That's the problem, isn't it? We can't be sure that at some point, this group won't be able to seize the guns so we don't want to have them registered.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Not everyone who isn't a gun nut is an anti-gun nut. It's annoying as hell that one has to be a wacko on either side of the issue.



Ok, you should only have to register your weapon if you are a member of the public. You do have a constitutional right to keep and drive cars. There's just no specific amendment that addresses cars.



So what you're saying is that the so-called law abiding gun owners are only law abiding as long as they agree with what the law is? If the law changes to no guns allowed, to be law abiding would be to hand over your weapon.
Regardless, there will never be consensus enough to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

__________________
1984 300TD

I don't see the 2nd amendment getting repealed either no matter how hard some anti-gun people might try. I think this notion that the government might one day come to your house and confiscate your weapons is nothing but delusion and unfounded paranoia. I don't know of anyone trying to ban guns from everyone. People do have the right to feel safe and keeping guns from criminals is the ultimate and only purpose of gun control. If you resist even registering your gun, I feel you should not have the right to own one as you don't seem very law-abiding to me. There's about as many guns in this country as there are people. Do you think the government really needs a registration system to find guns and ban them if they wanted to? They just have to start knocking on doors and in most houses they would find some. However they'd be suicidal to even attempt something like that.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

You are delusional. Here we go:

Do a search on the VPC or Violence Policy Center and the Brady Handgun Control group or whatever they call themselves now. Then search on Rebecca Peters and the UN and their moves to control small arms on a global level. Then search on George Soros, and I think its called the One World Foundation. All of these groups are pushing for various gun bans for various reasons and you need not look to far to find speeches/editorials where they come right out and say "yes, we want to ban them all'

There are plenty of politicians: Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, etc. that have all flatly stated at one point or another that they would like to "ban all guns"

There are companies headed by CEO's and BoD's that have refused to do business with firearm companies, simply because they are firearms companies and they make sizable "donations" to the politicians and organizations listed above.

No place in the world has gun registration reduced crime. In fact, in ALL cases of registration the information has been used in the future to collect "illegal" weapons when said weapon has been made illegal by new legislation. If you don't believe me then most recently Britain, Canada and Australia have all used registration information to simply collect and destroy firearms by the thousands. In all cases, the original registration was supposed to be for crimefighting and never confiscation. Look it up.

Many weapons have been banned at the state level, California being the most restrictive. Most recently 50 caliber "sniper rifles" were banned for no particular reason. Not significant to crime in any way and helaciously expensive to purchase and shoot, yet demonized, mostly by the people above and now illegal in CA. If the weapon didn't cause crime, wasn't involved in crime then what was the issue?

In California a law passed that required registration of a certain type of rifle. There was a deadline for the registration after which the registered rifles were legal and the unregistered illegal. The deadline was extended by the State of California, twice, since the response was good and people kept coming in to register. The State, figuring this was a good thing, since the idea was to register, allowed it. After the second deadline expired an anti-gun group sued the State of California that the State had no right to extend the registration deadline. They WON! Guess what happened? All rifles registered AFTER the original deadline WERE COLLECTED BY THE AUTHORITIES AND DESTROYED. So when I hear that registration is a good thing and it will never result in my loosing my guns I know its complete BS. "It will never happen here!" Yep, it already has. Good citizens doing the right thing got screwed.

I was not always into guns or a 2nd amendment supporter. I actually grew up in a very liberal anti-gun household. When I was in my mid 20's I purchased a blackpowder replica cowboy gun on a whim after watching a Clint Eastwood movie. Blackpowder guns are not controlled by the govt. and can be bought mail order. Its like owning a working antique. Then I started reading about guns and the arguments for and against guns.

My belief, one that stands today is that the anti-gun crowd in most cases is lying and twisting statistics to support their agenda. While I may not agree with everything the NRA says their use of statistics and data is far more honest then the anti-gun crowd. The anti-gun groups love to lampoon the NRA and use well chosen soundbites to make them look like fringe whackjobs. The media is happy to comply. What you don't hear in the media is when pro-gun groups pick apart the anti-gun statistics and arguments to show that they are largely false.

Do a search on Michael Bellesiles, a discredited anti-gun author/professor. He actually fabricated, as in, not a word of truth a very well received book that was very anti-gun. It was sold as gospel, widely shouted by the NYT, and the rest of the general media, as the truth. It wasn't. But you never hear about the fact that it wasn't, do you? Thats one example, there are many more.

I'm not asking anyone to believe what I am saying. I am asking you to look at the data for yourself. Not the headlines, not the general media, look at the arguments, data, statistics, etc. provided by BOTH sides. I did, and ended up on the side of the NRA. Yes, they can be a bit extreme but the anti-gun side is just as extreme if not more so.

Lastly, there is the Constitution. It quite plainly states that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Many have argued that is not what it says, the Constitution is a living document, thats not what the founding fathers intended, etc. The fact is it must have been important to them as it is the SECOND amendment, right after the first which of course is freedom of speech.

The Supreme Court has never made a definitive decision on the exact interpretation of the 2nd amendment. There is a case headed to the SCOTUS right now, the appeal of the DC gun ban that will likely be heard and the judgment will have to state once and for all, exactly what the 2nd amendment means.

I am a law abiding citizen. I have never been arrested. I work and I pay my taxes. I am involved in my community. I bristle at the insinuation that I am not somehow law-abiding since I think registration is a bad thing. In fact, I think I am MORE law abiding simply because I believe in the meaning of the Constitution and the rights it enumerates for me and all of us. Nothing is more un-American or criminal than giving up your rights because someone has an idea.

If you want the Constitution changed then fine, lets change it. I can live with that. But don't try and do an end run thats quasi-legal around the Constitution simply because you think your solution is a good idea and its expedient. Take a good look at what Alan Dershowitz (hes anti-gun) has to say about curtailing Constitutional rights with feel good laws. You may get the result you want now and register or ban of guns. The next step is someone else trying to curtail the next right, and the next, etc. Once precedent is set there will be no stopping the erosion of all.

RT

__________________
When all else fails, vote from the rooftops!
84' Mercedes Benz 300D Anthracite/black, 171K
03' Volkswagen Jetta TDI blue/black, 93K
93' Chevrolet C2500HD ExCab 6.5TD, Two-tone blue, 252K

Again, I don't think you understand the depth of the problem:
There already exists a black market for firearms that are either illegal machine guns or altered to remove serial numbers. Doing either of these is already a Federal felony offense. Passing another law that makes unregistered firearms illegal really doesn't add anything. It is already quite illegal for a felon to possess a firearm and it doesn't stop them now.

If a criminal (assuming prior felonious conviction) is looking for a firearm he has a few places to get one. One is to steal one. Thats obvious, unfortunately many people don't lock up their guns. The second way is a "straw sale" where a friend that is legal makes the purchase for him. The third way is a private sale. Now if you made all sales have to go through dealers and registered all guns the private sale would no longer be an option. The straw sale and theft would continue. Note that both are now illegal anyway. Anyone can take a dremel tool and grind the serial numbers off any firearm in an hour or so. Thats what would start to happen, to protect the straw purchasers. Their defense is the gun was lost or stolen.

The other problem is guns are actually very easy to make. Anyone who is a decent machinist can make a gun in just a few hours. Passing a law to make all guns registered or even banned will simply produce a new black market.

I defy you or anyone else to produce a registration scheme that didn't end up with partial or full confiscation at some point. I also defy you to produce any evidence that registration or a ban lowered crime rates.

The UN has actually inferred that firearms purchased in the US find their way into the hands of terrorists and thats why we need global small arms control. Google Rebecca Peters for it. I ask why is it that an AK style/pattern rifle sells for @$350 here in the US and in parts of Pakistan the fully automatic version of the that rifle can be purchased for @$15-$20? So how is it possible that weapons are purchased here at even wholesale and sold so cheaply? I don't think so.... Although it is one way to fix the trade imbalance.

Guns get special treatment since they were specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The meaning and reasons are quite clear. Cars were not mentioned. I'd rather be shot by a Glock that run over by a Buick.

RT

__________________
When all else fails, vote from the rooftops!
84' Mercedes Benz 300D Anthracite/black, 171K
03' Volkswagen Jetta TDI blue/black, 93K
93' Chevrolet C2500HD ExCab 6.5TD, Two-tone blue, 252K

Don't get me wrong I respect the constitution and the requirements to change it. I never advocated some slime tactic or runaround legal procedure that would ban all guns. The registration system, if implemented as I intended, would never go after law-abiding gun owners. As far as outright bans go sometimes they do make sense locally. In cities with very high gang violence I think a gun ban makes sense if the gang members are mostly killing each other. A gun ban allows the local police to confiscate the guns and arrest these individuals preventively even if these gang members have no prior criminal record. Whether these local gun bans are in contradiction with the vaguely worded 2nd amendment is up to the Supreme Court to decide, not you. In the meantime, if you are truly a law abiding citizen as you claim to be, then you just have to respect and follow the local laws that are on the books or move somewhere else that's more to your liking. As far as the 2nd amendment being repealed (which BTW mentions "arms", not "guns"), wouldn't it take over 2/3 majority in congress, not to mention strong public support? I just don't see that happening. If in Canada or Britain they had a gun ban, I'm sure the majority of the public supported it. After all those are democratic countries too. I don't know about Britain, but last time I checked Canada still has a pretty high gun ownership and they're big into hunting. They just might have restrictions on where they can carry those guns, probably not in the public.

In summary there's no evidence that shows that a gun ban or plentiful guns always lead to more or less violence. Like I said each location is unique and it has more to do with the mentality of the people there, and less with whether they have guns. Guns are a very gray issue, not black and white like many people see them.

FYI I'm not strictly anti-gun, but I don't care for them either. I just want to feel and be safe. While it comforts me that most of my neighbors probably have guns and therefore burglaries are probably less likely in my neighborhood, it also concerns me how easy it is to get a gun and kill someone. It's definitely a double-edged sword issue for me.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Forgot to mention, regarding the 50 caliber sniper rifles, isn't that something like what those two killers in Virginia and surrounding states terrorized the population with about 5 years ago? Who the hell needs weapons like that or full automatics for self-defense at home or hunting? I fully support an outright ban on those weapons. If not, you might as well allow people to own RPG launchers, bombs and artillery.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Fine, that's you. However, the question is whether you can speak for all the other "gun control" people. That term is just an attempt at being benign for the msot part. If they did come outright to say "We want guns banned. End of story.", they won't get much traction. Therefore, they just say "We want to control it.". I have seen this tactic work before. In Singapore, guns are banned. Few things else are. Curfew? Nope. Alcohol? Nope. Public transportation shuts down around midnight. Taxis get big bucks for after midnight work. Cars? You probably can't afford it. Is there a curfew? No. Alcohol. "Persons under the age of eighteen are prohibited from consuming intoxicating beverages on the premises". What does this mean? Can my 6 yo son buy me a 6 pack? Sure. They tax the hell out of it though. Again, no ban. Just make it so difficult it becomes virtually impossible.

But they need to be committing a crime first. You can't go frisking every Tom, Dick or Harry because they wear gang colors. A cop can't ask you to go against the wall and search you for drugs or guns. So in theory, yes. Implementation is going to be difficult.

Again, can I ban it without changing the constitution? Sure. Say I put a $1000 tax on a gun sale. Did I change the constitution? No. It is simply a "user tax". Would most people be able to afford it? Probably not. Is it a ban? No. Do I make it impossible for you to do it? Sure.

Didn't you already admit that gun bans or making them plentiful won't change much? I can't stop someone from killing someone else. Might as well live in an area where the guns at least are a deterrent for the house breakers

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks

The attacks were carried out with the firearm found in the vehicle, a stolen Bushmaster XM-15 semiautomatic .223 caliber rifle equipped with a red-dot sight at ranges of between 50 and over 100 yards. It should be noted that this rifle is not generally considered a sniper rifle even though scoped versions of it are used in long distance shooting competitions for ranges up to 600 yards. The ability and distance of the shots do not meet the skill sets of a military sniper. None of the shots involved in the killings were particularly difficult and many professionals in the law enforcement and military communities resented the use of the term "sniper" to describe the shooters.

Who the hell needs guns like black powder for hunting too? People do shoot these guns and get a kick out of them. Is the modern gun more efficient? Sure. Why do they still dress up and shoot black powder then? Why do people hunt with them? What about bows and arrows? There are many who do shoot these guns for sport, target, etc, etc. If I wanted to play sniper, I'd use a 30-06. That cartridge has probably killed more deer than any other. Easy to get and use. 50 cal is way too big for that sort of action.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Yeah, but what's the potential for damage from a black powder gun? The reason for banning high-powered rifles and machine guns is obvious. I understand some may want these toys to play with innocently, but I think the risk to the public is just too great. Already in some places the police are being out-gunned by criminals. Is that really in the public's interest?

If our democracy mostly works as most of us believe, then it will ultimately be the people deciding the fate of guns. While a $1000 sales tax on guns might not require a constitutional change, it would still be extremely hard to pass in congress and even if congress passed it, those who voted for it would soon be voted out of office and the law would be reversed if the public didn't support it.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

What is in the public's best interest is keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. We already have laws in place to do just that...we just need to enforce those laws. Banning guns only serves to disarm the law abiding citizen making them easier targets for the bad guys. History shows us that prohibition does not work, it has never worked, and it is reasonable to say that it will never work.

That's inaccurate. Criminals get plenty of guns through legal purchase. NY had a huge problem with the gun shows in the Southern states. People would go down and buy car loads of guns legally and sell them on the street back in NY.
Not to mention the ease of private sales. It's silly to think that limiting legal availability doesn't limit illegal availability. Of course, black market weapons would still exist, but with the .50 cal rifle as an example, where would a criminal get one if they were banned nationally? From warehouse and/or shipment theft, corrupt employees of said warehousing/shipping, and guns smuggled into the country from abroad. That would by nature limit supply vs. going to any store or gun show or private sale to obtain one.

The 'only disarms the law abiding' is a bad argument. Aside from the fact that it obviously limits supply, as evidenced by some posts already, some law abiding would switch to not law abiding if the rules changed.

That's not to say I think the .50 cal should or shouldn't be banned. I'm on the fence on where to draw the lines. I don't think people should be allowed to RPGs or claymore mines or M1 Abrams. A .50 cal, I don't know.

__________________
1984 300TD

How so? Are they being used to commit crimes? How many 50 BMGs do you see floating around in Chevy Caprices? Those guns are hard to shoot and expensive too. Now, if I were to rob a bank, what would I use? My 357 Mag or my 500 S&W Mag? One of them I can get ammo at Wal*Mart. The other, I have to go to a larger gun store. Otherwise, what do you expect me to do with an empty gun? Hit you on the head with it as a club? Go "Bang" and expect you to drop dead?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

That's nice, however you do realize that once a registration scheme is in place, whoever's in power after you still has access to that information. Giving the politicians power doesn't mean they will use it in the way you intend.

No, they don't. Have you seen the crime statistics for Washington, D.C. lately?

I disagree. I think taking away the means of self defense of those who are not gang members/criminals is a bad idea.

Many gang members are under 21. It is already illegal for those under 21 to have a handgun. Those gang members who have survived to age 21 often already have felony convictions. It is already illegal for a convicted felon to have a gun. Gang members almost always conceal their weapons, and even those few who might qualify don't bother getting CCW permits. In all states except Vermont and Alaska (neither of which has any major gang problems) it is illegal to carry concealed without a permit. Inner city police have lots of problems-lack of reasons to arrest gang members is not one of them.

Heller vs District of Columbia is headed for SCOTUS as we speak. And I don't find the wording of the second amendment to be the list bit vague.

That might be why I live in northern Nevada.


More guns=less crime. See Jon Lott

__________________
Whoever said there's nothing more expensive than a cheap Mercedes never had a cheap Jaguar.

83 300D Turbo with manual conversion, early W126 vented front rotors and H4 headlights 401,xxx miles
08 Suzuki GSX-R600 M4 Slip-on 26,xxx miles
88 Jaguar XJS V12 94,xxx miles. Work in progress.
99 Mazda Miata 183,xxx miles.

I agree with what tankdriver said, but again to clarify I'm not for banning all guns (I'm not saying tankdriver said so either). I also agree that we need to enforce the laws we already have, and that goes beyond guns (immigration comes to mind), but a few extra laws wouldn't hurt, like having to register and thus undergo background checks even when buying used guns.

aklim, yes high-powered/automatic weapons do get used in crimes. The Beltway "sniping" is just one example. Another one is the 1997 L.A. bank robbery with AK47's if I remember correctly. I just don't see the need for ordinary citizens to own such powerful weapons, but that's just my opinion.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL