Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on background

[oldr_n_wsr]

Unless a court has declared you crazy (or retarded developmentally disabled, etc.) -- "a mental defective" -- or you have been committed to the funny farm, you have nothing to worry about.

What about inpatient and/or outpatient treatment for "whatever" (in my case alcoholism)? While I admitted myself and was not court ordered, there are those that were court ordered (mainly DUI's).

The proposed legislation would simply require sellers of guns at gun shows, over the internet, or in private transactions to run exactly the same background checks which sellers of guns at gun stores are already required to run.

I can live with that (of course that adds cost to any private transaction as no gun dealer is going to do the check for free).

So there is no gun registry tied to this bill?
Like in NY when the people who did have guns names were made public.

[Econoline]

So there is no gun registry tied to this bill?

To the statement "Gun-rights group says Senate bill proposes ‘universal registration of all firearms and their owners’" PolitiFact's Truth-O-Meter says

To the statement (from President Obama) "A bipartisan background check amendment outlawed any (gun) registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text"
the Truth-O-Meter says

[liberty]

When it come to this subject trust would help a lot but there aint none to be had for love or money.

[Scooter]

You don't need to trust anyone or anything. You just need to read the text of the bill. From Section 122:

(b) Prohibiting the Seizure of Records or Documents.-Section 923(g)(1)(D) is amended by striking, "The inspection and examination authorized by this paragraph shall not be construed as authorizing the Attorney General to seize any records or other documents other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law," and inserting the following: "The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination authorized by this paragraph other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law.".
(c) Prohibition of National Gun Registry.-Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
"(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the-
"(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by-
"(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
"(B) an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or
"(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.".

Section 123 provides for the penalties for violating these provisions:

Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
"(8) Whoever makes or attempts to make a transfer of a firearm in violation of section 922(t) to a person not licensed under this chapter who is prohibited from receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 or State law, to a law enforcement officer, or to a person acting at the direction of, or with the approval of, a law enforcement officer authorized to investigate or prosecute violations of section 922(t), shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
"(q) Improper Use of Storage of Records.-Any person who knowingly violates section 923(m) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.".

Note that the penalty for creating a registry is up to three times as much as illegally transferring a firearm.

Anyone who still harbours doubts about creating a backdoor registry after reading that needs to ask themselves what mental deficiency allows them to be so easily duped by obviously baseless propaganda.

[rubato]

Anyone who still harbours doubts about creating a backdoor registry after reading that needs to ask themselves what mental deficiency allows them to be so easily duped by obviously baseless propaganda.

When people repeat something long enough they start to believe it no matter how irrational. The whole paranoid delusion that the government is about to take people's guns away is just stupid.


yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

Thanks for the info people.
Ok they can do a background check on me.

[Sue U]

The whole paranoid delusion that the government is about to take people's guns away is just stupid.

Sadly.

Which brings me back to my current hobby horse:

On public policy grounds (i.e., not just "because the NRA is a powerful lobby"), why shouldn't the Second Amendment be repealed and gun ownership made a restricted and heavily regulated privilege? What justification is there for a "right" of gun ownership? What exactly is wrong with having a registry of gun owners?

[Long Run]

The whole paranoid delusion that the government is about to take people's guns away is just stupid.

Sadly.
* * *
why shouldn't the Second Amendment be repealed and gun ownership made a restricted and heavily regulated privilege?

This contradiction is why federal gun regulations proposals go nowhere. Those who favor an expansive reading of the 2nd Amendment know that the bill that was just "shot down" was one of the first steps of many to get to where those who want to make gun ownership "restricted and heavily regulated" want to move the laws (like the laws in low crime cities like Washington D.C.).

[rubato]

The whole paranoid delusion that the government is about to take people's guns away is just stupid.

Sadly.

Which brings me back to my current hobby horse:

On public policy grounds (i.e., not just "because the NRA is a powerful lobby"), why shouldn't the Second Amendment be repealed and gun ownership made a restricted and heavily regulated privilege? What justification is there for a "right" of gun ownership? What exactly is wrong with having a registry of gun owners?

Nothing is wrong with having a registry of gun owners. A majority of the population in Calif. and I suspect the rest of the country agrees with you. But those who agree with you (and myself) are not as motivated as the gun-nut minority and our attention is divided by a lot of other important issues. This is were the fanatical focus of the stupid and paranoid can be really powerful. They don't care about anything else. Only this. And they have grafted this onto the Republican party 'book of virtues' (disagree about even one and you lose the primary).

yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

Those who favor an expansive reading of the 2nd Amendment know that the bill that was just "shot down" was one of the first steps of many to get to where those who want to make gun ownership "restricted and heavily regulated" want to move the laws (like the laws in low crime cities like Washington D.C.).

Washington is next door to a state with some of the most lax gun laws in the country, which as a result is a source for guns that find themselves transported all over the place and used in crimes. You know this, but being a good little sock puppet for the gun nut lobby, purport to claim DC's gun laws are the problem. Make gun laws as strict all over the entire country as they were in DC, and then maybe we can talk about whether they are effective or not.

[Econoline]

Ditto re: Chicago vis-à-vis Indiana (from my house I can be in Hammond, Indiana in 20 minutes--or Gary in 30 min., South Bend in 90 min.)--not to mention the rest of Illinois (which is mostly rural and gun-friendly).

[Crackpot]

Why would anyone want to go to Gary?

[oldr_n_wsr]

the gun-nut minority and our attention is divided by a lot of other important issues. This is were the fanatical focus of the stupid and paranoid can be really powerful.

So anyone who opposes a gun registry is considered a gun nut and stupid and paranoid? And you wonder why they dig their heels in. Maybe if you treated them as the adults they are and actually listened to their arguments instead of just calling them names and putting them down, dialog could begin. But I know you consider them "beneath you". Just because they disagree with you doesn't mean they don't have issues they are concerned about.

[Lord Jim]

Ditto re: Chicago vis-à-vis Indiana (from my house I can be in Hammond, Indiana in 20 minutes--or Gary in 30 min., South Bend in 90 min.)--not to mention the rest of Illinois (which is mostly rural and gun-friendly).

Are the homicide and gun violence rates in those towns in Indiana and in other parts of Illinois higher than in Chicago, Econo? Because that's what one should logically expect if the explanation for the gun violence in Chicago can be explained by the easier legal availability of guns in those areas.

The same expectation would hold for Virginia versus DC, or any other place where one seeks to blame the gun violence in location X on the easier legal availability of guns in the nearby location Y.

The logic is very simple and straight forward. If gun violence is the result of the easier legal availability of guns in a nearby jurisdiction, then in those jurisdictions, (where one doesn't have to travel at all to take advantage of less restrictive legal requirements) should logically be even higher.

Look, I've made clear that despite being a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, that I also support making all three of the major proposals that were advanced, (universal background checks , magazine size limits, and assault weapon bans) the law of the land.

However, I have for years heard the excuse that gun violence in DC is the result of looser legal restrictions in Virginia, (and now you're making a similar argument regarding gun violence in Chicago) and that argument just doesn't hold water, for the reason I've given.

[Econoline]

Why would anyone want to go to Gary?

To buy guns?.....To buy more guns?

And Jim, I'm not arguing that "gun violence in Chicago can be explained by the easier legal availability of guns in those areas." I was merely countering the often-made argument (which Long Run seemed to be referencing, and which Scooter was also addressing) that the fact that there are both stricter gun laws and more gun violence in places like Chicago and DC serves as proof that stricter gun laws are ineffective or counterproductive.

There certainly may be other, more complicated reasons for the violence...but it should come as no surprise that reducing the availability of guns in one tiny area--while doing NOTHING about the much larger, easily accessible surrounding areas--does almost nothing to reduce the availability of guns or the frequency of gun violence.

[liberty]

the gun-nut minority and our attention is divided by a lot of other important issues. This is were the fanatical focus of the stupid and paranoid can be really powerful.

So anyone who opposes a gun registry is considered a gun nut and stupid and paranoid? And you wonder why they dig their heels in. Maybe if you treated them as the adults they are and actually listened to their arguments instead of just calling them names and putting them down, dialog could begin. But I know you consider them "beneath you". Just because they disagree with you doesn't mean they don't have issues they are concerned about.

Trust would go along way, but sadly you can’t trust the enemy. …If you want to keep guns out of the wrong hands . How about a different approach: How about a law that would give gun dealers the right to refuse to sell a gun to anyone for any reason and protects then form any kind legal action. The reason they refused the sell wouldn’t matter, it could be racism, xenophobia, homophobia or they just didn’t feel good about it. Or ask opponents of gun control to write a law and see what they come up with, but then we come back to the issue of trust. Visit your local barbershop and listen: “ You can’t them son of bitchs . They will slip something into the law, hell what is the definition of is."

[oldr_n_wsr]

Trust would go along way, but sadly you can’t trust the enemy.

I don't consider those who are for more restrictions on guns "the enemy". Nor do I consider them morons, stupid or paranoid as they seem to label those that are pro-gun.

I therein lies the problem. Talking "down" to the other side like they are children and not capable of complex thought. Both sides are guilty of it but I seem to hear more of it from the anti-gun people. Even what they call the bill "common sense gun legislation" is kinda demeaning to those who are pro-gun. A slight, saying the pro-gun have no common sense.

Meanwhile I have seen very little common sense coming out of DC.

[Big RR]

That's always a problem when emotions are involved. FWIW, I have yet to see any rational explanation from those advocating regualtion of how banning weapons that appear to be military (including a pistol grip or flash suppressor, e.g., which I understand is what makes them "assault weapons"), makes us any safer when other rifles without these cosmetic changes can do the same thing. The question is often ignored, or left only partially answered, by trying to confuse assault weapons with weapons capable of automatic fire (and then gun advocates say "what's wrong with automatic weapons? rather than focusing on the issue). A little rational discussion would go a long way, but neither sides appears to want that.

[oldr_n_wsr]

The question is often ignored, or left only partially answered, by trying to confuse assault weapons with weapons capable of automatic fire

Listening to many on the anti-gun side, I think many of those speaking about the subject don't have a clue about the differences between auto, semi-auto, bolt action, lever action, single shot.... let alone "assault" (aka scary looking) vs non-assault (aka normal looking) type rifles.

It's like the porn argument, "I may not be able to clearly define it, but I know it when I see it".

[Andrew D]

Are the homicide and gun violence rates in those towns in Indiana and in other parts of Illinois higher than in Chicago, Econo? Because that's what one should logically expect if the explanation for the gun violence in Chicago can be explained by the easier legal availability of guns in those areas.

I haven't seen anyone claiming that "the explanation for ... gun violence [anywhere is] the easier legal availability of guns [anywhere]."

There are many causal factors in gun homicidal violence, and many of those factors are also at play in non-gun homicidal violence. But the easy availability of guns -- especially the easy availability of guns to violent felons and lunatics -- is an aggravating factor in homicidal violence.

One would not expect higher rates of homicidal violence -- via guns or otherwise -- in towns in Indiana and Illinois than in Chicago, because there are factors at play in Chicago which are not so much in play in those other towns. Chicago, like most major urban areas in the US, has a much higher rate of gang homicide (and other gang violence) than do towns in Indiana and Illinois because, well, gangs thrive in major urban areas to a far greater degree than they thrive in other places.

And that is just one factor, albeit a major one, which makes a major urban area such as Chicago different from towns in Indiana and Illinois.

But the easy availability of guns to gang members does increase the death toll flowing from gang violence, even if it does not necessarily increase the amount of gang violence. (Which it probably does.) And, perhaps most disturbingly, it increases the death toll among innocent "civilians" (people who are not involved in gang activity). Plenty of people who had nothing to do with gang activity have been killed "accidentally" in drive-by shootings. Just about nobody has ever been killed "accidentally" in a drive-by knifing.