Universal background check means universal registration. Universal registration means universal confiscation, universal extermination. That’s how it goes in history.
Well, shit. I was a little concerned that we wouldn't get anywhere on refining our gun laws but now I know for certain that we will. Hell, we might even get an assault weapons ban if we see more stuff like this!
I'm beginning to see a pattern that has developed over the last four years...the Right says something loony tunes, America reacts with revulsion and....good things happen:)
20 comments:
Show how she is wrong......
You can't. Because you are the one who is loony tunes.
That’s how it goes in history.
Mark, you supposedly get paid to know history, but by flatly denying Ann's point (and without any evidence to back up your laughing dismissal) you have managed to once again demonstrate your ignorance of history.
You claim to be pro-capitalism. So under capitalism, shouldn't the proper title for someone who is getting paid to know something, but doesn't know it be "unemployed"?
So, we're all going to be exterminated after we have universal gun registration...is that what you guys are saying?
And I can show how she is wrong in one word: Israel.
Registration routinely leads to confiscation.
Germany
Great Britain
Australia
New Zealand
New York City
California (certain registered guns must be turned in upon the death of the owner)
France
Face it, Mark. There are people on your side who are hot and heavy to totally strip We The People of ALL our Arms, despite what the LAW is. (That would be the LAW known as the U.S. Constitution.)
"Nobody Wants To Take Your Guns"
"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in."
Not only that, YOU even said that "many on the left make the error of thinking the next step means bans on guns or high capacity magazines."
Then why should we see "registration" as anything other than a list of who has the guns so they can be taken?
More history:
Registration
How well registration [hasn't] worked
Where is the extermination that has begun in Great Britain, Australia, and New Zeland? The piles of bodies?
Israel has gun laws that you are vehemently against. Have your predictions there come to pass? It's a simple yes or no question.
I guarantee you, NMN, that the citizens of this country are not going to have their shotguns, handguns and even semiautos confiscated by the federal government. Of course, I realize that my assertions won't break through your paranoia because that's sadly all of you have left. The world is changing, your ideas are now being seen for what they are (see: tinfoil hat required) and you simply don't have any answers anymore. So, you do it again, only harder:)
The pile of bodies in those countries is currently being piled up by the empowered criminals.
Here is the simple problem with your argument: You are citing exceptions to try to prove your fantasy, sorry, I mean claim. But no matter how you slice it, dice it, throw your hands up in the air, and insist that it is so, "some" can NEVER equal "all".
Oh, and I should point out that all of Mark's examples are ones of recent actions where democide are still an "at least, not yet anyway" situation.
Furthermore, Israel's situation is unique. Because they are surrounded by much larger nations that are simply chomping at the bit to wipe every last Jew from the face of the earth, collecting the guns from the population would literally be a suicidal action.
collecting the guns from the population would literally be a suicidal action.
Yet they have universal registration and very tight control over who has guns and why. According to your assertions, this would result in mass extermination by the government. Why hasn't it happened?
The pile of bodies in those countries is currently being piled up by the empowered criminals..
Numbers, please. Now compare them to the number of deaths from guns in this country. What's the difference?
There won't be registration because no one in Congress will vote for that - at least no one that wants to be re-elected from a state other than NY and CA.
There won't be registration because no one in Congress will vote for that
Yup.
But this 'universal background check' thing is a sleeper.
Sounds 'good', but it will be completely ineffective without having....gasp...registration to figure out who has what.
'did I get a background check for what officer? This ole thing? I've had this for years........'
The universal background check will not pass either, and if it does, it will fall at the first court challenge. Congress does not have the general police power.
And, absent registration, there is no way to enforce it. Universal registration would is even less likely than a renewed AWB.
So, let me see if I understand you guys correctly. People should be able to buy guns without registering them or having a background check. That's what you are saying?
So, let me see if I understand you guys correctly.
Well, that is a refreshing change.
People should be able to buy guns without registering them or having a background check.
That is the status today. Background checks are either required by state law, as in California, or for sales from federally licensed dealers under federal law.
I have never registered a firearm that I've purchased.
Numbers, please.
Here's a "for instance". Guns were banned in England, but instead of being safer, crime, including crime involving guns, has gone UP!
And remember, that ban was enforced via lists produced from registration.
Are there any more current numbers? Like these?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Understand that I am not arguing for a gun ban, per se. I'm simply saying that your assertions are not accurate.
In other words, as usual, you're just ignoring data you don't like.
Just Facts
Pay attention to the charts.
How many gun deaths were there in the US last year? How many in Great Britain?
Gun deaths? Would a reduction of 100 'gun deaths' be OK with you if there was an increase of 500 'knife deaths'?
You cannot compare raw numbers between countries. If you try to compare the murder rate of "Tiny Island Nation" which only has 500 murders to the United States with 11,000 murders, "Tiny Island Nation" sounds pretty good, until you find out that the population was only 1,000. You can only compare "rates".
But even then, there are significant variables that affect those rates, such as:
Are they having a war?
Is the government corrupt?
How does the culture treat crime? Mental illness?
Does the culture teach personal responsibility?
How does each country track and calculate statistics?
And many, many others.
The best way to evaluate the effect of gun control on crime is to eliminate all the other variables as much as possible. The simplest way of doing that is to compare rates within a country before and after changes in gun laws.
I've pointed you towards several examples of exactly that. But you keep ignoring them and trying to use comparisons which are poisoned by irrelevant variables. Gosh, it almost seems as though your trying to justify your own biases rather than actually understand the truth!
(Who am I kidding? That's exactly what you're doing.)
Post a Comment