It's not an infringement? Even if it's your ox being gored?

You are ignoring the other factors that impact crime rates here in the USA and elsewhere in the world. Crime rates dropped in the USA during the economic boom of the 1990's because unemployment was low. Have you identified what other factors, e.g. economic, that impact crime rates in the UK and Australia? For instance FBI crime data is incomplete because it relies upon voluntary submissions and their own website stipulates that not all law enforcement agencies nationwide contribute. This means that homicides in rural districts might not be included and therefore show a lower rate than is actually the case. How does that compare to the other nations?

A gun registry is a legitimate tool for law enforcement to use in order to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disturbed. The NRA has used fearmongering disinformation to create opposition to a gun registry because that might impact sales of the arms manufacturers.

If you are gullible enough to swallow the NRA disinformation without following the money trail then that is not my problem.

 

Then why did you come here if you don't trust the government of We the People any more than you trusted the government of your own country of origin?

 

disregarding the fourth amendment is a legitimate tool for law enforcement to get evidence against criminals. but its unconstitutional. So is a registry. Nothing in the constitution authorizes the federal government to create one. and there is no evidence it has any use. Hawaii, using its state police powers (before the second amendment was incorporated through McDonald) has a registry. Can you find any evidence that said registry has solved a single violent crime.

the fact is-you pretend that such crap will aid law enforcement. What it will do is harass gun owners which of course, why you and other haters of gun owners support it

 

What imaginary "war" would that be?

 

when gun owners refuse to comply with BM laws and resist with arms-targeting the politicians who pass such laws and the instigators who pushed for such laws.

 

Funding costs are a strawman attempt to repeal the gun registry.

As far as your disingenuous misrepresentation of the facts goes those 7,000 references a day could be for gun SALES! Your assumptions are ludicrous.

 

I trusted the U.K. Government Less. I was born in the US, raised in NI, learned American History and the Constitution and figured it would be a better option.

 

The Troubles... go for it... you will tread where you know nothing

 

You are entitled to your own misinformed opinions but not your own factoids.

There is nothing whatsoever unconstitutional about a gun registry and the onus is entirely on YOU to prove that it is. So far you haven't provided squat to support your baseless allegation.

 

Obviously you don't know the meaning of the term "war".

 

He doesn't have to, we have no national registry

 

I think the Irish and the Brits would argue with you....that, and, I was there

 

you constantly pretend that everyone else is misinformed yet you continually post nonsense that is as short on logic and facts as it is long in seething hatred of gun owners. . You have to prove something is constitutional before you can enact it, not the other way around. You apparently are not well educated enough on the constitution to actually point to what part of the document actually allows that

You also constantly ignore the tough question of why you support a law that can ONLY be enforced against honest gun owners and not criminals. That clearly proves to me that your goal is to harass gun owners, and not impede criminals.

 

educate me in your understanding of war? I am finding a lack of knowledge inherent in your posts

 

Educate yourself. Describe your own experience that you think gives you leave to be condescending from your armchair.

 

who are you talking to here?

 

So you were being disingenuous when you made this allegation?

The "war" in NI was not because of "gun control" at all. It was the struggle for independence that had been going on since the mid 19th century. That the Northern Irish decided to make it into an armed struggle against one of the world superpowers of the time says volumes. At least the Scots are smarter than that and are using the ballot box instead. They learned the lesson that "war" doesn't solve anything a long time ago. It didn't work in Africa either. India achieved independence without war through passive resistance.

Guns are not the solution, they are part of the problem.

 

Turtledude made the allegation so the onus is on him to substantiate it or risk losing credibility.

His choice!

 

Conflating government regulations with a struggle for independence is disingenuous.

 

Are you suggesting that a crime rate isn't solely dependent upon the laws that do or don't exist?

The trends reflect the collection method. It doesn't matter what the raw data is - it matters that what the rate of decline was.

How is that? A registry doesn't affect straw purchases or theft, or those who decide to become criminals or mentally disturbed after the purchase. We can't even arrest criminals or other prohibited persons for failing to register their guns.

"Firearm registration and licensing of owners. Registration requires that a record of the owner of specified firearms be created and retained (27). At the national level, the Firearm Ownership Protection Act of 1986 specifically precludes the federal government from establishing and maintaining a registry of firearms and their owners. Licensing requires an individual to obtain a license or other form of authorization or certification to purchase or possess a firearm (27). Licensing and registration requirements are often combined with other firearms regulations, such as safety training or safe storage requirements. Only four studies examined the effects of registration and licensing on violent outcomes; the findings were inconsistent."

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

When four states have banned possession of modern sporting rifles, and a ban is only effective with registration, it's not fearmongering. We know that the Democratic leadership would love to ban the possession of modern sporting rifles nationwide and they'd use the registry to collection them.

" She will also support work to keep military-style weapons off our streets."

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/

"Vermont is a rural state in which tens of thousands of people enjoy hunting and own guns. VT is an "outdoor" state--and hunting is a key part of that way of life. I am pro-gun, and pro-hunting. But I don't believe that hunters need assault weapons and AK-47s to kill deer. I voted for the ban on assault weapons, "

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm

• Ban sale or distribution of assault weapons. Assault weapons are designed to be extraordinarily deadly. So it is no surprise that mass shootings involving assault weapons are 50 percent more deadly, resulting in 155 percent more people being shot. O’Malley will ban the sale and distribution of all military-style assault weapons, including assault pistols and long guns, as he did in Maryland. He will also ban the sale or distribution of large-capacity magazines and “cop killer” ammunition through federal regulation.

https://martinomalley.com/policy/preventing-and-reducing-gun-violence/

That's not NRA disinformation - those are Democratic presidential candidate platforms.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Soros - $25M
Bloomberg - $25M
NRA - didn't even make the top 50.

 

sorry-in the USA, the burden is on those who want the government (federal) to expand its power, not on those of us who can read SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and can find no delegated power in the constitution or any amendment

 

Your endless spurious ad homs expose the weakness of your position.

You are disingenuously denying that the government of We the People has the authority to regulate guns via a registry when registries already exist in several states. If they were unconstitutional they would have been ruled as such by the Supreme Court. Since those rulings have not happened that makes gun registries constitutional.

 

Onus is on you to explain what you meant in your own posts.

 

you really are in no position to demand anything of anyone here. Your posts are generally lampooned by most of the posters as being contrary to known reality

 

ah the appeal to the masses to overlook and deny the constitution. and if you don't understand the difference between federal powers and state powers, I cannot help you. since there is not a general registry, there is no court rulings to be had. Your comment as is silly as saying there is nothing to prevent the congress from decreeing all women over a certain weight cannot wear yoga pants or tights in public. and then claiming that such a law has never been ruled unconstitutional.