Why don't we have an electronic gun registry?

[SemiAuto]

And humans and elephants are both mammals

Please. By that logic it would be okay to hunt humans because it is okay to hunt elephants.

Again, if you dislike the 2nd amendment so much then try to repeal it but don't pretend it is not a civil right.

[NOTAGUNNUT]

Oh, the Urban Dictionary? I didn't realize that was legitimate authority on the English language. Oh, that's right, cause it isn't.

I've explained many times why I believe your reasoning is flawed. If you can't comprehend them, check w the urban dictionary again.

You've just confirmed that you've got nothing left.... unless you're here to grade papers.

You've explained nothing.

You've resorted to silly cliche', and failed to make any point at all because you're using decade old arguments that have been shot to pieces ad nauseum everywhere, including right here on this board.

[SemiAuto]

And I have at no point even postulated restricting gun ownership in this thread. Again, like I've said to many others, read the words I write and understand them.

The database isn't to keep track of citizenry. It's to keep track of weapons. There's a large difference. Unless your existence is defined by what weapons you own.

My gun ownership is defined by the guns I own. Tracking the guns tracks me so unless you've got probable cause or reasonable suspicion that I'm up to no good then I'll rate your intrusion into my life as a infringement on my rights. It is what authoritarian governments do. They watch everything. I'd rather have the liberal idea of a limited government that respects civil rights.

[EmDot]

Please. By that logic it would be okay to hunt humans because it is okay to hunt elephants.

Again, if you dislike the 2nd amendment so much then try to repeal it but don't pretend it is not a civil right.

I believe it's a right, but not a civil right. It's a right that can be limited like speech can be limited.

[pickles]

You've just confirmed that you've got nothing left.... unless you're here to grade papers.

You've explained nothing.

You've resorted to silly cliche', and failed to make any point at all because you're using decade old arguments that have been shot to pieces ad nauseum everywhere, including right here on this board.

Don't be so embarrassed. A lot of people are terrible in their native language and it has no bearing on intelligence. (Keep telling yourself that.)

I'm not a big grammar, semantics guy. But when part of your defense of your position is a semantic take on the 2nd amend. and then you show yourself woefully lacking in your native language, it has a bearing on the legitimacy of your argument.

I've explained my position over and over and over and over again. If you don't accept it- fine! I really don't care at this point.

Have a good night.

[OldBay]

I certainly don't believe that modernizing the system for registering and tracking firearms intrudes on anyone's civil rights.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/412041

Beginning in 1998, Canadians spent a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a registry for long guns -- in the U.S., the same amount per gun owner would come to $67 billion. For all that money, the registry was never credited with solving a single murder. Instead, it became an enormous waste of police officers' time, diverting their efforts from traditional policing activities.

$67 billion, here, $67 billion there, and pretty soon we're talking some real money for a false sense of security with not a murder solved - an expensive fiasco like MD's ballistic fingerprint feelgood law.

There's a deficit, eh?

[pickles]

We've heard over and over again, "We don't need new laws. We just need to enforce the old laws better."

Well, we see here how interested some gun nuts are in that.

[OldBay]

Don't be so embarrassed. A lot of people are terrible in their native language and it has no bearing on intelligence. (Keep telling yourself that.)

I'm not a big grammar, semantics guy. But when part of your defense of your position is a semantic take on the 2nd amend. and then you show yourself woefully lacking in your native language, it has a bearing on the legitimacy of your argument.

I've explained my position over and over and over and over again. If you don't accept it- fine! I really don't care at this point.

Have a good night.

Perhaps you should also complain to the many constitutional scholars and judges who do not share your revisionist history of the 2nd amendment.

[pickles]

Perhaps you should also complain to the many constitutional scholars and judges who do not share your revisionist history of the 2nd amendment.

And perhaps you should complain to the many more who do.

"Revisionist?"

That's rich. Seeing as how I'm using the original language I'm not sure what I've revised.

[soulflower]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/412041

Beginning in 1998, Canadians spent a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a registry for long guns -- in the U.S., the same amount per gun owner would come to $67 billion. For all that money, the registry was never credited with solving a single murder. Instead, it became an enormous waste of police officers' time, diverting their efforts from traditional policing activities.

$67 billion, here, $67 billion there, and pretty soon we're talking some real money for a false sense of security with not a murder solved - an expensive fiasco like MD's ballistic fingerprint feelgood law.

There's a deficit, eh?

That article is a bit biased. It's written by John Lott.

The fact that something won't be successful 100% of the time is not a reason not to do it.

And having a computer search records has got to be less expensive for taxpayers than paying desk jockeys to do it manually.

It's an embarrassment to America as a culture that we even have to have this debate over modernizing an outdated system.

[NOTAGUNNUT]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/412041

Beginning in 1998, Canadians spent a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a registry for long guns -- in the U.S., the same amount per gun owner would come to $67 billion. For all that money, the registry was never credited with solving a single murder. Instead, it became an enormous waste of police officers' time, diverting their efforts from traditional policing activities.

$67 billion, here, $67 billion there, and pretty soon we're talking some real money for a false sense of security with not a murder solved - an expensive fiasco like MD's ballistic fingerprint feelgood law.

There's a deficit, eh?

The same reason Maryland gave up on ballistic fingerprinting. It was sold the same way the Canadian long gun registration program was sold, as a sure fire way to track firearms used in crimes. Neither program, despite billions in Canada, and millions in Maryland were ever credited with solving a single crime by law enforcement agencies, yet here we are right now having the same useless discussion we had in 2001 all over again with people who have witnessed those examples, and yet still don't understand the total futility of registering firearms.

It's an embarrassment to America as a culture that we even have to have this debate over modernizing an outdated system.

It's an embarrassment that we have had, and continue to have mass shootings in this Country, and we can't agree on what the real cause is.

[Wild Eyed Southern Boy]

We've heard over and over again, "We don't need new laws. We just need to enforce the old laws better."

Well, we see here how interested some gun nuts are in that.

Well, I'd say right now we're interested to see if D.C. enforces its laws equally.

[soulflower]

It's an embarrassment that we have had, and continue to have mass shootings in this Country, and we can't agree on what the real cause is.

Mass shootings are horrible but what about the other 100,000+ shootings in the country every year? Should we not attempt to do anything about those?

[bmore_ken]

I'm not in favor of the state being more up in our lives. I'm simply saying enforcing current gun laws more effeciently is a possible way to slow gun violence. I know, I know. I'm a regular communist.

How can you say that in reference to this most recent case? what gun law was broken by the legal gun owner in these two most recent case

[NOTAGUNNUT]

Mass shootings are horrible but what about the other 100,000+ shootings in the country every year? Should we not attempt to do anything about those?

Yup... we should... but even there you and I would never agree on why they happen.

My solution would be for communities with high murder rates to try to model their values, and priorities after those with far lower murder rates, but such ideas are readily dismissed in favor of even more of the types of laws and regulations that have failed already.

[SemiAuto]

I believe it's a right, but not a civil right. It's a right that can be limited like speech can be limited.

Then maybe 'privilege' would be a better word but we don't have a bill of privileges, we have a bill of rights.

You have the privilege to say some things but not others. You have the privilege to own some guns but not others.

I'll stick with the civil rights view.

[Mom49of4]

The only way to stop gun violence is to rid this country of all guns. I do not see that happening.

[soulflower]

Yup... we should... but even there you and I would never agree on why they happen.

My solution would be for communities with high murder rates to try to model their values, and priorities after those with far lower murder rates, but such ideas are readily dismissed.

Why not just bury your head in the sand and hope the problems away?

[SemiAuto]

And perhaps you should complain to the many more who do.

"Revisionist?"

That's rich. Seeing as how I'm using the original language I'm not sure what I've revised.

You've been asked for your take on what 'well regulated' means. I've supplied the correct historical meaning of it.

Your turn.

[soulflower]

The only way to stop gun violence is to rid this country of all guns. I do not see that happening.

It can't be stopped but it can be reduced through good policies. Lots of simple-minded folks on this issue...