I have to register if I give another person too much CASH, but not a gun.
Also the law is not as simple as that. It tracks banking transactions. If you just keep your money as cash and do not go to the bank you do not leave a paper trail that requires registration and notification. Damn Rym, you just bolstered the anti gun registry argument!
Nope. Police can seize large amounts of cash that don't have a verifiable transaction history leaving you with no recourse. It's also against the law to transfer large amounts of cash or ANY bearer instrument without filing a report.
FinCEN Form 105 Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments (CMIR): Each person (including a bank) who physically transports, mails or ships, or causes to be physically transported, mailed, shipped or received, currency, traveler's checks, and certain other monetary instruments in an aggregate amount exceeding $10,000 into or out of the United States must file a CMIR.
Here's a tangent: so the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Why aren't more people fighting for the right to have ursine appendages? More clawfights, fewer gunfights. Make it entertaining for spectators.
Heck, after 200+ years, we only have 27 amendments total to the Constitution, and the last one was 30 years ago. It's not something that gets done often or gets taken lightly.
Also, aren't the vast majority of constitutional amendments about adding rights rather than removing them? The 18th amendment is the only one I can think of that falls roughly within that category, and it was repealed.
Pretty much... there are a couple of other ones about various political processes (congressional pay, presidential term limits, etc.)., but that mostly sums it up.
Now pass a law that utterly forbids using any firearm for any reason against any human being ever.
Why limit it to guns? Why not limit it to any sort of weapon then? Or any other item that could be used to lethal effect? Generally, in that case, what makes it any different from any of the other laws against various forms of homicide. Then again, given how you don't even support the notion of using lethal force in self defense, you'd probably be fine with a law banning any sorts of lethal force, no matter the device used or the reason. I can respect that.
Is there ANY legitimate reason not to have a national gun ownership and transfer registry, and require its use for all firearms transactions of any kind?
Nope, and I've been saying for long time that it's fucking mental that you don't already have that.
I hate to be the one to invoke Godwin here (and I don't mean to -- I'm just portraying the mindset of many of those who are against that sort of thing), but that often brings up the old quote of Hitler talking about how great it was that Nazi Germany instituted such a program. Please note that I'm not making the "Hitler did it, so it must be bad" argument here. I'm just noting that some people do make that argument.
I'd also like to see the gun show/private sale loophole closed - Not so that you couldn't sell any guns at guns shows, but simply so that all private transferal of ownership must be registered with the government.
That of course is what must be done if we have any sort of mandatory registration.
The ironic message I am getting from Rym is,"since we have already given up all of these privacy rights, why not give up some more?" I keep expecting to read, "do it for the children."
NSA on line 1. They like this idea. They want to extend it to the Fourth Amendment.
Again, I disagree with the law that allows such seizures and tracking of cash transfers. Sadly most of those confiscations feed the law enforcement budgets of the department that conducts the seizure. The problem is very bad on the southern border with Mexico where border agents confiscate the money in possession of immigrant workers.
Again, you are basing this new loss of privacy argument on the fact that we are already having our privacy violated in other ways.
Would you feel the same way if the government decided that because drug dealers encrypt their network communications all citizens must register to use encryption and register their encryption keys with the government? When did Rym become an old Republican white guy who does not believe in the right to privacy?
Well the Progressive stance is that the government is generally competent and generally altruistic, so you can totally trust that anything it asks you to do is in your best interest!
The vast majority of the guns used in crime in New York City (which has strict gun laws per popular demand) come from straw sales of legally purchased guns upstate and out-of-state.
A registry allows anyone who cares about guns to have them, but allows the trivial arrest of the people who buy and then resell guns for these purposes.
Now pass a law that utterly forbids using any firearm for any reason against any human being ever.
Why limit it to guns? Why not limit it to any sort of weapon then? Or any other item that could be used to lethal effect? Generally, in that case, what makes it any different from any of the other laws against various forms of homicide. Then again, given how you don't even support the notion of using lethal force in self defense, you'd probably be fine with a law banning any sorts of lethal force, no matter the device used or the reason. I can respect that.
No no no. Stop stop stop.
Why are you so brainless? It's as though every time I state this, I have to go back and explain my reasoning over and over again.
Guns kill people very easily and very quickly. If you have an accident with a knife or car or ANYTHING ELSE except, maybe, motorbikes ridden at speed or industrial machinery, you probably won't die. And ALL of these other things aren't designed to kill.
And when I say guns are designed to kill (as I might as well go back and cover this logic again and again), I'm talking about guns that are specifically carried or kept in homes for self defense purposes. These are owned and used with the intention of killing, if needed, unlike guns used for sports or hunting or range shooting.
So as soon as you bring up "any sort of weapon", you are ignoring this fact. All these other items that "could be used to lethal effect" doesn't change the fact that guns are, by design, far more lethal far more easily.
I would regulate sword carry for self defense in the same way as hand guns... except that the size, shape, and weight of swords are already a self-imposed barrier to ease of carry and use.
Cars are already regulated (though how lax driving tests are in the USA is scary in its own right), but again, cars used as weapons are already a very unwieldy proposition, and I've already posted statistics comparing intentional harm to others with cars compared to gun deaths.
And once again, cars and bank transfers and all these other things aren't when used for their primary purpose, designed to KILL people. Guns ARE designed to kill people (those carried for self defense, not sports shooting, etc (which I feel I have to reiterate again and again as it seems some people are incapable of holding more than one thought in their head at any one time)).
Actually, if you're going to take a pure ideology position and ignore pragmatic concerns, I would say that the tolerance of laws against the open carry of swords by gun rights supporters completely undermines their argument.
So too does their support of laws that restrict explosives.
So the registry is just a fishing expedition? Gun buyers are presumed guilty because they purchase a gun and we need this gun registry so that we can punish these guilty people?
We have laws on the books to punish straw buyers. The problem appears to be that some folks are not comfortable with the fact the gun crimes are punished after they are committed. It seems that some folks want to live in a Minority Report style world where the government ignores our privacy rights so that it can gather data that it can then use to declare us guilty of crimes we have not committed.
I hate to be the one to invoke Godwin here (and I don't mean to -- I'm just portraying the mindset of many of those who are against that sort of thing), but that often brings up the old quote of Hitler talking about how great it was that Nazi Germany instituted such a program. Please note that I'm not making the "Hitler did it, so it must be bad" argument here. I'm just noting that some people do make that argument.
And to them I'd say that Borough Park, Brooklyn is pretty compelling evidence that the US government is not Nazi Germany. And really, anyone who thinks that anything like Nazi Germany will happen in the US with Gun registration as a symptom is already a half step(possibly a goose-step) away from full blown Red Dawn WOLVERINES OOOH-FUCKIN-RAH fantasy land anyway, and likely can't really be reasoned with.
We force people to register cars. This allows a HUGE amount of pragmatic good to occur. It makes insurance coverage easier. It makes tracking of stolen vehicles easier. It provides benefits to both the car owner and society as a whole.
How are guns any different than cars in this regard?
A registry protects gun owners. It makes guns easily traced when they are used in crimes.
Most importantly, it removes many of the reasons people like me want to ban guns entirely. If there were a national registry, most of us who are mad about guns would stop bothering you people.
Vehicle registration is only required if you use the vehicle on public roads. It is also done for tax purposes, can't tax it if they don't know you have it.
So the gun registry is to make you and people like you feel better? You would violate another persons right to privacy just to make yourself feel better? That is some fucked up shit.
Should we violate the first amendment by requiring all speech to be traceable back to the speaker? Kill everyone's ability to be anonymous in their speech?
Most importantly, it removes many of the reasons people like me want to ban guns entirely. If there were a national registry, most of us who are mad about guns would stop bothering you people.
I want to believe that, but every time I've proposed it, the resounding response is "It's not enough." Maybe people just like you who wish to ban guns, yes, but the vast majority of people who wish to ban guns that I've encountered over the years are not like you.
Vehicle registration is only required if you use the vehicle on public roads. It is also done for tax purposes, can't tax it if they don't know you have it.
So the gun registry is to make you and people like you feel better? You would violate another persons right to privacy just to make yourself feel better? That is some fucked up shit.
Should we violate the first amendment by requiring all speech to be traceable back to the speaker? Kill everyone's ability to be anonymous in their speech?
So why not also tax guns? And, for most people, it's hard to get a gun without buying it from someone else, thus transporting it outside of your private home or having it transported to you, so your argument really only applies to self-built guns. Those aren't really a significant problem at the moment.
Who says anyone has a right to privacy?
I'll accept your last point only if there is a rash of mass-speaking that directly result in the deaths of more than four people at a time.
Rym has a really good point. Reasonable regulations will likely make your firearm rights much safer, because the few rabid anti-gun folks who would still be howling would be without popular support.
One of the biggest problems we have right now is that changes to firearm rights are impossible without the support of one of the two extremes.
1) In order to get even the slightest restrictions placed on ownership you have to hammer it past the NRA. 2) The only way to get past the NRA is with the support of groups like the Brady campaign. 3) Because these groups tend to be extreme. Their support will only come if your proposed legislation gets made more restrictive. 4)Your legislation becoming more restricted draws out more opposition from less radical pro-gun types. 5) In order to pull more support for your legislation you have to appeal to more anti-gun groups. this leads to more opposition and so on and so forth.
I think it would work the same in the other direction. I haven't seen very many initiatives to expand gun rights so I cant say for sure.
Until we become willing to accept reasonable compromises like mandatory background checks and registration the only bills that get passed will be ones forced through quickly when world events upset the balance. Those measures tend to be poorly written and extreme. Next time we have a school shooting, your right to own guns might disappear, and it will be the fault of the NRA just as much as it will be any one else's.
Should we violate the first amendment by requiring all speech to be traceable back to the speaker? Kill everyone's ability to be anonymous in their speech?
If wishes were horses I'd win the melbourne cup, but I am not yet able to kill someone by swearing at them hard enough, so I don't think this is really a valid argument.
You can't transport a purchased vehicle on a flatbed? How do you think cars get from the plant to the dealership?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_suicide Does this count as speech leading to mass death? Do you count all of the blacks (and civil rights sympathizers) who were killed in the South due to the speech of racists?
You can't transport a purchased vehicle on a flatbed? How do you think cars get from the plant to the dealership?
You absolutely can, obviously, or else you wouldn't be asking such a silly question. You can move it wherever you like on a flatbed. But the moment you want to drive it on public roads rather than carry it about on a flatbed, you need to register it. You also have to be certified to a base level of competency to operate it in public areas, and it needs to be certified as being roadworthy - at least as far as I know. If you sell it to someone else when it's still registered, you need to tell the government. If you sell it unregistered, and someone registers it later, the government finds out(because each vehicle has unique identifier codes), and may require documentation of sale to make sure it wasn't stolen.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_suicide Does this count as speech leading to mass death? Do you count all of the blacks (and civil rights sympathizers) who were killed in the South due to the speech of racists?
Nope. Because talking people into killing themselves isn't killing someone with speech, it's using speech to convince them into taking a particular action. If you talk someone into killing someone else, then you are not guilty of murder, as far as I know.
Vehicle registration is only required if you use the vehicle on public roads.
Yes, and this covers the vast majority of use cases of vehicles.
They are also registered to establish a chain of vehicular liability, because improper vehicular use can kill other people.
There are plenty of responsible drivers, people who properly respect the one-ton death sled that they pilot. But some don't, and they cause problems for others.
And thus the analogy to guns is complete. Responsible gun owners are fine! But we have lots of stupid irresponsible gun owners who cause problems with their stupid irresponsibility. Registration would pose a very minor inconvenience to responsible owners, and a tremendous benefit to those affected by idiots.
Registration is not at all removal of your right to bear arms. Time, place, and manner restrictions on items in the Bill of Rights have been put in place for quite some time. The principle has been supported by numerous courts. "Fire" in a crowded theater and such.
If you have a problem with the concept of registering a firearm, then you need to have a problem with nearly every aspect of regulation in this country. Which may be the case, but will be substantially more difficult to argue.
And when I say guns are designed to kill (as I might as well go back and cover this logic again and again), I'm talking about guns that are specifically carried or kept in homes for self defense purposes. These are owned and used with the intention of killing, if needed, unlike guns used for sports or hunting or range shooting.
Okay, so you're limiting this to multishot handguns then, at least primarily (M-16/AK-47/etc. derivatives and so on might also fall under this same category). Standard issue shotguns, hunting rifles, single-shot handguns for competitive target shooting (they exist), etc., do not apply in this case. Okay, I'll work with that.
So as soon as you bring up "any sort of weapon", you are ignoring this fact. All these other items that "could be used to lethal effect" doesn't change the fact that guns are, by design, far more lethal far more easily.
I would regulate sword carry for self defense in the same way as hand guns... except that the size, shape, and weight of swords are already a self-imposed barrier to ease of carry and use.
Presumably a long barreled rifle also would be similar to swords and such then, correct? Just trying to clarify where you stand.
And once again, cars and bank transfers and all these other things aren't when used for their primary purpose, designed to KILL people. Guns ARE designed to kill people (those carried for self defense, not sports shooting, etc (which I feel I have to reiterate again and again as it seems some people are incapable of holding more than one thought in their head at any one time)).
Gotcha, although there is a fine line between a gun used for sports shooting and a gun used for killing people. A bullet from a hunting rifle is just as deadly as one from a handgun, albeit a hunting rifle is a bit more unwieldy to use -- you can't just walk up to a guy and shoot him with a hidden hunting rifle, for example. However, the vast majority of multishot handguns are primarily designed, to use the parlance of the industry, "stopping power" -- that is to stop someone (to use their euphemism for kill) in their tracks. A hunting rifle is primarily meant to kill game, not people, even though nothing keeps it from being used to kill people as well, obviously. Presumably, if someone carried a hunting rifle for self defense, hypothetically speaking, you'd want it regulated the same way as a handgun, correct?
Can I have your PGP/SSL/etc. keys to give to the NSA then? You just said you have no right to privacy.
All hyperbole aside, I'm perfectly fine with the notion of mandatory gun training akin to driver training to get a gun. I'm 50/50 on the idea of gun registration as it has its pros and cons. I'm also okay with putting severe restrictions on the usage of guns in self-defense. I'm not an absolutist like Luke, but I'm definitely someone who thinks they should be an absolute last resort when no other non-lethal means of defense are available. For the vast majority of scenarios, tasers/stun guns/mace/pepper spray/etc. are plenty effective. Heck, I'm hoping one day someone will event a Star Trek-like phaser that only has a "stun" setting for personal defense use. Gun-like (or better) range and accuracy without lethality would make for an ideal personal defense weapon. You'd just repeatedly stun the assailant, as necessary, until law enforcement arrives. I also think that the standards for issuing a license for someone to one a self-defense gun (as opposed to a hunting rifle) should be much more stringent.
So... Any gun that is purchased primarily as a self defense weapon to be carried in public should be registered but sport and weapons that will never leave the home need not be registered? I am cool with that.
I know 'gun insurance' has come up in previous debates bit I feel it is a bad idea. Primarily the purpose of auto insurance is to protect the owner of the vehicle in the event that they are involved in an automobile accident where they are found liable. Having this insurance is good because it prevents them from having their life completely destroyed rather than only partially (unless death is involved, then they are still fucked). If a gun owner were forced to have gun insurance hat benefit would they receive? Would the insurance cover any monetary penalty? If death results would there even be a benefit? Would the knowledge that they are insured make them more reckless and willing to use the gun because the insurance is there?
So... Any gun that is purchased primarily as a self defense weapon to be carried in public should be registered but sport and weapons that will never leave the home need not be registered? I am cool with that.
Right about the same time you can conceal your never to be used on public roads car under your jacket, yeah, I'll go along with that.
Have you forgotten about trailers and flatbeds? A racecar that is not street legal can not be registered nor can it be legally used on the public roads. So a racecar would be analogous to a firearm used only for competition.
Let me further add then when purchasing a hunting license the weapon you intend to use in conjuction with that license should be registered as a requirement of getting the hunting license.
Have you forgotten about trailers and flatbeds? A racecar that is not street legal can not be registered nor can it be legally used on the public roads. So a racecar would be analogous to a firearm used only for competition.
Let me further add then when purchasing a hunting license the weapon you intend to use in conjuction with that license should be registered as a requirement of getting the hunting license.
="HMTKSteve">Have you forgotten about trailers and flatbeds? A racecar that is not street legal can not be registered nor can it be legally used on the public roads. So a racecar would be analogous to a firearm used only for competition.
Let me further add then when purchasing a hunting license the weapon you intend to use in conjuction with that license should be registered as a requirement of getting the hunting license.
But I can still hunt with a Ma Deuce right? Depends on the hunting license. Hunting season is often broken down by weapon (bow, musket, etc...) As well as animal.
="HMTKSteve">Have you forgotten about trailers and flatbeds? A racecar that is not street legal can not be registered nor can it be legally used on the public roads. So a racecar would be analogous to a firearm used only for competition.
Let me further add then when purchasing a hunting license the weapon you intend to use in conjuction with that license should be registered as a requirement of getting the hunting license.
But I can still hunt with a Ma Deuce right?
Depends on the hunting license. Hunting season is often broken down by weapon (bow, musket, etc...) As well as animal.
By that point I'm hunting something big with that kind of firepower, though I doubt they have a season for HMGs.
Have you forgotten about trailers and flatbeds? A racecar that is not street legal can not be registered nor can it be legally used on the public roads. So a racecar would be analogous to a firearm used only for competition.
Let me further add then when purchasing a hunting license the weapon you intend to use in conjuction with that license should be registered as a requirement of getting the hunting license.
Nope. But you're also not in it on the trailer - Funnily enough, it's not legal to ride in that vehicle, or otherwise use it with the exception of loading it onto the flatbed.
But please, explain to me exactly how you're going to be transporting that firearm around? Not strapped down on a flatbed, you're carrying it on your person, easily accessible and usable. Bit different to the car on the flatbed, where you're not in it or on it. What are you going to do there in an emergency situation, cut all the straps and chains, and simply jump the car off the flatbed the 5 feet to the pavement, engine and tyres screaming the whole way like it's fucking Die Hard 4 and you've got a helicopter to take out?
Or maybe you don't want to accept the fact that those "Only to be used on private property" firearms can be trivially concealed and used wherever someone likes, thus invalidating any reason to register your firearms in the first place unless you really, really want to be a known ccw holder, and you see it as a tidy loophole to get around the idea of registration that appears to scare you so much?
What exactly are you afraid of? That the government knows you have a gun, so what? You've already said you're comfortable with them knowing you have a car, which you've already used in other posts in this thread as something quite lethal, kills a lot of people every year, that you seem to think is comparable. If you want to use cars in those examples, and you're comfortable with your car being registered, why not the thing you equate them to as an example of why that thing shouldn't be banned? Can't just have it be comparable when it's convenient.
Why exactly are you so opposed to the idea of the government knowing you have a gun, to registering your guns? It can't be the registration itself or any supposed invasion of privacy, because you already said your comfortable with other things being registered with the government and known to them. It's not like they won't know you have a license to own one, since they're the people handing out the licenses and already keep records of that. So what, exactly, is the reason for your opposition?
Comments
FinCEN Form 105 Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments (CMIR): Each person (including a bank) who physically transports, mails or ships, or causes to be physically transported, mailed, shipped or received, currency, traveler's checks, and certain other monetary instruments in an aggregate amount exceeding $10,000 into or out of the United States must file a CMIR.
Again, you are basing this new loss of privacy argument on the fact that we are already having our privacy violated in other ways.
Would you feel the same way if the government decided that because drug dealers encrypt their network communications all citizens must register to use encryption and register their encryption keys with the government? When did Rym become an old Republican white guy who does not believe in the right to privacy?
The vast majority of the guns used in crime in New York City (which has strict gun laws per popular demand) come from straw sales of legally purchased guns upstate and out-of-state.
A registry allows anyone who cares about guns to have them, but allows the trivial arrest of the people who buy and then resell guns for these purposes.
Why are you so brainless? It's as though every time I state this, I have to go back and explain my reasoning over and over again.
Guns kill people very easily and very quickly. If you have an accident with a knife or car or ANYTHING ELSE except, maybe, motorbikes ridden at speed or industrial machinery, you probably won't die. And ALL of these other things aren't designed to kill.
And when I say guns are designed to kill (as I might as well go back and cover this logic again and again), I'm talking about guns that are specifically carried or kept in homes for self defense purposes. These are owned and used with the intention of killing, if needed, unlike guns used for sports or hunting or range shooting.
So as soon as you bring up "any sort of weapon", you are ignoring this fact. All these other items that "could be used to lethal effect" doesn't change the fact that guns are, by design, far more lethal far more easily.
I would regulate sword carry for self defense in the same way as hand guns... except that the size, shape, and weight of swords are already a self-imposed barrier to ease of carry and use.
Cars are already regulated (though how lax driving tests are in the USA is scary in its own right), but again, cars used as weapons are already a very unwieldy proposition, and I've already posted statistics comparing intentional harm to others with cars compared to gun deaths.
And once again, cars and bank transfers and all these other things aren't when used for their primary purpose, designed to KILL people. Guns ARE designed to kill people (those carried for self defense, not sports shooting, etc (which I feel I have to reiterate again and again as it seems some people are incapable of holding more than one thought in their head at any one time)).
So too does their support of laws that restrict explosives.
We have laws on the books to punish straw buyers. The problem appears to be that some folks are not comfortable with the fact the gun crimes are punished after they are committed. It seems that some folks want to live in a Minority Report style world where the government ignores our privacy rights so that it can gather data that it can then use to declare us guilty of crimes we have not committed.
We force people to register cars. This allows a HUGE amount of pragmatic good to occur. It makes insurance coverage easier. It makes tracking of stolen vehicles easier. It provides benefits to both the car owner and society as a whole.
How are guns any different than cars in this regard?
A registry protects gun owners. It makes guns easily traced when they are used in crimes.
Most importantly, it removes many of the reasons people like me want to ban guns entirely. If there were a national registry, most of us who are mad about guns would stop bothering you people.
So the gun registry is to make you and people like you feel better? You would violate another persons right to privacy just to make yourself feel better? That is some fucked up shit.
Should we violate the first amendment by requiring all speech to be traceable back to the speaker? Kill everyone's ability to be anonymous in their speech?
Who says anyone has a right to privacy?
I'll accept your last point only if there is a rash of mass-speaking that directly result in the deaths of more than four people at a time.
One of the biggest problems we have right now is that changes to firearm rights are impossible without the support of one of the two extremes.
1) In order to get even the slightest restrictions placed on ownership you have to hammer it past the NRA.
2) The only way to get past the NRA is with the support of groups like the Brady campaign.
3) Because these groups tend to be extreme. Their support will only come if your proposed legislation gets made more restrictive.
4)Your legislation becoming more restricted draws out more opposition from less radical pro-gun types.
5) In order to pull more support for your legislation you have to appeal to more anti-gun groups. this leads to more opposition and so on and so forth.
I think it would work the same in the other direction. I haven't seen very many initiatives to expand gun rights so I cant say for sure.
Until we become willing to accept reasonable compromises like mandatory background checks and registration the only bills that get passed will be ones forced through quickly when world events upset the balance. Those measures tend to be poorly written and extreme. Next time we have a school shooting, your right to own guns might disappear, and it will be the fault of the NRA just as much as it will be any one else's.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_suicide Does this count as speech leading to mass death? Do you count all of the blacks (and civil rights sympathizers) who were killed in the South due to the speech of racists?
How many times has that happened in the US in the last few years?
How many times have guns killed groups of people in the US in the last few years?
Is one of these numbers bigger than the other one?
A lot bigger?
Maybe, pragmatically, one of these problems is more important than the other one.
They are also registered to establish a chain of vehicular liability, because improper vehicular use can kill other people.
There are plenty of responsible drivers, people who properly respect the one-ton death sled that they pilot. But some don't, and they cause problems for others.
And thus the analogy to guns is complete. Responsible gun owners are fine! But we have lots of stupid irresponsible gun owners who cause problems with their stupid irresponsibility. Registration would pose a very minor inconvenience to responsible owners, and a tremendous benefit to those affected by idiots.
Registration is not at all removal of your right to bear arms. Time, place, and manner restrictions on items in the Bill of Rights have been put in place for quite some time. The principle has been supported by numerous courts. "Fire" in a crowded theater and such.
If you have a problem with the concept of registering a firearm, then you need to have a problem with nearly every aspect of regulation in this country. Which may be the case, but will be substantially more difficult to argue.
All hyperbole aside, I'm perfectly fine with the notion of mandatory gun training akin to driver training to get a gun. I'm 50/50 on the idea of gun registration as it has its pros and cons. I'm also okay with putting severe restrictions on the usage of guns in self-defense. I'm not an absolutist like Luke, but I'm definitely someone who thinks they should be an absolute last resort when no other non-lethal means of defense are available. For the vast majority of scenarios, tasers/stun guns/mace/pepper spray/etc. are plenty effective. Heck, I'm hoping one day someone will event a Star Trek-like phaser that only has a "stun" setting for personal defense use. Gun-like (or better) range and accuracy without lethality would make for an ideal personal defense weapon. You'd just repeatedly stun the assailant, as necessary, until law enforcement arrives. I also think that the standards for issuing a license for someone to one a self-defense gun (as opposed to a hunting rifle) should be much more stringent.
I know 'gun insurance' has come up in previous debates bit I feel it is a bad idea. Primarily the purpose of auto insurance is to protect the owner of the vehicle in the event that they are involved in an automobile accident where they are found liable. Having this insurance is good because it prevents them from having their life completely destroyed rather than only partially (unless death is involved, then they are still fucked). If a gun owner were forced to have gun insurance hat benefit would they receive? Would the insurance cover any monetary penalty? If death results would there even be a benefit? Would the knowledge that they are insured make them more reckless and willing to use the gun because the insurance is there?
You must have some very broad shoulders.
Let me further add then when purchasing a hunting license the weapon you intend to use in conjuction with that license should be registered as a requirement of getting the hunting license.
Depends on the hunting license. Hunting season is often broken down by weapon (bow, musket, etc...) As well as animal.
By that point I'm hunting something big with that kind of firepower, though I doubt they have a season for HMGs.
But please, explain to me exactly how you're going to be transporting that firearm around? Not strapped down on a flatbed, you're carrying it on your person, easily accessible and usable. Bit different to the car on the flatbed, where you're not in it or on it. What are you going to do there in an emergency situation, cut all the straps and chains, and simply jump the car off the flatbed the 5 feet to the pavement, engine and tyres screaming the whole way like it's fucking Die Hard 4 and you've got a helicopter to take out?
Or maybe you don't want to accept the fact that those "Only to be used on private property" firearms can be trivially concealed and used wherever someone likes, thus invalidating any reason to register your firearms in the first place unless you really, really want to be a known ccw holder, and you see it as a tidy loophole to get around the idea of registration that appears to scare you so much?
What exactly are you afraid of? That the government knows you have a gun, so what? You've already said you're comfortable with them knowing you have a car, which you've already used in other posts in this thread as something quite lethal, kills a lot of people every year, that you seem to think is comparable. If you want to use cars in those examples, and you're comfortable with your car being registered, why not the thing you equate them to as an example of why that thing shouldn't be banned? Can't just have it be comparable when it's convenient.
Why exactly are you so opposed to the idea of the government knowing you have a gun, to registering your guns? It can't be the registration itself or any supposed invasion of privacy, because you already said your comfortable with other things being registered with the government and known to them. It's not like they won't know you have a license to own one, since they're the people handing out the licenses and already keep records of that. So what, exactly, is the reason for your opposition?