It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I don't have locks on my guns cause I don't have little kids running around my house. That's all they would stop anyway, so I see no point.
A monthly limit? I didn't know guns were so scarce that they required rationing
violentsalvation 2013-01-26 01:34:57 PMWhy would they? It isn't about curbing gun violence. Registration serves no purpose other than to make a list and treasure map for the next step of what disingenuous farksticks call "reasonable gun control". The big grab.
Fark It 2013-01-26 01:14:18 PMChariset: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.Sure. What's a school full of dead children compared to your personal momentary inconvenience?Registration would have prevented school shootings? It seems to me that the only purpose of registration is confiscation, especially after reading and paying attention to what the gun-banners are saying.
Where is this scenario rooted
My question is: why do people think that registration --> confiscation? Has our government actually ever made overtures in a direction of confiscating all the guns? Where is this scenario rooted? Is there a rational basis for it?
So, these morons don't realise that their fucking gun licence already A)tells the Authorities where they are and B)is a pretty fucking good indicator as to who has guns? You know, that thing they issued you that has your picture on it, and you had to write your name and adress down on a little form, and you have to keep updated with your current adress, you fucking idiots?
The question I've always had about laws around securing one's guns is how are they enforced? Police won't raid houses for unlocked guns. How do you make these regulations practical?
I'm of the mind that as long as the pro gun side is willing to submit to reasonable laws, and the other side can hear us out, we can have our cake and eat it to.I don't think the slippery slope thing is a real concern but having worked for them the government can over do it a bit, or just write laws that don't have the effect they hope. Like with the Teflon coated rounds incident.
What license? I don't have a fucking license. :P
Having a list of people with firearms permits is not the same as a list of actual guns owned.Recently a New York paper printed a list of the people registered/licensed to own guns (or was it concealed permits?) Lots of people were pissed. Think how much worse that could have been if the list contained not just the names but also listed all guns owned?
Why would that be worse? If they listed the guns they owned I mean
Why would that be worse? If they listed the guns they owned I meanlikely in an attempt to steal said firearms.
So if owning a gun doesnt actually protect you from robberies then what's the point of em? ehhh heh heh hehe
Why would that be worse? If they listed the guns they owned I meanlikely in an attempt to steal said firearms.Is there any evidence at all to support this claim? Because it sounds like this is what you've decided. Is it maybe possible that these people are in areas with appreciable rates of break-ins? Or, y'know, maybe a coincidence?