At least 50 dead, 400 injured in shooting near Mandalay Bay casino, 1 suspect 'down'

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Sonea said:

1. (You would have so many redflags popping up LE would overwhelmed)

2. Other countries with stricter laws have backed off registration because it wasn't working. Canada used to have long gun registration, they do not any longer.

actually a good argument for decriminalization of drugs. le can reorganize to focus on crime instead of health issues like drug addiction.

 

[Merle 458]

Just now, CaliCat said:

 

No, it doesn't. It doesn't change the right to bear arms, nor does it prevent anyone from doing so. 

That all depends on what consider the word "infringe" means and what you consider the purpose of the 2nd is. Hint: it has nothing to do with hunting or gun collecting.

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 minute ago, Merle said:

That all depends on what consider the word "infringe" means and what you consider the purpose of the 2nd is. Hint: it has nothing to do with hunting or gun collecting.

 

Precisely. A central database would not infringe on anyone's right to bear arms, nor it would prevent you from doing so.

 

If you want to get on an airplane, you must agree to have your belongings and your person searched, and you can't take your gun with you aboard. Somehow, these infringements of the 4th and 2nd amendment happen millions of times each day, and the country still stands glued together.  

[Sonea 138]

2 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

Precisely. A central database would not infringe on anyone's right to bear arms, nor it would prevent you from doing so.

 

If you want to get on an airplane, you must agree to have your belongings and your person searched, and you can't take your gun with you aboard. Somehow, these infringements of the 4th and 2nd amendment happen millions of times each day, and the country still stands glued together.  

Your airplane analogy makes a good distinction. You don't have a right to board a plane. You have a right to own arms. This is why the no fly list was not extended to gun purchases. 

[CaliCat 3,957]

9 minutes ago, Sonea said:

Your airplane analogy makes a good distinction. You don't have a right to board a plane. You have a right to own arms. This is why the no fly list was not extended to gun purchases. 

 

Precisely. Having guns registered wouldn't infringe on that right. 

[Merle 458]

4 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

Precisely. Having guns registered wouldn't infringe on that right. 

What would registration have done in this case? Wouldn't registered guns shoot the same ammunition as unregistered guns? Have you ever heard the saying "registration is the first step towards confiscation"?

[Sonea 138]

9 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

Precisely. Having guns registered wouldn't infringe on that right. 

I think you need to reread my post. California has actually shown what registration can do when they tried to confiscate firearms awhile back (SKS debacle)

Edited October 6, 2017 by Sonea

[CaliCat 3,957]

5 minutes ago, Merle said:

What would registration have done in this case? Wouldn't registered guns shoot the same ammunition as unregistered guns? Have you ever heard the saying "registration is the first step towards confiscation"?

 

Registration would have identified this person as making all these purchases, and it might have flagged him as a potential risk. 

[CaliCat 3,957]

5 minutes ago, Sonea said:

I think you need to reread my post. California has actually shown what registration can do when they tried to confiscate firearms awhile back (SKS debacle)

 

My point precisely. The California fiasco proved that confiscation is nothing but a fear mongering term, because it will not stand in court.

[Merle 458]

Just now, CaliCat said:

 

Registration would have identified this person as making all these purchases, and it might have flagged him as a potential risk. 

What would be the magic number of gun purchases to alert the authorities that and investigation is warranted? How many law enforcement personnel would need to be hired? Or maybe we could start a new law enforcement branch? We could call them the Stasi or the Gestapo.

[Sonea 138]

5 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

My point precisely. The California fiasco proved that confiscation is nothing but a fear mongering term, because it will not stand in court.

Uh no. It happened.January 1st 2000.

[CaliCat 3,957]

17 minutes ago, Merle said:

What would be the magic number of gun purchases to alert the authorities that and investigation is warranted? How many law enforcement personnel would need to be hired? Or maybe we could start a new law enforcement branch? We could call them the Stasi or the Gestapo.

 

There is no magic number. Is it a red flag to own 100 semi automatic rifles? I'd say it's yes, unless you have your own militia, or own a shooting range. What if you're a retired CPA? Would 33 be a good number? I know the FBI does something similar, and quite successfully so, with financial transactions.  

Edited October 6, 2017 by CaliCat

[Sonea 138]

1 minute ago, CaliCat said:

 

There is no magic number. Is it a red flag to own 100 semi automatic rifles? I'd say it's not unless you have your own militia, or own a shooting range. What if you're a retired CP? Would 33 be a good number? I know the FBI does something similar, and quite successfully so, with financial transactions.  

I don't think he was buying that many per year. He had been collecting since the 1980s.

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 minute ago, Sonea said:

I don't think he was buying that many per year. He had been collecting since the 1980s.

 

That would have been 14 years after the University of Texas massacre. Yep, he would have been flagged. 

[Merle 458]

Just now, CaliCat said:

 

That would have been 14 years after the University of Texas massacre. Yep, he would have been flagged. 

You are saying someone would have been flagged based upon XX number of guns being purchased a year using a registration system that only exists in your mind. I'm sold! Registration for all!