April 5, 2013

Lists, and why we make them

I am fully aware I am a stupid redneck Hoosier. I talk slow and type even slower. Sometimes  I just do not get it.

Can someone, anyone, offer a coherent and reasonable explanation how registering guns will prevent a crime? The weapons used in Colorado and Connecticut were lawfully held and acquired. How will any of the proposed violations of the Second Amendment have prevented those crimes?

Registering guns to prevent crime makes about as much sense as claiming registering cars will prevent drunk driving.


Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...

Registering anything, by definition, is a negative prescription. I register a piece of software or hardware with the manufacturer in case there is a problem with it. Likewise, the proposed registration of firearms will only bear fruit after there is a "problem", not before -- and maybe not then, if the shooter is smart enough to ditch his gat in a convenient body of water or other suitable place where it is unlikely to be found.

The bottom line is that criminals will always be able to get their hands on weapons, mandatory registration of same or no.

Anonymous said...

It's all about power,you will register, you will comply, you will be assimilated. Big Brother will make all your decisions for you, no need to worry, the individual is not important only the collective.
James Old Guy

Cappy said...



Joe said...

cappy, bringing in the culture

Erin O'Brien said...

Why should someone like De'Marquis Elkins have to worry about gun registration or a background check? Or what about the guy who sold that gun to him? Or the next guy down the ladder of that gun's history?

Oh yeah, I forgot. They shouldn't because low level street criminals are some of the NRA's best customers.

RIP Antonio Santiago.

Ed Bonderenka said...

"low level street criminals are some of the NRA's best customers."
In all goodwill and consideration of the propriety of honest debate of issues in the public square:
that was a stupid thing to say.
Yes, the NRA has customers.
They sell magazines (print not ammunition) and membership.
The preponderance of gun sales today is to honest citizens.
Background checks sound innocuous.
they do however create a database of owners.
That database could be used for general confiscation in the future.
It was in Australia.
We want no part of that.

Joe said...

And putting a name on list would have stopped the crime how?

this guy


was a State Trooper. His guns were recorded, registered and known. He was trained.

He was trusted.

Which law would have prevented him from killing his wife and kids? What list?

Anonymous said...

De'Marquis Elkins is just another example of a failed culture. He was doomed from his birth, it was just a matter of time before he ended up in jail or dead in the streets. Yes, he used a gun, but the failure wasn't the fact he had a gun. The failure was he thought he had a right to use it. It's nothing new, bringing up facts will get you called raciest in a heartbeat.
James Old Guy

diamond dave said...

It's all about the nanny elites taking away our rights to live, think, and defend ourselves so they can impose their will on us.

Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...

Proscription of an armed citizenry is a prescription for tyranny.

Put that in your hookah and smoke it, Erin.

Erin O'Brien said...

The NRA's sole mission is to sell guns. Anyone with a membership card in their wallet is paying for the privilege to be a lackey.

Anonymous said...

The NRA is a lobbying org. It does not sell guns

There are no NRA stores

Anonymous said...

About 90 million Americans own guns. The NRA claims to have about four million members. That is less than five percent of all gun owners.74% of the NRA members support background checks.

Erin O'Brien said...

Every store that sells guns is an NRA store.

The NRA couldn't care less how many members it has because every person who buys a gun is supporting the NRA, member or not. The card-carrying members are just a convenient front. As for what 74% of it's members support, the NRA couldn't care less about that either. Background checks will hinder some guns sales so the NRA does not support it.

Also, I wrote a little essay just for all of you: Coming soon: a pro-gun control NRA.


Woodman said...

" Background checks will hinder some guns sales so the NRA does not support it."

Can we make a law that makes it so you have to register your house so it isn't used to quarter troops?

Or one that says you have to have a sign on your front porch that says no illegal search and seizure here please.

Let's get rid of the NRA. Fine, I'm not a member, and I have never bought a new gun, only used, and most of them have been from WWII and before, so it's not like there was even an option to buy a new one.

Now we still have the other dozens of millions of voters who keep voting to return the right to bear arms to all people, not just the select few.

And I doubt that any "low level criminals" either A) Buy guns from a store, B) Are members of the NRA. I question the labeling of a man guilty of murder as a low level criminal, he's the big time.

Every law restricting the 2nd amendment was a reaction to "the wrong people" coming into town. Our gun owners are ok, it's those new people coming in that are the problem. New York, Chicago, and California all implemented their gun laws to stop immigrants from scaring the public, California's laws were further modified when the Black Panthers showed up to city hall with rifles on their backs.

So, you are in favor of these repressive, poor and minority discriminating, criminal creating laws. Since in the areas with strong progressive gun laws the rich can still get and carry guns, or hire men to do that for them, while the poor watch the police set speed traps a hundred yards from the worst crime areas in the states.

What is your reasoning for preventing the lower class from exercising the same rights as the rich?

Consider everything here that is of original content copyrighted as of March 2005