricting law abiding citizens from defending themselves will stop mass murders?

It's a simple theory: you enact gun control -> you have less people buying guns -> you have less guns that end up in the black market -> you have less gun crime -> you have less demand for self protection -> you have less demand for manufacturing -> you have less guns in circulation -> you have less guns in the black market and so on. The issue is that it would take a long time to take effect and it doesn't help when the gun policy in the country radically changes every 4-8 years.
But going back to the law abiding citizen question; that's part of the issue. You are framing it as an issue about an individuals right to defend himself and not about what it does to a larger society. One responsible person with one gun or two might be expected to behave rationally, but the argument is going to start falling apart when you increase the scope to larger populations. Can an entire city filled with armed people be counted on to be responsible? It only takes a small portion of the population to create chaos for everyone. The idea that gun control punishes law abiding people is false: Not having gun control hurts everyone, not just the law abiding people.

If you would like to discuss how to stop mass murders we can do that but it would derail the thread of gun grabbing which is what this is right?

My POV is that the problem is unsolvable given the current political climate. Full stop.

Consider this for a moment, though:
There are things that could impact violent crime without touching gun laws. Reducing wealth inequality in concentrated areas, improving access to mental health care, improving education, reducing prison recidivism, etc. Hell, reductions in lead pollution have probably done more to prevent gun deaths than all the "good guys with guns" combined. This is something that many liberals intuitively understand: all the problems are intersectionally related to one another. If you fix one thing, you fix the others, and the opposite is unfortunately true.

 

[Higus]

Because the right to bare arms is not the only piece to the puzzle. Dont be obtuse.

Look, at least start calling it "the right to BEAR arms" if you want me to take you seriously.

 

[surrealworlds]

You guys need to stop using Hong Kong as an example. The historical context between HK and China have very little in common with the United States. If you think going back in time and giving civilians a bunch of guns would solve an issue today, you should at least consider that it would likely create other issues you aren't accounting for. HK has a very dense population.

It's a simple theory: you enact gun control -> you have less people buying guns -> you have less guns that end up in the black market -> you have less gun crime -> you have less demand for self protection -> you have less demand for manufacturing -> you have less guns in circulation -> you have less guns in the black market and so on. The issue is that it would take a long time to take effect and it doesn't help when the gun policy in the country radically changes every 4-8 years.

It is a sound theory if you ignore the 300 million plus guns already spread out across the country and the fact that any laws implemented today would adversely affect law abiding citizens and not criminals already in possession of guns.

But going back to the law abiding citizen question; that's part of the issue. You are framing it as an issue about an individuals right to defend himself and not about what it does to a larger society.

Not true, I cited both our right to fight off tyranny as well as our right to defend ourselves while giving precedence to fighting tyranny. Dont misrepresent my statements when they are easily reviewable.

One responsible person with one gun or two might be expected to behave rationally, but the argument is going to start falling apart when you increase the scope to larger populations. Can an entire city filled with armed people be counted on to be responsible? It only takes a small portion of the population to create chaos for everyone. The idea that gun control punishes law abiding people is false: Not having gun control hurts everyone, not just the law abiding people.

Your argument falls apart because we have gun control in many forms. What you are advocating for is a complete gun confiscation scheme masked as "gun tracking". Gun control doesnt stop crimes.
I will admit if you could magically wake up tomorrow in a completely gun free country that would eliminate gun violence. Unfortunately that's not reality and I refuse to give up guns until you remove them from criminals and cops first.

My POV is that the problem is unsolvable given the current political climate. Full stop.

We can agree to disagree

Consider this for a moment, though:
There are things that could impact violent crime without touching gun laws. Reducing wealth inequality in concentrated areas, improving access to mental health care, improving education, reducing prison recidivism, etc. Hell, reductions in lead pollution have probably done more to prevent gun deaths than all the "good guys with guns" combined. This is something that many liberals intuitively understand: all the problems are intersectionally related to one another. If you fix one thing, you fix the others, and the opposite is unfortunately true.

You claim that nothing can be done other than gun control and than list a paragraph of things that would make a difference while attributing these ideas to liberals exclusively. I dont care about partisan politics so that's fine but l
If you want to stop mass murders the things you listed would be a better place to start than gun tracking.

Look, at least start calling it "the right to BEAR arms" if you want me to take you seriously.

I post exclusively from my phone. That causes some typos and some autocorrect mistakes. If this is reason enough for you to disengage from a conversation feel free to fuck off.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

We should probably amend that amendment

If we're honest.

Or not.

I'm agreeable. Explosives to nukes should be formally ruled out. No to prohibiting any sort of firearm though. I'll accept a registry for machine guns only, and it has to be re-opened. I'd maybe go as far as private background checks, and the accompanying registry, provided people can continue to manufacture their own firearm (including from 80% parts). Clearly everything less-lethal than guns is good to go.

 

[7437]

So...criminalization.

If you sell your gun to a criminal, yes.

 

[10mm]

Yeah I really enjoy target shooting and I take some pride in my patience & accuracy, though the guns have been put away for several years. Recreational shooting isn't a crazy argument against gun restrictions, but it's also not really affected by my proposal.

So..I wonder how it would work if they ban ar15's or limit mags to 10 rounds? Do they just grandfather in all existing ar's and log who the owners are, or actually request owners to turn them over? I had several mags that had a 10 round limit. Manufactures just crimped the outer case so more than 10 could not be inserted.
Ar's are the choice of mass shooters because of the standard 30 rd mags. If the mags were limited to 10 rounds, I see no need for an ar ban.
Ultimately, neither of these option is going to have much of an impact. There are simply too many in existence.
I kind of went off subject there...

 

[Fawlty]

So..I wonder how it would work if they ban ar15's or limit mags to 10 rounds? Do they just grandfather in all existing ar's and log who the owners are, or actually request owners to turn them over? I had several mags that had a 10 round limit. Manufactures just crimped the outer case so more than 10 could not be inserted.
Ar's are the choice of mass shooters because of the standard 30 rd mags. If the mags were limited to 10 rounds, I see no need for an ar ban.
Ultimately, neither of these option is going to have much of an impact. There are simply too many in existence.
I kind of went off subject there...

I think the bottom line though like you said, too many in existence, is really the thing that makes a ban toothless and a waste of political energy. And I didn't have any trouble getting 30 round mags during the AWB fwiw. Plenty of old legal stuff lying around still. That's way more true today I imagine.

 

[jlagman]

If you sell your gun to a criminal, yes.

There are already laws for that.