Don't be surprised if your doctor asks you about guns

[driftdiver]

Asking gun owners to take responsibility for their weapons is "mocking and insulting"?   

Too many folks have chips on their shoulder.   The community reasonably requires folks to register their cars before using them for their intended purpose.   It is just as reasonable to require gun owners to conduct all purchases and transfers of their guns by documented means.  It is unreasonable to jump to the conclusion that such a requirement masks a secret agenda of confiscation.   Gun owners have little faith in the Constitution when they demand the right to live separate and apart from the community.

@Jazzhead
Gunowners are already legally and morally responsible for their weapons.   No, what you want is to infringe on peoples rights by making special provisions for firearm ownership and self defense.  Making it more difficult and more expensive to legally possess a firearm.

[driftdiver]

@driftdiver
Fifty FEET? Heck, you could dang near put a sandpoint on the end of a pipe and drive it in with a post pounder... Lucky you.

Our aquifer where I am is about 120' down through rock... so it's a job to get at it. but we have springs just about everywhere, and they feed the creeks. so head waters and glacial waters are always pure.

@roamer_1
There is limestone under Florida but its pretty weak, hence our sinkholes.   In places the aquifer is accessible from the surface.   I've been in springs that had water flowing out of the ground in massive swells.  Millions of gallons a day.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Oh, @Jazzhead one more thing:  "Gun owners have little faith in the Constitution when they demand the right to live separate and apart from the community."

I have plenty of faith in the Constitution.  My "faith" breaks down when lawyers and polemicists get hold of it and twist the meaning of the words into the opposite of what the founders intended.

[thackney]

...The community reasonably requires folks to register their cars before using them for their intended purpose.   It is just as reasonable to require gun owners to conduct all purchases and transfers of their guns by documented means....

You keep making that false claim, I'll keep pointing out it is false.

It doesn't matter how you use it.  It only matters where.  And then your false analogy falls apart.

If you don't use it on public roads, you don't have to register; you do not have to insure.

But you want all guns, anywhere for any reason registered.  In spite of the fact that ~97% of guns used in crimes were illegally obtained in the first place.

[Victoria33]

You keep making that false claim, I'll keep pointing out it is false. It doesn't matter how you use it.  It only matters where.  And then your false analogy falls apart.
If you don't use it on public roads, you don't have to register; you do not have to insure.  But you want all guns, anywhere for any reason registered.  In spite of the fact that ~97% of guns used in crimes were illegally obtained in the first place.

@thackney
@mystery-ak
@Cyber Liberty 

I could use a woman's Kotex pad to stuff a person's mouth with it, pushing it so far back, air could not get into or out of the person's lungs and he/she would die.  I have advocated (not) that Kotex are murder instruments, but they continue to be sold.  They should be regulated, every sale should require the person's name and address in case he/she uses them to kill.  They should be off the counter and only be sold if a person directly asks for them.  Only one should be sold at a time and the customer would have to wait a month to buy another one.  The Kotex company should be sued for making these killer devices.

[Cyber Liberty]

@thackney
@mystery-ak
@Cyber Liberty 

I could use a woman's Kotex pad to stuff a person's mouth with it, pushing it so far back, air could not get into or out of the person's lungs and he/she would die.  I have advocated (not) that Kotex are murder instruments, but they continue to be sold.  They should be regulated, every sale should require the person's name and address in case he/she uses them to kill.  They should be off the counter and only be sold if a person directly asks for them.  Only one should be sold at a time and the customer would have to wait a month to buy another one.  The Kotex company should be sued for making these killer devices.

I think the time has come for reasonable regulation of Assault Kotex Pads.

[Jazzhead]

You keep making that false claim, I'll keep pointing out it is false.

It doesn't matter how you use it.  It only matters where.  And then your false analogy falls apart.

If you don't use it on public roads, you don't have to register; you do not have to insure.

But you want all guns, anywhere for any reason registered.  In spite of the fact that ~97% of guns used in crimes were illegally obtained in the first place.

Yes, @thackey,  I know you keep making that argument.  And it continues to make no sense to me.  Carving out an exception from registration for vehicles that aren't used on public roads is analogous to carving out an exception from registration of firearms for historical/collectible weapons that are rendered inoperative.   The intended use of 99% of all cars is to drive them on public roads, where they can potentially cause mayhem.   Just as the intended use of 99% of all guns is to fire them, and maintain them in condition where they can potentially cause mayhem.  What is the "false analogy" you're so hung up about?

Drivers must take responsibility.  Why not gun owners? 

The fact that most drivers obey the rules of the road doesn't excuse them from being licensed and registering their vehicles.   So it is for gun owners - sure, most obey the law,  but the purpose of registration is to help make sure that all transfers and dispositions of firearms are documented.   That legitimate law enforcement purpose for registration, as noted in the Heller II case, creates only a di minimis burden on the lawful gun owner. 
 

[Victoria33]

I think the time has come for reasonable regulation of Assault Kotex Pads.

@Cyber Liberty

Thank you for your support.  I will pick you up to go with me when I go to Washington to speak to the US House and Senate about the Assault Kotex.  We must regulate these dangerous Assault Kotex.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead
 No, what you want is to infringe on peoples rights by making special provisions for firearm ownership and self defense. 

What "infringement" results from registration?  As noted in my post immediately above, the Heller II case specifically found that a registration requirement imposes only a di minimis burden on the lawful gun owner.   

[mystery-ak]

@Cyber Liberty

Thank you for your support.  I will pick you up to go with me when I go to Washington to speak to the US House and Senate about the Assault Kotex.  We must regulate these dangerous Assault Kotex.

Road trip...count me in..I am on the way so no detours..lol

[skeeter]

What "infringement" results from registration?  As noted in my post immediately above, the Heller II case specifically found that a registration requirement imposes only a di minimis burden on the lawful gun owner.

Registration is a necessary prerequisite to confiscation and will not have a SINGLE positive effect on public safety.

[driftdiver]

What "infringement" results from registration?  As noted in my post immediately above, the Heller II case specifically found that a registration requirement imposes only a di minimis burden on the lawful gun owner.

@Jazzhead
What infringement comes from requiring a govt issued ID to vote?    The left claims it is a barrier to the 'right' to vote.

Registration of firearms is a barrier to lawful exercise of our right to bear arms.

[driftdiver]

I think the time has come for reasonable regulation of Assault Kotex Pads.

@Cyber Liberty
I'd say that those evil things have been involved in a great deal of violence and irrational behavior since they were invented.

[INVAR]

Gun owners have little faith in the Constitution when they demand the right to live separate and apart from the community.

So, more evidence you are a Communist at heart.

No surprise here.

It's none of your effing business if someone demands to live separately and apart from the "community".

It's called LIBERTY - something you continually reveal you hate and have contempt for as you repackage it to mean something entirely different.

[thackney]

Yes, @thackey,  I know you keep making that argument.  And it continues to make no sense to me.  Carving out an exception from registration for vehicles that aren't used on public roads is analogous to carving out an exception from registration of firearms for historical/collectible weapons that are rendered inoperative.

It is not an exemption.  No cars need registration.  If you want to use it on the public roads, you register it.

The intended use of 99% of all cars is to drive them on public roads, where they can potentially cause mayhem.

They can cause mayhem on private roads, but the public doesn't pay for private roads, so registration is not required.  The reason for the registration is not due to damage, but for where it is used.

Just as the intended use of 99% of all guns is to fire them, and maintain them in condition where they can potentially cause mayhem.

Essentially no one buys a legal registered gun to shoot other people.  That is not the intended use except for criminals, who won't be registering their purchase.  Only the law abiding would register and that is not the intended purpose.

What is the "false analogy" you're so hung up about?

Ownership requiring registration.  False claim.

Drivers must take responsibility.  Why not gun owners?

The fact that most drivers obey the rules of the road doesn't excuse them from being licensed and registering their vehicles.   So it is for gun owners - sure, most obey the law,  but the purpose of registration is to help make sure that all transfers and dispositions of firearms are documented.   That legitimate law enforcement purpose for registration, as noted in the Heller II case, creates only a di minimis burden on the lawful gun owner.

Registration is not about taking responsibility.  It is about collecting a use tax and providing proof you have paid it.

[Sanguine]

Road trip...count me in..I am on the way so no detours..lol

It's long drive, maybe a couple of stops would be in order?  At least for kolaches and coffee?

[Cyber Liberty]

What "infringement" results from registration?  As noted in my post immediately above, the Heller II case specifically found that a registration requirement imposes only a di minimis burden on the lawful gun owner.

What "infringement" results from registration?

That is the most ridiculous thing I've seen you say on this subject, and that's saying a lot.  I'm putting it up in great, big letters for all the readers of this thread to laugh and enjoy, as I did.

[Sanguine]

....

Registration is not about taking responsibility.  It is about collecting a use tax and providing proof you have paid it.

There was a recent article about 8 of the top 10 most polluted cities are in California, and it made me start wondering.  CA has some of the most stringent anti-pollution regulations, taxes and other measures in the nation and they have this level of pollution?  That must mean that the regulations and taxing and licensing, etc., doesn't adequately control pollution.  So, what is their purpose? 

[Cyber Liberty]

It's long drive, maybe a couple of stops would be in order?  At least for kolaches and coffee?

There needs to be donuts.  Just sayin'.

[driftdiver]

What "infringement" results from registration?  As noted in my post immediately above, the Heller II case specifically found that a registration requirement imposes only a di minimis burden on the lawful gun owner.

@Jazzhead
Funny,

Requiring a govt provided ID to vote is an infringement (according to the left and the radical courts)
Requiring a woman to have an ultrasound before killing an unborn baby is considered an infringement (according to the left and the radical courts)

But requiring registration of firearms, insurance, locks and a host of other things is not infringement?  All of those things increase the cost and raise barriers to law abiding citizens exercising their Constitutionally protected rights.

But it doesn't matter.  You seek to further restrict our Constitutionally protected rights.   It is incumbent upon you to prove that registration and whatever else would have a positive impact beyond its cost to our freedoms.   

History shows registration doesn't increase safety but rather it increases violent crime.

[INVAR]

Funny,
Requiring a govt provided ID to vote is an infringement (according to the left and the radical courts)
Requiring a woman to have an ultrasound before killing an unborn baby is considered an infringement (according to the left and the radical courts).

But requiring registration of firearms, insurance, locks and a host of other things is not infringement? 

The minds of Communists and Leftists are indeed an enigma to a normal person are they not?

[Cyber Liberty]

The minds of Communists and Leftists are indeed an enigma to a normal person are they not?

Not really. 

They have a set of goals that are actually pretty easy to spot:  Denial of the human rights belonging to others, while reserving those rights for themselves. What's twisted and enigmatic to straight thinkers is how they are always attempting to find ways to declare their arrogation of rights and power legal, and actually encouraged by the 200 year old document written to prevent that.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so damned dangerous.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead
What infringement comes from requiring a govt issued ID to vote?    The left claims it is a barrier to the 'right' to vote.

Registration of firearms is a barrier to lawful exercise of our right to bear arms.

Just because the left adopts an idiot position doesn't mean that conservatives should parrot it.   

Registration is a tiny burden that enhances public safety by encouraging documented transfers and dispositions of firearms.  Just as an ID requirement is a tiny burden that enhances the efficacy of free and fair elections.   

Why should my vote be rendered meaningless because the lack of a photo ID requirement encourages voter fraud?  We all recognize that providing identification to vote is simple common sense. 

So why should my and my family's safety be compromised because gun owners demand the right to assemble arsenals in secret (thereby creating the conditions whereby criminals can do the same thing?)

Thanks, @driftdiver , for proposing this analogy.   We ALL understand the stupidity and selfishness of the left's arguments against voter IDs.   Let's put down our prejudices and paranoia and understand that firearms registration can enhance public safety at little cost to gun owners.   And that our Constitution provides the protection that registration will not lead to confiscation.   

[Axeslinger]

Just because the left adopts an idiot position doesn't mean that conservatives should parrot it.   

Registration is a tiny burden that enhances public safety by encouraging documented transfers and dispositions of firearms.  Just as an ID requirement is a tiny burden that enhances the efficacy of free and fair elections.   

Why should my vote be rendered meaningless because the lack of a photo ID requirement encourages voter fraud?  We all recognize that providing identification to vote is simple common sense. 

So why should my and my family's safety be compromised because gun owners demand the right to assemble arsenals in secret (thereby creating the conditions whereby criminals can do the same thing?)

Thanks, @driftdiver , for proposing this analogy.   We ALL understand the stupidity and selfishness of the left's arguments against voter IDs.   Let's put down our prejudices and paranoia and understand that firearms registration can enhance public safety at little cost to gun owners.   And that our Constitution provides the protection that registration will not lead to confiscation.

Stick it where the sun doesn’t shine statist...we will not comply...no matter how many times you propose your schemes. 

You want them?  YOU come and get them!  Make sure you dont send someone else.

[Jazzhead]

Registration is not about taking responsibility.  It is about collecting a use tax and providing proof you have paid it.

 The purpose of registration - just as it is with cars -  is to assign each firearm to the person who is legally responsible for its use, transfer and disposition.   It encourages safe practices and swift reporting of thefts to the police.   It will significantly enhance public safety at minimal  cost to gun owners. 

Registration is indeed about taking responsibility.   Gun owners are as obliged as anyone else to obey the reasonable laws of our Constitutional republic.