It's not a good idea to sacrifice the rights of law abiding citizens just to make it easier for the government to do something.

Exactly what right of yours is being sacrificed by requiring gun registration?

None whatsoever. Quit your whining.

Anonymous wrote:What we're arguing about is your false claim that guns were being confiscated in Canada. You pitched that false claim because you were trying to justify why legal guns can never be registered ... because you want to claim it's inevitable that registration leads to confiscation of legal guns. So I proved you were misleading us when you suggested guns were being confiscated. Now you're back-pedaling by saying it's just possible that guns could be confiscated.

We don't disagree about the hypothetical possibility of illegal guns being recovered by the government. We don't even have to get into a complicated discussion about how easy it is to convert one of those semi-auto military-style guns to full automatic (which is a whole other problem IMHO). If a legal gun owner is convicted of a felony, he's no longer allowed to possess a gun. If he is found in possession of a gun after the felony conviction, the government can (and should) take the gun. If the government uses a registration list to determine that the felon owns a gun, then it's arguably using the registration list to "confiscate" the gun. Of course, the government could also just ask the felon if he owns any guns (and trust him to tell the truth), in which case the government would have a registration list but NOT be using it "confiscate" the gun. So we don't disagree that it's potentially possible. What's different is that you want to paint "confiscate" as a dirty word, to suggest that registration necessarily means all lawful guns will be rounded up by black helicopters. I take a less-paranoid view that registration lists will be used in a logical way, and that may involve some illegal guns being identified, but certainly a small percentage overall.

What's the problem with that? Are you opposed to the government taking guns away from convicted felons? Why not make that easier to do?

No, I didn't misrepresent the facts - fact are that the RCMP placed the gun in the prohibited category, a situation that persisted for over a year. Owners of guns in the prohibited category are to surrender their guns to an officer, which is then seized. This is the very definition of confiscation - you have no choice but to do this because they know who you are per the registration. Before the amnesty was put in place, this is exactly what owners were instructed to do. Do you not agree with this? Even with the amnesty in place, owners were prohibited from selling the guns to each other, and only to a business or museum that was authorized to be in possession of prohibited firearms, or to give it to an officer to be seized/confiscated.

No, confiscate is not a dirty word. People who should not have guns, should not. If there was good way to confiscate guns in possession by criminals and convicted felons without endangering the rights of the law abiding gun owners, then I'm all for it. Registration is not it. Neither does registration prevent a criminal from obtaining a gun, as we've see in many shooting cases where the guns used were bought by someone else other than the shooter. It's not a good idea to sacrifice the rights of law abiding citizens just to make it easier for the government to do something. Again I bring up the GPS tag everyone idea - it would make criminals easier to catch, are you opposed to government catching criminals? Why not make that easier to do?

June 27, 2016 -- The family of a teen shot and killed by a friend at a slumber party is suing the shooter and the homeowner where the sleepover occurred. Their son James and a group of teenagers were left unattended at a west Delray Beach home with at least one loaded gun left unsecured. Cartigiano was at Jeffrey Zager's house for a sleepover with one of Zager's children and a small group of other teens when the shooting occurred .... No adults were at the house at the time ... Zager's child was not involved in the shooting. One of Zager's guns was left loaded on a table, and one teen aimed it at Cartigiano.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/delray-beach/fl-west-delray-death-lawsuit-20160627-story.html

Not teens doing bad stuff. Just a sleepover. But the gun owner father had left his loaded gun out, and now the child is dead. Since gun owners can't be trusted to keep their hobby safe, then we need proper regulations to increase the safety.

June 28, 2016 -- A 6-year-old boy is recovering after being shot late last week by a carriage driver in Williams [Arizona]. ... Police learned the shooter was a horse-drawn carriage driver for Cowboy's Service Carriage Company. “(He) felt that there was a threat of a dog coming after his horse, so he pulled out his revolver and cocked it,” said Williams Police Department Chief Herman Nixon. The 6-year-old boy was standing next to the carriage with his mother and grandmother trying to find out how much a ride would cost. At this point, according to Williams police, it looks like the carriage driver fired accidentally. “I guess the dog ran away or whatever and either he was putting his gun back in its holster or doing something with the gun and it went off,” Nixon said.

http://azdailysun.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/boy-shot-accidentally-by-williams-carriage-driver/article_cabeee41-7635-55a7-8f1a-50f2a7ac35e5.html

What we're arguing about is your false claim that guns were being confiscated in Canada. You pitched that false claim because you were trying to justify why legal guns can never be registered ... because you want to claim it's inevitable that registration leads to confiscation of legal guns. So I proved you were misleading us when you suggested guns were being confiscated. Now you're back-pedaling by saying it's just possible that guns could be confiscated.

We don't disagree about the hypothetical possibility of illegal guns being recovered by the government. We don't even have to get into a complicated discussion about how easy it is to convert one of those semi-auto military-style guns to full automatic (which is a whole other problem IMHO). If a legal gun owner is convicted of a felony, he's no longer allowed to possess a gun. If he is found in possession of a gun after the felony conviction, the government can (and should) take the gun. If the government uses a registration list to determine that the felon owns a gun, then it's arguably using the registration list to "confiscate" the gun. Of course, the government could also just ask the felon if he owns any guns (and trust him to tell the truth), in which case the government would have a registration list but NOT be using it "confiscate" the gun. So we don't disagree that it's potentially possible. What's different is that you want to paint "confiscate" as a dirty word, to suggest that registration necessarily means all lawful guns will be rounded up by black helicopters. I take a less-paranoid view that registration lists will be used in a logical way, and that may involve some illegal guns being identified, but certainly a small percentage overall.

What's the problem with that? Are you opposed to the government taking guns away from convicted felons? Why not make that easier to do?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't see why you think that is paranoid. I only have to point you to our neighbor to the north, Canada, to show you exactly how it will occur. First they require registration, then they make a gun illegal based on some arbitrary standard, usually a knee jerk reaction to how a gun looks, next the owners receive a notification to surrender their now illegal guns. I am not paranoid if what I am fearful of is actually happening in a country that otherwise is very similar to our own. This is not just in my head, not a what-if scenario, it's actually what's happening.

My claims regarding Canada's confiscation of registered buns are true:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2014/03/05/rmps-arbitrary-gun-ban-is-frightening

Why is it that people who share opinions like yours are always the ones that are not well informed of the relevant facts, and require spoon feeding of information. You'd think that since you are so passionate about gun safety, you would spend some time researching. ...

2. You're lying, and you don't actually understand the situation in Canada. It took me less than 5 minutes to suss out the true facts there. I'm giving you one last chance to correct your false claims about the "Canadian gun ban" before I prove you're full of it.

It's clear you just cherry pick random garbage from some gun blog, and you don't do any digging into what's actually happening. That's how you spout off random facts so often that don't make sense.

No one said you had to be fully versed in the history of Canadian gun law, but when you argue that registration will not lead to confiscation, you should at least be receptive to researching the issue when an example of such confiscation is provided to you.

I am not lying about Canada. It's a simple case of exactly what I described: guns are registered, the government then makes illegal a gun model that was legally sold, and then proceed to confiscate guns using the registration information. Go ahead and offer your arguments if you have any.

You claim Canada arbitrarily made some guns illegal based on how they look, and confiscated them. This was based on the 2014 Op-Ed column you linked.

If you actually knew what you were talking about, or if you'd bothered to spend 5 minutes looking further, you'd find facts like these ...

1. In March 2014, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) determined that one particular weapon - the "Swiss Arms Classic Green Carbine" - was a prohibited gun under Canada's existing gun laws, because it was too easily converted too fully automatic. These are highly-specialized military-style weapons costing $4,000 or more, not your basic hunting rifle.

2. Why did the RCMP make this change? Ironically, it was because a Calgary gun store owner spotted a Carbine that came from his competitor, and he complained to the RCMP that it was prohibited as potentially fully auto. In fact, it seems these two gun store owners are having a business dispute, and they pulled the RCMP into their fight. "Bachynsky says Cox wanted to "interfere with our business." Cox, who admits "the guys at the Calgary Shooting Centre used to be my partners," said, "They've managed to portray me as if I'm the bad guy. But I'm not the one who brought in 16 prohibited firearms which started this whole mess." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ban-of-swiss-arms-guns-sows-confusion-1.2562933

3. Nevertheless, the gun lobby in Canada freaked out. Within one week, a five-year amnesty had been established, which made sure that even in Canada, no one's guns were ever confiscated.

4. By October 2014, a new law had been proposed that formally lifted any ban on the Swiss Arms Carbine. http://www.ammoland.com/2015/08/government-of-canada-lifts-ban-on-cz-858-swiss-arms-rifles/

5. No one in Canada ever lacked the ability to buy stupid guns designed to let civilians pretend they are soldiers of fortune. http://www.huntinggearguy.com/rifle-reviews/top-10-non-restricted-black-rifles-in-canada/

6. The RMCP later confirmed through tests that in fact the Swiss Arms Carbine could be easily converted to full automatic, but because of the political firestorm, it will remain on the market. Canada is simply hoping that the technique will remain obscure because ... well, I guess they assume people won't look on the internet for it. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-tests-show-some-firearms-can-be-converted-to-fully-automatic-1.3284661

The guns that you dedicated "sportsmen" are trying to protect.

So to sum up, you don't know what you're talking about, and you consistently are just making stuff up or cherrypicking misleading facts. That seems to be a common theme.

Don't understand all the frantic arm waving. All you've proven was that the sequence of events I described actually took place: owners registered their guns, the RCMP made previously legal guns illegal, and then used the registration information to initiate confiscation. Sure, the five year amnesty and eventual overturn of the ban is reassuring, but the fact remains that registration will absolutely lead to confiscation, as feared by gun owners in the US. The entire episode demonstrates to you just how arbitrary the government can be when making guns legal or illegal. The questionable green rifle models were shipped with a modified receiver. Instead of banning just the illegally modified ones, they banned all of them for the same reason. This is irrational and arbitrary. They describe the rifle as being easily modified to do temporarily automatic fire, but many semi-auto rifles could be made temporarily full-automatic, especially with the popularity of 3D printers. What a full auto trigger group looks like for the AR15, for example, isn't secret.

I don't see why we are arguing about this simple point in the first place. When a car model has a safety recall, the owner registration information is used to send out notices to the current owner to get the car fixed. It's only natural that if a specific model of gun is banned, as is being proposed by many many politicians post Orlando FL, registration information will be used to identify owners of the now-banned guns. Are you seriously going to argue that this will not happen?

apparently one of those poor girls in TX was getting married.

That poor dad - his whole world was just taken from him by his insane wife and her gun.

^^^ like the dumbass Florida woman whose child shot her in the back while she was driving who was constantly posting about her rights and how her preschooler got "jacked" to go shooting?

Anonymous wrote:

June 26, 2016 - Christy Sheats, 42, shot and killed her two young daughters, Taylor, 22, and Madison Sheats, 17, on what neighbors said was their father’s birthday, according to local reports. A family spat started inside the married couple’s Houston-area home and spiraled into gun violence that spilled out onto their street.

"It would be horribly tragic if my ability to protect myself or my family were to be taken away," Sheats wrote in March on her Facebook page, "but that's exactly what Democrats are determined to do by banning semi-automatic handguns."

"A Texas mother accused of gunning down her two adult daughters opened fire in her home, then reloaded her gun before again shooting one of her daughters in the street."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/christy-sheats-cops-texas-mother-who-shot-daughters-reloaded-gun/

New rule: Anyone who talk about how liberals are trying to take away their guns ... probably shouldn't have a gun in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't see why you think that is paranoid. I only have to point you to our neighbor to the north, Canada, to show you exactly how it will occur. First they require registration, then they make a gun illegal based on some arbitrary standard, usually a knee jerk reaction to how a gun looks, next the owners receive a notification to surrender their now illegal guns. I am not paranoid if what I am fearful of is actually happening in a country that otherwise is very similar to our own. This is not just in my head, not a what-if scenario, it's actually what's happening.

My claims regarding Canada's confiscation of registered buns are true:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2014/03/05/rmps-arbitrary-gun-ban-is-frightening

Why is it that people who share opinions like yours are always the ones that are not well informed of the relevant facts, and require spoon feeding of information. You'd think that since you are so passionate about gun safety, you would spend some time researching. ...

2. You're lying, and you don't actually understand the situation in Canada. It took me less than 5 minutes to suss out the true facts there. I'm giving you one last chance to correct your false claims about the "Canadian gun ban" before I prove you're full of it.

It's clear you just cherry pick random garbage from some gun blog, and you don't do any digging into what's actually happening. That's how you spout off random facts so often that don't make sense.

No one said you had to be fully versed in the history of Canadian gun law, but when you argue that registration will not lead to confiscation, you should at least be receptive to researching the issue when an example of such confiscation is provided to you.

I am not lying about Canada. It's a simple case of exactly what I described: guns are registered, the government then makes illegal a gun model that was legally sold, and then proceed to confiscate guns using the registration information. Go ahead and offer your arguments if you have any.

You claim Canada arbitrarily made some guns illegal based on how they look, and confiscated them. This was based on the 2014 Op-Ed column you linked.

If you actually knew what you were talking about, or if you'd bothered to spend 5 minutes looking further, you'd find facts like these ...

1. In March 2014, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) determined that one particular weapon - the "Swiss Arms Classic Green Carbine" - was a prohibited gun under Canada's existing gun laws, because it was too easily converted too fully automatic. These are highly-specialized military-style weapons costing $4,000 or more, not your basic hunting rifle.

2. Why did the RCMP make this change? Ironically, it was because a Calgary gun store owner spotted a Carbine that came from his competitor, and he complained to the RCMP that it was prohibited as potentially fully auto. In fact, it seems these two gun store owners are having a business dispute, and they pulled the RCMP into their fight. "Bachynsky says Cox wanted to "interfere with our business." Cox, who admits "the guys at the Calgary Shooting Centre used to be my partners," said, "They've managed to portray me as if I'm the bad guy. But I'm not the one who brought in 16 prohibited firearms which started this whole mess." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ban-of-swiss-arms-guns-sows-confusion-1.2562933

3. Nevertheless, the gun lobby in Canada freaked out. Within one week, a five-year amnesty had been established, which made sure that even in Canada, no one's guns were ever confiscated.

4. By October 2014, a new law had been proposed that formally lifted any ban on the Swiss Arms Carbine. http://www.ammoland.com/2015/08/government-of-canada-lifts-ban-on-cz-858-swiss-arms-rifles/

5. No one in Canada ever lacked the ability to buy stupid guns designed to let civilians pretend they are soldiers of fortune. http://www.huntinggearguy.com/rifle-reviews/top-10-non-restricted-black-rifles-in-canada/

6. The RMCP later confirmed through tests that in fact the Swiss Arms Carbine could be easily converted to full automatic, but because of the political firestorm, it will remain on the market. Canada is simply hoping that the technique will remain obscure because ... well, I guess they assume people won't look on the internet for it. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-tests-show-some-firearms-can-be-converted-to-fully-automatic-1.3284661

The guns that you dedicated "sportsmen" are trying to protect.





So to sum up, you don't know what you're talking about, and you consistently are just making stuff up or cherrypicking misleading facts. That seems to be a common theme.

Anonymous wrote:OK, will you at least admit that it is no accident when a child gets a hold of a loaded gun?

Some times it's not an accident, as some people teach their kids how to shot at a young age, and you can't do that without handing a loaded gun to a child. Kids mature at different ages, mine are not yet mature enough so I have not handed a loaded gun to them. But they've watched when I strip and clean mine and have held an empty gun with the slide locked open. My rifle and hand guns are in one safe, and the magazines and ammo are in a different safe. The two safes are never open at the same time unless I am going to the range. So in my case, if my kids ever got a hold of a loaded gun, it was by accident and likely due to my negligence. Maybe when they are 16, and are interested in learning, I'll teach them how to shoot with a Ruger .22.

OK, will you at least admit that it is no accident when a child gets a hold of a loaded gun?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My claims regarding Canada's confiscation of registered buns are true:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2014/03/05/rmps-arbitrary-gun-ban-is-frightening

Why is it that people who share opinions like yours are always the ones that are not well informed of the relevant facts, and require spoon feeding of information. You'd think that since you are so passionate about gun safety, you would spend some time researching. ...

1. By what logic do you claim that I need to be fully versed in the history of Canadian gun law to engage in an conversation about gun safety in the United States?

2. You're lying, and you don't actually understand the situation in Canada. It took me less than 5 minutes to suss out the true facts there. I'm giving you one last chance to correct your false claims about the "Canadian gun ban" before I prove you're full of it.

It's clear you just cherry pick random garbage from some gun blog, and you don't do any digging into what's actually happening. That's how you spout off random facts so often that don't make sense.

No one said you had to be fully versed in the history of Canadian gun law, but when you argue that registration will not lead to confiscation, you should at least be receptive to researching the issue when an example of such confiscation is provided to you.

I am not lying about Canada. It's a simple case of exactly what I described: guns are registered, the government then makes illegal a gun model that was legally sold, and then proceed to confiscate guns using the registration information. Go ahead and offer your arguments if you have any.

Stop basing your arguments on the graves and suffering of children. Pierce Morgan did this and he got canned by CNN because it's poor taste and does not lead to productive discussion. We all would like less death and suffering, none of us are arguing for the killing and maiming of children.

Anonymous wrote:My claims regarding Canada's confiscation of registered buns are true:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2014/03/05/rmps-arbitrary-gun-ban-is-frightening

Why is it that people who share opinions like yours are always the ones that are not well informed of the relevant facts, and require spoon feeding of information. You'd think that since you are so passionate about gun safety, you would spend some time researching. ...

1. By what logic do you claim that I need to be fully versed in the history of Canadian gun law to engage in an conversation about gun safety in the United States?

2. You're lying, and you don't actually understand the situation in Canada. It took me less than 5 minutes to suss out the true facts there. I'm giving you one last chance to correct your false claims about the "Canadian gun ban" before I prove you're full of it.

It's clear you just cherry pick random garbage from some gun blog, and you don't do any digging into what's actually happening. That's how you spout off random facts so often that don't make sense.

Here's a true fact for you though ...



BERLIN TWP., Ohio - "Ummm ... I accidentally just shot my friend." A 13-year-old Erie County boy was hospitalized in critical condition after investigators said a friend shot him in the back. It happened around 11:30 a.m. Tuesday inside victim Matthew Fluty’s home on the 7900 block of State Route 61 Ceylon Road. “I just accidentally shot my friend,” the 15-year-old friend told dispatchers. “We were shooting guns, and I forgot there was a shell in the chamber. I thought I cleared it.” According to an incident report, the teen told investigators the pair were going to shoot birds in the back yard when he accidentally fired a pump action shotgun loaded with bird shot. It hit Fluty in the back from between six and nine feet away, deputies said. There were no adults home at the time, according to investigators. ... She said she rushed to the house, where she saw her grandson on the living room floor being attended to by first responders. He was flown to Mercy St. Vincent Medical Center in Toledo, where he underwent more than five hours of surgery Tuesday. Fluty said several organs were damaged. ... Sigsworth said the incident is a reminder that guns should always be treated as if they’re loaded, and adults need to supervise children around guns. “Weapons should always be secured within the household,” he said. “These guns were not secured within the household. They were accessible to these boys and this is the tragic result.” Carleen Fluty said her grandson had experience hunting from a young age, and the guns should’ve been locked up, as there was a gun cabinet in the house.
http://fox8.com/2016/06/08/13-year-old-in-critical-condition-after-being-shot-in-the-back-by-15-year-old-friend/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if I agree with the PP about the yearly inspections and such, BUT I have never understood the weirdness re: gun registration. Other than "it might lead to confiscation" (which, yes, is completely paranoid), what exactly is the reason one might oppose gun registration? I think it goes hand in hand with the background checks. I think just like cars, we need to know who owns which gun. Yes, even if you are gifting it to a family member. The private sales are the ones that worry me most.

Both of these points were just explained in the post immediately above yours. Take a read.

posted while I was typing.

Still not sure I buy those arguments. But I also don't buy that the second amendment allows for unregulated gun ownership.

No one said the second amendment allows for unregulated gun ownership. I cannot put a stabilizing front grip on a handgun without jumping through a ton of hoops and paying a lot of fees, for example.