Why do we have them? Why have speed limits or stop signs, I've seen both ignored?

Having a gun registration gives you a piece of paper.

A piece of paper can also be a safety factor. Things need to be put in balance, we need to weigh the factors. Gun safety seems to work better when rules are applied.

Laws relating to required safety practices and measures make a difference. If you favor registration, please explain what it does to improve safety. Requiring safe storage keeps a gun away from children. Requiring safe handling minimizes negligent discharges and decreases the chance of accidental injuries. Prohibiting random gunfire within city limits makes everyone safer. Registration gives bureaucrats a budget and creates some clerical jobs, that's all.

An auto registration provides a link to ownership. Not 100% exact but certainly helps keep track of them. It would be a lot harder enforcing the laws you cite if you can identify the gun owner. The ability to track the weapons used in San Bernadino have helped law enforcement it seems. It wouldn't be hard to determine the effectiveness if the NRA would allow it.

...to easily determine the owner of the stolen car used by the guys who robbed the liquor store and sped off. Finding a car of matching description in a walmart parking lot half a mile away with a damaged steering column was a clue.

The registration did not prevent the theft nor the consequent robbery. Registration made some of the police work easier.

According to GWBush, it is a "G-- D----- piece of paper."

A marriage license is a piece of paper. A deed to a house is a piece of paper.

Pieces of paper have consequences.

...I value the mutual pledge and promise between my wife and I more than the paper record. All of these things have the paper representing or recording something important. My auto registration helps me prove that I own my car. It doesn't prevent me or a car thief from running someone down and killing them. Registering a gun may make the police work after the fact easier but that's all.

That would make a difference.

...lock the entire population in cells? Then you'd only have to worry about the guards shooting each other.

Somehow you managed to stumble upon the idea that a natural right can disappear like a fart in the wind if enough people vote on it. How wrong is that? How anti-liberty of you.

For you, liberty seems to be the mass possession of death tools instead of life. I'd say you are the anti-liberty one. Not much liberty to be had if you're dead.

they don't even register on the radar, you're far, far more likely to be involved in an auto accident.

so why would you dozens of guns for self defense?

Since when?
I think you have be confused with someone else.

of historical value and are not for shooting.

For me liberty is going to the grocery store with the ability to actually protect myself and family.

It's true liberty is the possession of life saving tools to prevent death.

So why are you advocating against self-defense?

Ergo reimposing Prohibition with a life sentence for possessing alcohol will keep you safe.

"Vote for me, I want to repeal the Second Amendment AND forcibly confiscate over 300 million firearms from otherwise law abiding Americans!"

With such a "let's start a new civil war platform," I guess we should just start getting used to a President Trump or Cruz.

it's not nice.

He didn't threaten a damn thing, and your assertion is both a straw man fallacy and slander. You should display at least a shred of ethics and delete that shit.

It's simply a prediction about what would very likely happen in the event of any actual attempt to enact confiscation of civilian firearms. He's not urging such an action. This isn't exactly a subtle difference, either. It's one which any reader with even a borderline-adequate grasp of English would instantly recognize.

Stop misrepresenting what people write. You fool no one, and it's extremely unethical.

...should have all of their guns confiscated, shouldn't they?

Why should we allow Domestic Terrorists to have guns in the first place?

I'm assuming of course that as a firm believer in gun control and confiscation, you'll be at the head of the line to volunteer to help search and confiscate those evil guns, right?

You know, people that talk a big game online about what needs to be done, then slink away when anybody suggests doing something in the real world about it.

How in the hell is anything I said insulting to gun owners? I think very highly of most gun owners, that's why I'm helping to create more of them with concealed carry and basic pistol classes. Just curious about what, if anything, you do to support your POV?

You really do live in an alternative reality. No wonder you have trouble staying on DU for more than a few days at a time. Better luck this visit.

You "want" a lot of things done for gun control, but cant really be bothered to actually "do" anything beyond type on a keyboard to support what you supposedly believe?

Now that we know "where you stand" we'll all have to be sure to give your opinions all the careful, due consideration they deserve.

And what is it about work that you find so dirty, anyway?

Are you allergic to work or something?

Uh huh, I'm quite sure you are.

And why do you consider work to be dirty?

You seem afraid to explain yourself.

I hardly think so.

...the calcululz...

Oh, sorry, you were serious? I thought that was the start of a new "Why did the chicken cross the road" joke.

How about an apology?
And FTR, he didn't mean what your saying he meant.

Don't hold your breath for anything like an apology or explanation. That poster has an established reputation for disappearing when his ongoing wharfgarble gets too thick to see through. Then going on extended "Vacations".

Massively wrong interpretation of my post.

Totally wrong poster referenced.

And of course ... Woefully wrong thinking overall by the poster.

So somehow ... pointing out his unwillingness to do a difficult and dangerous job that he feels must be done someday, is the same as suggesting a bunch of feckless professors need to replace the police?

Yeah, right. It's just so obvious now.

...Second Amendment and enacting across the board confiscation is less than useful...it's dangerous and delusional.

Do you support native rights and self determination?

Has stone space EVER answered this question? Or has he ignored you every time you ask?

On the lighter side, it does seem to make him go away for a while...

...for authoritarian regressives.

Why many I have known need an instruction sheet for basic bathroom hygiene, let alone allow them to handle complex weapon systems.

You just stay home, preferably in the basement for safety, when the time for confiscation comes we'll take care of the work for you and your ilk.

I just agreed with your statement that Professors obviously aren't qualified to do anything like safely or effectively confiscate complex firearm systems.

When you learn how to behave, please get back to me.

For a short time.

Religion?

Primaries?

HoF?

He does have a certain "knack", doesn't he?

For my poll was hidden 6-1. Love to see the jury results.

His previous "personal best" was 3 days I think.

I don't tend to alert and did not on any of his posts. That is even when he directly attacked me.

...come to untimely ends at the intersection of irony ave and pot/kettle blvd. good one

This nation is founded on civil war. It's only justified when the grievances are sufficiently severe...but the problem lies in just how you determine "sufficiently severe," that being a subjective term. I'm sure that if the Colonials had lost, their rationale for war would have been found "insufficient" by history. They won, so the opposite happened. How history would decide an insurrection over forced disarmament, I couldn't possibly say. Any time things get to the point of something like that, it's a pretty good sign all parties involved have really screwed the pooch.

Stop with the usual distractions.

Never mind. This is a waste of my time.

Would you have sided with the brits in the original?

they tried that before

This Article chronologically reviews British gun control which precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gun powder; the 1774
–
1775 confiscation of firearms and gun powder from individuals and from local governments; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events which changed a situation of rising political tension into a shooting war.
http://www.academia.edu/10621580/How_the_British_Gun_Control_Program_Precipitated_the_American_Revolution

Probably help out with a hearty; "They're over here in this cellar, hurry before they move them Major Pitcairn!"

He thinks he is smarter than any of us.

considering the level of intellectual dishonesty it engages in.

No room for subjectivity, honest or otherwise... But I do expect more logical rigor from a mathematician.

Here or in the religion group

He,as an individual, issued a threat against the United States government?

But hey, I'm a Cascadian secessionist, so it's not like a break-up of the country is something I'm opposed to. I was just hoping for it to be peaceful...

Easy Peasy!

You don't even need any new laws for it.

You just need 2/3 of both houses of Congress and then 3/4 of the states to ratify the repeal. Heck, you don't even need the President to sign off on it. Executive branch has no role in the process, beyond what he does within his/her party.

So, when will you start the petitions to get it proposed?

Nah, probably easier to just keep whining about it I guess?

In fact, I believe the governor of Texas has demanded one.

We can then open-up the WHOLE Constitution for review and revisions. The Republicans currently control a clear majority of state governments, and some Democratic state leaders are quite conservative (e.g., Jon Bel Edwards, governor of LA, pro-life and 93% rating from the NRA). What could possibly go wrong...?

for a band of mall ninjas to find.

So far all the amendment proposals have come out of the legislature.

Every few years some affronted group announces they are going to form a Constitutional Convention and fail dismally.

Hell, we had some calling for one again in 2001 to get rid of the Electoral college, but they never seem to go anywhere ... but fund raising appeals for the people involved.

It might start as a means to ban guns, but before you know it, abortion is illegal, English is the mandatory national language and Christianity is the official religion, flag burning is a capital felony, the death penalty is mandatory for a host of crimes, and Muslims are heading to internment camps.

The risks to all sides of opening the entire Constitution for change far outweighs the benefits, particularly since the amendment process is far more limited, precise, and predictable. However, it's still technically an option if gun controllers cannot get two-thirds of Congress to pass an amendment and want to appeal directly to the states.

In any event, I will not be losing any sleep fearing the Second Amendment is in any jeopardy or that there'll suddenly be public support or legal sanction for the government to start kicking down the doors of everyday Americans to confiscate their firearms. Heck, gun controllers couldn't even pass UBC's with a Democratic-controlled Senate after the death of schoolchildren.

But when it comes down to doing any real work; petitions, legislator meetings, public marches or anything that involves reaching for their checkbooks,gun control fans are notably cheap, lazy and not terribly focused for any length of time.

They can post "Repeal the Second Amendment" and "Fuck the NRA" all they want to, but actual effort and infrastructure? Not gonna happen.

This particular sub-thread has been a trip down the rabbit hole.
Tow thirds of what I read from pro-control would be a trip down the rabbit hole.
The very exercise of trying convince a pro-control individual to define "rights" often degenerates into a trip down the rabbit hole.

I've retraced my steps in that direction so often I've occasionally considered asking Skinner if I could change my user name to Alice.

OT & BTW I like your avatar. Krakatoa, answer to a few trivia questions.

so we can make sure that they get turned in when the time comes.

the controllers are not trusted and will never get it passed. "nobody wants to take your guns"

Just look in the mirror for your answer.

Probably since John Lennon was murdered. None of their ideas have stopped the violence, or will, so as far as this debate goes, sure--let's stop with their useless ideas.

more than a slap on the wrist.

I believe that one of the reasons we continue to have calls for new laws is that many existing laws are unworkable or unrealistically expensive. Perhaps if we could ditch laws that do nothing (as we did with the 1994 AWB) we could move on to usefully funding measures and programs worth a damn.

Useful idea or useless idea?

...explain the scope of the idea? Thanks.

You'll have to ask him why he believes that this would be a good idea.

The idea keeps coming up, usually put forward by gunners, but I've never been able to figure out what folks are thinking when they suggest such a thing.

The idea seems pretty useless to me, however, regardless of the details.

Then it shouldn't be hard for you to provide a link to such claims would it?

if, as you say it's come up before, then posting a link should be pretty easy.

and why are you afraid to explain or link to it?

Please site a post # or give a link or name the member I should ask for details.

I don't know what this means. Are you asking if I think university faculty should be targeted for chief of police or sheriff in local appointments/elections? That's why I was asking for scope.

I searched the thread for professor, teacher, faculty... and couldn't find a post with those words.

I can't remember making any such statement, and, as usual, he won't provide a link to his claim.

Your post # indicates just how small a task that is.

Not interested in games.

I have no interest in spelunking through your half baked references trying to determine what you actually want to discuss and your shyness over explaining yourself makes me believe you really don't have a point or have no real interest in discussing the question you posed. Without further investigation I give a short answer to your original question:

It was brought up above in this thread, and I objected to the idea.

Objecting to somebody else's idea is not bringing it up.

AFAIK I've answered your question. If not let me know.