Quoted:
Sounds reasonable to me.
In around the year I've been here, I've sat and listened (and lurked) in many conversations, but I cannot really find a reason NOT to have sensible gun registration.  Flame me if you will, but to any layman (gun owner or not) it makes sense.  Now, I'm in no way for "assault weapon" bans, or ANYTHING that would EVER strip a civilian from owning WHATEVER they wish in the name of protection of self, family, and country.

Give me a good reason why I should be pissed that my 9mm shouldn't be registered (for the purposes of me, say, losing it and not having it used illegally for criminal purposes), and I'll consider changing my mind - but I'm like O'Reilly: very reasonable, very sound, and very secure in my beliefs.

>> I guess that only makes me %90 pro-gun, but I've never gotten into the anti-registration crowd too much, so I'll stick with that opinion for now...so convince me otherwise already, people!

Give me a good reason why I should be pissed that my 9mm shouldn't be registered (for the purposes of me, say, losing it and not having it used illegally for criminal purposes), and I'll consider changing my mind - but I'm like O'Reilly: very reasonable, very sound, and very secure in my beliefs.

Another fact Americans need to understand is that registration is directed to law-abiding citizens, not criminals. Not only do convicted criminals by definition fail to obey the law, but they are constitutionally protected against any registration requirement. In Haynes vs. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled 7-1 that compelling registration by those who may not lawfully possess firearms amounts to a violation of the Fifth Amendment's proscription against forced self-incrimination. In other words, the court said that if someone "realistically can expect that registration [of a firearm] will substantially increase the likelihood of his prosecution," the registration requirement is unconstitutional.

(Source: Edmonton Sun)

Canada's controversial gun registry has more than a few ghosts in its machinery.

Opponents say the system is so rife with errors it's a waste of many millions of tax dollars.

Indeed, cost of the registry has hit a whopping half-billion dollars despite original estimates of $85 million back in 1995. Justice Minister Anne McLellan insisted user fees would eventually cover the entire cost of the registry. Less than $30 million has been collected from fees so far.

"This law is simply a waste of money that will take police off the street in order to run a paper-pushing operation," says Saskatchewan Alliance MP Garry Breitkreuz, a leading national critic of the system. "If saving lives were really the government's goal then they could have bought, installed and operated 140 MRIs with the money wasted on the gun registry," said Breitkreuz.

"To say the $585-million gun registry is a mess is a gross understatement. It's a disaster," said Breitkreuz.

(source: article by John Lott.)

In theory, if a gun is left at the scene of the crime, licensing and registration will allow a gun to be traced back to its owner. Police have spent tens of thousands of man-hours administering these laws in Hawaii (the one state with both rules). But, amazingly, there has not even been a single case where police claim licensing and registration have been instrumental in identifying the criminal.

Why? Criminals very rarely leave their guns at the scene of the crime. This really only happens when the criminals have been seriously wounded or killed. Would-be criminals also virtually never get licenses or register their weapons.

So will at least licensing allow for even more comprehensive background checks and thus keep criminals from getting guns in the first place? Unfortunately, there is not a single academic study that finds that background checks reduce violent-crime rates.

"The Canadian Firearms Program began actual implementation in December of 1998. Since that time it has proven to be of significant public benefit," or so claims the Department of Justice's performance report for the year ending March 31, 2001, tabled Thursday in the House of Commons.

The report then offers an explanation of just how the national gun registry and licensing program is producing these sanguine results on behalf of Canadians: "The Canadian Firearms Program is achieving its public safety objectives by keeping firearms from those who should not have them. Over 3,000 licences have been refused or revoked by public safety officials."

That's typical of Liberals, confusing activity with achievement. The number of firearms murders has gone up by over 20 per cent since their registry opened. Yet merely because the registry has rejected 3,000 of more than two million applicants (a mere 0.15 per cent), the whole scheme is pronounced a roaring success.

In truth, even this rejection rate isn't much of an accomplishment. While the government likes to boast it has refused and revoked vastly more licences since the program began than were rejected and revoked in the years before, this is a slight of hand. The volume of applications has been upwards of 10 times higher, too.

A corresponding increase in the number of refusals and revocations is to be expected. Indeed, the refusal/revocation rate before the Liberals' firearms scheme commenced was typically 0.09 per cent a year, now it is 0.15, a little bit more than a 50 per cent increase (hardly the 2,700 per cent the Liberals claim), and a lot of that is due, no doubt, to the vast increase in clerical errors caused by the convoluted new licence application.

The Firearms Program has done nothing to keep guns out of the hands of those intent to do harm with them. The proof lies in Statistics Canada's homicide statistics for 2000, which came out last week.

The Liberals may be keeping guns out of the hands of cranky hunters who refuse to answer all the intrusive questions on the licence application, or divorcing men whose vindictive wives file malicious complaints against them in hope the government will help hurt their former husbands by confiscating their firearms, at least temporarily.

But the Liberals are doing nothing to prevent those who wish to murder, rob or wound from obtaining guns.

Fortunately, there were just 542 homicides in Canada in 2000. That's up slightly over 1999, when 536 murders were committed. But the population rose slightly, too. So the increase in overall murders is neutral.

Murders with firearms, though, have risen each year since the implementation of the Liberals' firearms program. Indeed, they've risen 21 per cent in just the two years since the Liberals' licensing and registration schemes went into effect. And since, during that same period, the population has risen only 1.7 per cent, there has been a net rise in gun murders of nearly one-fifth since 1998.

Statistically, that's a significant increase, though the numeric increase has not been huge. Canada still has very few gun murders -- just 183 in 2000, up from 151 in 1998. It remains far more likely that Canadians will die by drowning or car accident or household fall than firearms murder. But imagine the handsprings the Liberals' would be performing if there had been a 20 per cent decrease since their registry opened. Instead, there is no fanfare, no coverage at all of the statistics. It is dishonest to insist the firearms program has provided a "significant public benefit" if, during its lifetime, murders committed with guns have gone up nearly 20 per cent, in real terms.

Garry Breitkreuz, the Alliance MP from Saskatchewan's Yorkton-Melville, points out another glaring fact in the StatsCan numbers: Exactly two-thirds of firearms murders committed in Canada are committed with handguns (58 per cent of the total), which have been subject to registration for 67 years, or sawed-off shotguns and automatic firearms, which were illegal to own even before the registry. Only one-third of firearms murders are committed with shotguns and hunting rifles.

And it's not as though the handguns used in murders are registered handguns, either. StatsCan admits the vast majority were never registered.

The Liberals have spent $685 million since 1995, and have 1,800 employees working to license Canadian firearms owners and guns that pose little if any threat to Canadians. And there's a good chance those totals are low. The total spent is probably nearer $900 million and other gun-control employees are likely buried in various government departments so the astonishing total is not obvious to voters and taxpayers. The registry is a sham, especially at a time when more money is needed to fight real threats to our security.

Quoted:
Anyone else notice this is from 23 May 2000?  Who knows what his opinion is now after 9/11.  Maybe more conservative or liberal.  Anyway, as a member of the C3 community, I already have 5 guns "registered" along with my photos and fingerprints.  No problems yet.  Hell, they have had registration requirements for C3 since what, 1936 when you had to pay the first tax stamp?  I don't know of any that have been "confiscated".  Now I'm not advocating any type of registration or bans either, and never have.  But, if it were to be passed in the future, we still have a great country compared to many others out there.  How many of us have Concealed Weapon Permits?  We're registered with them.  At least in Alaska you turn over your photos and fingerprints.  Face it, if the feds ever decided to "confiscate" guns, they would have a good starting place b/c of the CCW permits.  I wouldn't like it, but it also wouldn't be the end of the world.

Quoted:
I cannot really find a reason NOT to have sensible gun registration.  

Quoted:
Yes, Class III holders are registered, as are their Class III weapons.  So are C&R license holders and their C&R weapons. CCW permit holders, and people who live in states requiring FOID cards and the like are registered.  But the Federal government does not have a list of [i]every[/i] firearms owner, nor do they have a list of [i]every[/i] firearm they possess.  (I assume you own weapons other than Class III types - does Uncle know exacttly what you've got?)  Nor is that what is being proposed.  They just want a list of Joe and Jane Law-Abider, and everything [i]they[/i] own.  quote]
Good point, and you're right that criminals will not register.  Here's my question.  If all of those other people/guns are registered already, and I have 5 guns that are registered C3's, and I have a CCW permit, why should I care if my other 6 guns get registered?  I'm joe law abiding citizen too, but I'm already in the registered pot.  The feds already know I'm a gun owner with machine guns and supressors.  Is you're outlook that we C3 owners, FOID card, FFLs, CCW permit people should not want registration because we should be out to protect folk that don't have any type of current registration restrictions?  I could see that.    

Quoted:
Good point, and you're right that criminals will not register.  Here's my question.  If all of those other people/guns are registered already, and I have 5 guns that are registered C3's, and I have a CCW permit, why should I care if my other 6 guns get registered?  I'm joe law abiding citizen too, but I'm already in the registered pot.  The feds already know I'm a gun owner with machine guns and supressors.  Is you're outlook that we C3 owners, FOID card, FFLs, CCW permit people should not want registration because we should be out to protect folk that don't have any type of current registration restrictions?  I could see that.    

Quoted:


The problem is that "sensible" is defined by those creating the laws. To our dismay, those that push for any registration laws are anti gun and will try to utilize registration as a stepping stone for confiscation. Look at the nations that have had registration; most have confiscated the guns that they registered.

Quoted:
Sounds reasonable to me.
In around the year I've been here, I've sat and listened (and lurked) in many conversations, but I cannot really find a reason NOT to have sensible gun registration.  Flame me if you will, but to any layman (gun owner or not) it makes sense.  Now, I'm in no way for "assault weapon" bans, or ANYTHING that would EVER strip a civilian from owning WHATEVER they wish in the name of protection of self, family, and country.

Give me a good reason why I should be pissed that my 9mm shouldn't be registered (for the purposes of me, say, losing it and not having it used illegally for criminal purposes), and I'll consider changing my mind - but I'm like O'Reilly: very reasonable, very sound, and very secure in my beliefs.

>> I guess that only makes me %90 pro-gun, but I've never gotten into the anti-registration crowd too much, so I'll stick with that opinion for now...so convince me otherwise already, people!

Quoted:

8.  Only working people (defined as anyone who is making $1 less than you)deserve tax cuts.  The rich (You, and those making more than you) don't need tax cuts.  Companies (Individual taxpayers under federal law) don't need tax cuts.

Quoted:
Hmm... I don't agree with that one.  Bill's earned himself a [i]very[/i] good income, and everything [b]I've[/b] seen him say about taxes is that they're too high across the board, and that waste in government is the reason.  Bill's rich and doesn't like his tax bracket.

Other than that, I think you hit his positions square on the head.

Quoted:
Sounds reasonable to me.
In around the year I've been here, I've sat and listened (and lurked) in many conversations, but I cannot really find a reason NOT to have sensible gun registration.  Flame me if you will, but to any layman (gun owner or not) it makes sense.  Now, I'm in no way for "assault weapon" bans, or ANYTHING that would EVER strip a civilian from owning WHATEVER they wish in the name of protection of self, family, and country.

Give me a good reason why I should be pissed that my 9mm shouldn't be registered (for the purposes of me, say, losing it and not having it used illegally for criminal purposes), and I'll consider changing my mind - but I'm like O'Reilly: very reasonable, very sound, and very secure in my beliefs.

>> I guess that only makes me %90 pro-gun, but I've never gotten into the anti-registration crowd too much, so I'll stick with that opinion for now...so convince me otherwise already, people!

Quoted:

Shit. From a Jew, yet -  you haven't learned much from your history, making you the dumbest thing since a bag of rocks.  Either that, or Imbroglio need to step down as chief button pusher.  I guess you [i]are[/i] all cool GIFs and tag lines.  Come get'em, [i]goya[/i].  Don't look at this as a failure to communicate logically and with a cool head; consider this a much needed dope-slap upside your nappy, pointed head.

shooter [devil]

The problem is that "sensible" is defined by those creating the laws. To our dismay, those that push for any registration laws are anti gun and will try to utilize registration as a stepping stone for confiscation. Look at the nations that have had registration; most have confiscated the guns that they registered. If there is any fear that a person in office may try to take something from you, don't let him know you have it in the first place!

Quoted:
ARBen hit it on the head:  reasonable is in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder is usually a knee-jerk liberal [:\]

Quoted:
Jewbroni raises a good question about whether registration is as evil as people make it out to be.  Previous posters have already demolished the value of registration as a crime fighting tool.  Let me ask a few constitutional questions.

The Second Amendment protects the inalienable right of the people to bear arms.  The government requires that all arms be registered.  If this does not violate the Second Amendment, I have the following questions:
Will requiring you to register your books, video movies, writings and newspaper subscriptions violate your First Amendment rights?
Will the mandatory registration of church officials and church members violate the First Amendment?
Will the mandatory registration of newspapers, publishers and journalists violate the First Amendment?

Bear in mind that in every gun registration law that exists today, failing to register your guns - your own property - is a [u]crime[/u] and punishable with jail time, and usuallly with forfeiture of the unregistered firearms.  Would similar punishment make First Amendment registrations unconstitutional by exerting on chilling effect on people attempting to exercise their rights?

If and when the Supreme Court rules that the Second protects an individual right to own guns, be prepared to make these arguments.  Jewbroni, thanks for bringing this up.