Most places require registration of cars even if they are not driven. Ownership is tracked. Even on the used market.
Not here. I have a title for my unlicensed truck, but that's for my benefit not anyone else's. It's not registered and I pay no taxes on it. To remove it from the tax files, all I had to do was cross it off with a pen on my yearly statement.
1) Why would you need to register a gun if you not buying/selling it?
2) Why would the specific gun have to be registered to perform a background check?
3) Where in the constitution is anonymous gun ownership protected?
1) You wouldn't
2) You wouldn't
3) Not relevant - The question was "why do gun owners oppose registration?"
Think you've won, right? Well, how exactly do you ENFORCE the background check without registration? Nobody from your side has answered that question because you don't have an answer. It cannot be done. Period.
Talking point balderdash.
Correlation does not proves causation.
Any place where guns have been confiscated had laws that allowed it to happen. Registration had nothing to do with it.
Our constitution allows gun ownership.
The SC has upheld that right many times.
The majority of the people in the USA support gun ownership.
The majority of politicians at all levels support gun ownership.
A vast majority of people in law enforcement support gun ownership.
Just what group is going to go against the constitution and confiscate millions of guns from millions of owners.
That has to be one of the dumbest political arguments I've every heard.
You are so completely wrong it isn't even funny. This isn't about a single measure whereby all guns would suddenly become illegal and all guns would suddenly be rounded up. Rather, certain classes of firearms would be outlawed and over time additional types would be added to the list. And though past attempts at banning specific firearms have grandfathered them, there is no guarantee future ones will (just as the state of NY is at the moment demanding holders of magazines in excess of 7 rounds turn them in - despite the fact many guns aren't even made with magazines that small). And is there some point where Americans would stand up and say, "okay, enough. You've got THOSE guns, you can't have these"? Maybe. But where would that line be drawn?
Wrong. It's a minority that wants a total ban.
Majorities want "reasonable controls" such as universal background checks, limited clip size, and preventing sales to people with mental issues.
Point is my friend, it's not the so called "reasonable middle" proposing the laws. It's the extremists. You can argue all you want that the NRA has an extremist view and you're right. But, the only ones actively seeking change at the political level are the extremists from the opposing point of view.
As for what the majority wants, well the majority of Americans "want" many things that sound good as ideas, but are unworkable in practice. And the majority of Americans don't know enough about any of these topics to comment intelligently. They just know what they want.
Magazine limits are ridiculous. Would have pretty much zero impact on the matter because you can change magazines almost instantly (as the Newtown shooter did multiple times, often with live ammo still in the magazine he removed). If you really want to make a change here, you would HAVE to take the law much further and ban any firearm capable of accepting an external magazine. And that's more than half of all guns sold.
Universal background checks again sound great on paper, but there is no way to enforce it among private individuals. And all other sales ALREADY require it. About the only thing you could do is require it at gun shows as it's part of a public event, and many places are doing that at the local level. Its done at NRA fund raising events today and has been for years.
And we all want mentally ill people to be prevented from buying guns. That's why so many people are fighting to get these records turned over to the BATF. Va Tech, Aurora, and Tuscon wouldn't have happened if the nutjobs' history had been IN the database. All of them passed the background check.
Nobody is preventing the experts on guns from sitting down and helping craft the laws.
But the NRA and supporters refuse to consider ANY "reasonable controls"... defined by them or anyone else.
Hogwash. The NRA has brokered many restrictions on guns including the current instant background check system, the removal of the KTM bullet from the private civilian market, and the FOPA of 1986 that included a clause making full automatics VERY difficult to get in private hands.
The problem is this: What you think is "reasonable" isn't so "reasonable" once it's looked at more closely. The idea of a background check is completely reasonable. There has yet to be a reasonable way to enforce it. And the idea of magazine limits sounds reasonable at a glance, but is honestly unreasonable to anyone who actually knows anything about guns and how they work. Some of the worst mass shootings in this country have taken place with low-capacity weapons that had to be loaded 1 cartridge at a time.
guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Not worth the potential points to give a political lesson.
