Any gun purchaser must be licensed and each weapon bought must be registered to him.
The registration document and firearm must be presented to the local police after three months from purchase and each year thereafter in order to receive a stamp allowing continuance of the legal registration.
Failure to present oneself will result in issuance of an arrest warrant.
It is my contention this will all but eliminate straw purchasing. What do you think?
I have a solution, too--and mine is even Constitutional.
ReplyDeleteWe could put our big boy pants on, get the fuck over it, and find something important to worry about.
Nope.
ReplyDeleteIf registration is to be accepted, it must be unlimited. No bans (including the current ones), no restrictions, no renewal requirements.
Anything less is irresponsible.
What Zorro said.
ReplyDeleteGet over what? What are you talking about? I thought you wanted me to be more specific and make concrete suggestions. Do I take it, now that I've done that, you don't like it.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the part that bothers you guys the most, there being a clear record of what guns you own or having to submit yourselves to the local police for their approval?
Think about all the good it would do towards slowing down the flow of guns into the criminal world.
Well now that you have the registration part worked out, let me know when you have the rest figured out. Mainly, when does the killings start and who are we targeting this time?
ReplyDeleteI'd certainly encourage everyone to check out Ruffy's enlightening link.
ReplyDeleteYou will find out so many interesting things. For example, did you know the Eagle's "Hotel California" is all about advocating Satanism? Or that it wasn't a hijacked aircraft that struck the Pentagon on 9/11--it was a US Govt plot? Or that it is your God-given responsibility not to pay taxes? Or that fluoride is a New World Order plot to numb our minds in order to promote gun control?
The great benefit of blogs such as this is that commenters--like Ruffy--can show us such carefully researched scientific evidence that for some reason has escaped our media and educational institutions. And it allows Weerd to issue death threats and voice his hatred of women. Also.
Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteGet over what?
Get over your bizarre fixation on "gun flow."
What's the part that bothers you guys the most, there being a clear record of what guns you own or having to submit yourselves to the local police for their approval?
Both of those things, quite obviously, are utterly unacceptable. The licensing of a Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right is utterly unacceptable, and at risk of becoming tedious, I'll point out again that in Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court found such licensing requirements unconstitutional.
I will not submit to your Final Solution, and I won't be alone in my defiance.
JadeGold, are you disputing the fact that genocides occurred after the gun registrations took place in each of those instances? I see you are going with the "myth, urban legend, never happened" defense. You and Mike "The Final Solution" B. were made for each other.
ReplyDeleteZ: Now all you have to do is prove that gunloonery is a religion and you're all set.
ReplyDeleteRuffy: To your question--yes, I am disputing it. But let's play the Devil's Advocate for a moment; let's say a genocide did occur in those countries which purportedly had gun registration. You would then have to make the case that registration was the direct cause of that genocide and not some other factor or combination of factors.
Further, still playing the Devil's Advocate, you'd have to then create an explanation as to why so many countries that do have registration don't have genocides--and in many cases have good records on human rights.
But the real issue here is that you elected to post that reference from what is very clearly a crackpot site. Not that I blame you, of course; gunloons simply don't have rigorous scholarship to back up their claims. So, using sites that claim slavery didn't really exist and that creationism is science will have to do.
Jadefool:
ReplyDeleteZ: Now all you have to do is prove that gunloonery [sic] is a religion and you're all set.
I need not do anything of the sort. Yes, Murdock was about religion and the First Amendment, but now that the Constitutional guarantee of the fundamental human right to keep and bear arms is a settled point of Constitutional law, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment fall under the same protections that Murdock tells us exist for the rights protected by the First.
Your Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader's Final Solution would be DOA at SCOTUS, if it ever got that far.
Z: Sorry, you remain very mistaken.
ReplyDeleteMurdoch involved the exercise of religion and free speech. Subsequent cases have also affirmed that Murdoch doesn't bar taxing missionaries on the sale of religious items.
Further, your primary problem is that Fat Tony Scalia has said the 2A doesn't bar registration, licensing or other regulation.
Of course, you may want to check out Ruffy's reference for legal advice.
I'm all for licensing and registration as long as:
ReplyDelete1. Licensing is shall issue.
2. I can purchase and register any weapon, including but not limited to brand new machine guns, crew served weapons, rocket launchers, RPGs, vehicle mounted weapons, etc. Basically, any conventional weapon I can carry, tow, or drive home.
3. Registration is as fast or faster than the NICS check.
"Senator? You can have my answer now, if you like. My final offer is this: nothing. Not even the fee for the gaming license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally."
ReplyDeletePretty much my response to the gunloons. My final offer is this: nothing. Licensing and registration. Mandatory insurance. Ban assault weapons. Mental health checks for wouldbe gunloons as well as demonstrated periodic proficiency testing. And I would appreciate it you would personally superglue Wayne LaPierre, Todd Tiahrt, and Chris Cox together.
Pretty much my response to the gunloons. My final offer is this: nothing. Licensing and registration. Mandatory insurance. Ban assault weapons. Mental health checks for wouldbe gunloons as well as demonstrated periodic proficiency testing. And I would appreciate it you would personally superglue Wayne LaPierre, Todd Tiahrt, and Chris Cox together.
ReplyDeleteFortunately for us, Mr. Cabot is as irrelevant as they come. That's your response? Who cares? I certainly don't. We don't need you to offer us anything. If you haven't noticed, we are doing just fine on our own.
Aww, now, Ruffy. I'm sure you're doing fine with your vigilance against the New World Order and the plot to cloud our minds with fluoride.
ReplyDeleteFrom Ruffy's most excellent scientific reference: The Good Wife's Guide:
ReplyDelete"Greet him with a warm smile and show sincerity in your desire to please him.
Listen to him. You may have a dozen important things to tell him, but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first - remember, his topics of conversation are more
important than yours.
Make the evening his. Never complain if he comes home late or goes out to dinner, or other places of entertainment without you. Instead, try to understand his world of strain and pressure and his very real need to be at home and relax.
Your goal: Try to make sure your home is a place of peace, order and tranquility where your husband can renew himself in body and spirit."
What's the part that bothers you guys the most, there being a clear record of what guns you own or having to submit yourselves to the local police for their approval?
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone else find it to be the height of hypocrisy for MikeB302000 to be calling for a clear record of guns owned -- when he refuses to talk about the firearms he has owned?
Jadefool:
ReplyDeleteMurdoch [sic] involved the exercise of religion and free speech. Subsequent cases have also affirmed that Murdoch [sic] doesn't bar taxing missionaries on the sale of religious items.
I continue to acknowledge that Murdock was a freedom of speech case--it still found that licensing of a Constitutionally guaranteed right is illegitimate. Furthermore, the imposition of sales tax has nothing to do with licensing of any rights.
Jadefool:
Further, your primary problem is that Fat Tony [sic--apparently Jadefool has problems spelling The Honorable Justice] Scalia has said the 2A doesn't bar registration, licensing or other regulation.
Care to point me to where he made this statement? I am quite familiar in the passage in the Heller decision that Justice Scalia begins with, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," (and I strongly disagree that such a notion can be squared with shall not be infringed), but I can't find any reference to licensing there.
From Ruffy's most excellent scientific reference:
ReplyDeleteI'll readily admit that this website was one of the first that came up when Googling for "gun registration mass murders" and I didn't check out the other links on the site. Ooops, my bad. However, I never claimed that this sight was a scientific resource either. The article that I linked to merely points out that there have been numerous genocides over the last hundred or so years. In every one of them, gun registration precluded the atrocity. That's an inconvenient fact that you not only would like to avoid (by pointing out several off topic links) but you seem to even dispute that the atrocities happened. You seem pretty good at diverting threads on here, but I doubt you are good for much else.
Ruffy: I'm sure you can come up with all sorts of references if you google "Jesus riding dinosaur" or "Chuck Norris vs. Godzilla."
ReplyDeleteDoesn't make 'em true.
The points you miss are:
1. As I sagely noted earlier: But let's play the Devil's Advocate for a moment; let's say a genocide did occur in those countries which purportedly had gun registration. You would then have to make the case that registration was the direct cause of that genocide and not some other factor or combination of factors.
Further, still playing the Devil's Advocate, you'd have to then create an explanation as to why so many countries that do have registration don't have genocides--and in many cases have good records on human rights.
2. So-called gun scholarship is so sloppy and shoddy, that such sites are where you find such nonsense. Right next to the "Good Wife Guide."
You would then have to make the case that registration was the direct cause of that genocide and not some other factor or combination of factors.
ReplyDeleteWhy would I have to make that case? I am not claiming such. I am saying that if gun registration had not occurred then the genocides would have been much, much harder to commit. They very well might have happened, but I like my chances a lot better when the government doesn't know who to disarm ahead of time.
So-called gun scholarship is so sloppy and shoddy, that such sites are where you find such nonsense.
Simple question: did the genocides occur and did gun registration proceed them? Anything else you are trying to bring into this conversation is irrelevant. But then you're quite the expert on irrelevancy. You've basked in it for 50+ years now.
I like the superglue idea.
ReplyDeleteThe idea was covered very well already, but I remember a time or two when I asked why we haven't had genocide in the UK.
Maybe RuffRidr has an answer for that.
Z: What you studiously wish to ignore is that Murdoch isn't simply a case about free speech--it's largely about the exercise of religion and the separation clause.
ReplyDeleteIn Heller, Fat Tony Scalia stated licensing and registration was permissable so long as it wasn't applied "arbitrarily and capriciously."
I am saying that if gun registration had not occurred then the genocides would have been much, much harder to commit.
ReplyDeleteYou'd be very much wrong, Ruffy. You're making a huge assumption that has exactly zero basis in fact. What's worse is that your history is plainly wrong. For example, historians maintain Hitler actually loosened gun laws. Even Don Kates--you know him--admits that guns wouldn't have stopped the Holocaust.
Of course, you'd have to explain why Saddam held power and killed off masses of his people, over nearly 40 years--while his people had unfettered access to every kind of firearm, even fully automatic ones.
You are committing a classic post hoc fallacy. In addition, your history is very often erroneous.
The idea was covered very well already, but I remember a time or two when I asked why we haven't had genocide in the UK.
ReplyDeleteMaybe RuffRidr has an answer for that.
Mike, I am not claiming that registration always leads to genocides. I am claiming that registration nearly always leads to confiscations, which greatly dilutes the ability to fight back against a tyrannical government.
I am saying that if gun registration had not occurred then the genocides would have been much, much harder to commit.
ReplyDeleteJade spews: Of course, you'd have to explain why Saddam held power and killed off masses of his people, over nearly 40 years--while his people had unfettered access to every kind of firearm, even fully automatic ones.
I've bolded the part above because your reading comprehension is lacking. I didn't say impossible to commmit.
Jadefool:
ReplyDeleteZ: What you studiously wish to ignore is that Murdoch isn't simply a case about free speech--it's largely about the exercise of religion and the separation clause.
What I have said about Murdoch is that--although indisputably a First Amendment case pertaining to religion--it clearly states that licensing of a Constitutional right is not legitimate.
Jadefool:
In Heller, Fat Tony [sic] Scalia stated licensing and registration was permissable so long as it wasn't applied "arbitrarily and capriciously.
Actually, what the Honorable Justice Scalia said was, and I quote:
Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not “have a problem with . . . licensing” and that the District’s law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.
In other words, contrary to your claims, Scalia avoided the issues of licensing and registration.
Forgot to add, it looks as if I just solved what Jadefool referred to as my "primary problem."
ReplyDeleteAh--if only all problems could be so easily solved.
RuffRidr backpeddling, "Mike, I am not claiming that registration always leads to genocides. I am claiming that registration nearly always leads to confiscations"
ReplyDeleteNow keep going, take one more step back and admit that gun registration doesn't nearly always lead to confiscations.
I realize I'm inviting that most tedious of arguments, how do you define "almost always."
Licensing / registration is one of my line in the sand issues There are millions of others who feel the same way.
ReplyDeleteI will not register my firearms.
How do you plan to deal with several million folks who simply don't bother registering the guns they own?
Now keep going, take one more step back and admit that gun registration doesn't nearly always lead to confiscations.
ReplyDeleteHow is it backpedaling? I never claimed what you are saying. I think they call that a strawman argument.
Anonymous who draws lines in sand says, "How do you plan to deal with several million folks who simply don't bother registering the guns they own?"
ReplyDeleteIf registration were to become the law of the land, I guess you and your million friends would be seen for what you are - other than law-abiding citizens.
I suspect you're already that. Certainly there are some gun laws you've decided don't apply to you.
RuffRidr, forget the backpeddling crack. i said that only to piss you off. But my question stands, are you willing to take back the suggestion that gun registration NEARLY ALWAYS leads to confiscation of guns?
Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteIf registration were to become the law of the land, I guess you and your million friends would be seen for what you are - other than law-abiding citizens.
The real purpose of "gun control" laws exposed--the more laws there are (and the more intrusive those laws are), the more people who will choose to ignore them, thus becoming "gun criminals," and the more "gun crime" there will be. This will be portrayed as justification for yet more gun laws, and so on ad infinitum.
Well...the way I feel about it is...The Second Amendment IS my gun permit. And that's all I'll say about it.
ReplyDeleteMike
Thanks Mike. What else does the 2nd Amendment "permit" you to do? You sound like one of those extremist fellas. Please elaborate.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteI find you a threat to my freedoms, my country's constitution and and advocate for the slaughter of innocent law abiding citizens by ruthless criminals that laugh at you and your suggestions. Personally I find Sigmund Freud's quote to be more applicable to you than anyone I know of. The Freud observations was stated as follows: ”A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity”
Sincerely SS
Thanks for that comment, SS Zoomer. The fact is, if you're a lawful gun owner you would not lose a thing other than a bit of convenience if I had my way. And with my way, intentional homicides would be halved or even quartered. Tell me this. What kind of a self-centered idiot would not prefer a little inconvenience in order to save 6,000 or 8,000 lives a year?
Delete