Whats sickening, are People's obsession With Weapons, Keeping them as Cache.

Ah ok... that's interesting. So you kinda have some form of gun control then already?

It's not, you can DRIVE a unregistered car unlicensed at private tracks, plenty of people do that. If you want to use cars as a mode of transportation (as oppose to recreational uses) then you would need to do all of that. Also it's not true that "everyone" needs a car, in fact accord to an UM study, almost 10% of American household don't own a car.

Fundamentally speaking the whole premise is flawed to begin with since being armed is a constitutionally protected right where as ability to drive in public is a privilege afforded by the government. Not to mention the fact that there's actually a law that explicitly prevent the government from keeping a national registry of gun owners. It's called Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, look it up.

You didn't specify. Guns includes long and short guns, I was merely clarifying.

Don't be pedantic, no one survives in this society by sticking to private roads if cars are your primary mode of transportation. You're arguing from a view point that is totally unrealistic. And I'm not quite sure why you're bringing up the 10% household rate, I don't believe that I ever implied that EVERYONE needs a car to survive. I said that for anyone to really USE a car in the US they'll need to a license and registration (ignoring that parts of the country essentially require you own an automobile due to lack of public transit).

I still don't understand the notion that just because its a right declared by the government that it doesn't somehow have to be tracked. We freaking register people at the time of their birth with a SSN but somehow we balk at gun registration? Are you against giving people SSNs?

I understand that there is a law preventing the government from doing it. I'm merely saying that I don't agree with it.

Well I don't live there so whatever...

In your fervor to reply, you missed my point. I'm saying there's two major uses for cars, one recreationally, in which you drive on private tracks where license and registration are not necessary and the other as a mode of transportation where license and registration are necessary.

In order to use a car in society (which every one basically needs to)

I took what you said above to mean that you think everyone basically need to use a car in society. Again there's two uses for cars, one need license the other you don't. Not everyone use car simply as transportation. Not sure why this is such a hard concept to wrap your head around.

Because registry is the first necessary step to confiscate. Not saying it will happened but law preventing registration is a safeguard against it. SSN is a government issue id, the number in itself doesn't actually contain any data about the individual. As long as you don't associate any personal data with your SSN, it's fairly useless. Again I have no idea how any of that relates back to a gun registry.

You didn't simply state you don't agree with it, you asked why and I gave you the answer.

I recommend you check out the article I linked. Fairly in depth examination of minds of anti-gun person by a clinical psychiatrist.

Raging Against Self Defense: A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

I understand the difference between using cars for recreation and using one as a mode of transportation. However the vast majority of the population, like literally everyone, uses them for transportation making any notion that you 'don't' need to register or get licensed absurd. Its unrealistic and you're just using is as a sticking point. You can't see the forest for the trees, you're caught up in a minor situation that doesn't apply to 99% of people.

Sorry but I should have made myself clearer earlier on the 'needs' comment though.

I'm a gun owner that doesn't see registration as a means to confiscate, the logistics of it are insane and to me is just a lazy excuse for people to throw out any type of responsibility or accountability. However to insist that a person's SSN number doesn't have any 'data' on an individual is again missing the point. Its a person's main point of reference to their ID, which contains MASSIVE amounts of data. If a person's SSN wasn't any value to a person concerning any data about said person, then we wouldn't have massive privacy laws in place and companies wouldn't actively implement measures in order to safeguard it.

I just believe there is a massive disagreement between individuals on registration, both in the gun owning community and outside of it. I consider the notion of the government using registration to confiscate guns to be completely insane given the logistics and amount of guns currently circulating in the US. Even more absurd is the idea that an armed populace is the last resort against tyranny. We're talking about a segment of the population saying they need guns to defend themselves against a military that spends 600 billion annually? I can't wrap my head around it.

You're obviously free to disagree as many are.

lol dude, now I understand. 'Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership', fret your sources better. Just read how shit poor that article is written lol, its almost embarrassing. I mean just read the conclusion, its basically the author saying that we need to engage anti gun people since their denial is based on mental aversions.

You're fucking nuts.

"Literally everyone"? Here you go again those patently false claims again. Not sure why you are even digging on this issue as I thought I already make it abundantly clear that cars was a fundamentally shitty analogy. You can think whatever you want about the topic.

You are a gun owner, emphasis on singular determiner. You don't represent other gun owners. If that's your opinion, feel free to register yourself and let your local police department and FBI know that you have weapons in your household, I don't care. But don't presume speak for other gun owners on what they should or should not do with their private information. It's your choice to blind yourself to possibilities of confiscation. Our northern neighbor have already experienced it and that also begun with mandatory registration: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/28/absolutely-incredible-canadians-outraged-after-cops-confiscate-some-unsafely-stored-guns-during-flood/

Again what's the relevance of SSN? I thought the whole point of you bringing that up was that aspects of your privacy is already breached by the government since they have your SSN, but that's completely wrong. It's only an id, there's no MASSIVE amount of data unless you directly log data again it. If you open up a bank account and use your SSN, that piece of information gets associated with your id. However you have to be the one to register that information against your own SSN, it's still voluntary not involuntary as you seem to be suggesting. Saying that you should be fine with gun registry because government already have your SSN is like saying holding the key to a car is the same as driving it.

Where did the notion of armed civilians fighting against the military come from? I have hinted nothing of the sort. Not being in the military, you probably didn't realize that all members of the military swore oath to the constitution not the government. So unless Washington replace our military with robots, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have to come to that because it simply represents a greater risk for the politicians than general population should such suppression was ever attempted. If you want to talk hypothetical, then I have to ask: who's easier to subjugate, an armed populace or an unarmed one? Also guns did fine against a 600 billion annually military in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Really that's the best you got? Dismissal based on the website and her writing style? No factual counter points to any details within the article or even third party sources of your own.

Of course throw in an ad hominem too. That really reinforce your point.

Some people really do need guns to protect their property like a local farm or a ranch, or even a large pot farm to prevent thieves from entering with weapons.

Anyone notice that a user with the name CommandoAgent is trolling gun owners?

@JustPlainLucas: Well, we got new rules now. He could get banned.

Logically true, but it's about the image it conveys. If I had to make an instinctive judgment, a guy owning 50 guns may appear more threatening than a guy owning one gun.

yaaaaaaaawn

Oh get over yourself already.

In America, we have a second amendment right to bear arms. Deal with it. If you want to take American's guns away, prepare for a very bloody outcome. Why do you think the government, despite their desire to confiscate guns and render its own people docile, haven't done it yet, regardless of all their propaganda and brainwashing about how guns are so damned evil? They know it won't happen without shit going down. Stop being so irrationally afraid of guns and learn to use one properly, respectfully and responsibly. If you still don't want one, good for you, but don't rail on about others are evil incarnate or obsessed of whatever because they want to exercise their right to own a gun.

Pretty much. What they are really advocating isn't complete disarmament but complete disarmament of everyone who isn't the government thus allowing them be the sole proprietor of power. Otherwise the most obvious group the law can effect a complete disarmament would be representatives of the government (i.e. cops, secret services, and the military).

Kind of ironic that OP's handle is commandoagent, two words in the english language that people automatically associate with guns.

Also your member since is an error right?

You folks on the left are always calling for more gun laws or banning guns because of some killings. Why aren't honest in why you want the guns banned? It has nothing to do with killings but with control of the population.

The American people are calling for more laws to regulate the sale and use of guns because of the frequency of massacres across the nation, the high amount of gun violence, suicides associated with guns, and accidents associated with guns. Granted, there are times when a gun was used in self defense but calling for gun control does NOT mean calling for a ban on guns.

It's like drugs or cars. It's legal but regulated to an extent.

Also, countries with much stricter gun control laws (and even gun bans) are still free, prosperous, and have less gun violence, so gun ban=/=tyranny. Also, tyranny won't come to America through bloodshed but through thunderous applause while crazed 2nd Amendment jerkers pave the way while sacrificing all of their freedoms just to protect their guns.

Seriously, gun control =/= tyranny.

When you have a president that calls the Bill of Rights negative liberties and all of his actions are designed to control the population you have to question his actions. As for the other countries that ban guns and still have freedom you might want to take a closer look. It all boils down to what you call freedom.

What presidential actions have Obama done that are designed to control the population? Also, in a list of the freest countries in the world, the US ranks 15th where as Canada and other countries with stricter gun control laws are freer. In countries where freedom of the press is greater, countries that have greater gun control laws are still ranked higher than the U.S. In countries where economic freedom is greater, the United States ranks as "mostly free" where as countries with stricter gun control laws are freer. The same with freedom of the press.

Buhh but what about NAZI germany or the USSR? Correlation doesn't equal causation and I'm not arguing that gun control makes a country freer but rather that implementing gun control (which is what most Americans including the Democratic candidates want) or even a gun ban doesn't mean it'll lead to a totalitarian state. Also, the Nazis didn't ban guns for all its citizens, except for people they didn't like. Here's a link. Of course, the Germans still had guns to defend themselves against their government, right? They didn't.

Dictatorships begin because of the failure of government institutions and a dissatisfied public, as well as mixing in dangerous ideologies such as Trump's ideology, in which the final step is when the people accept it. Even if Trump becomes president and even if he implemented a dictatorship taking away the rights of all citizens, second amendment supporters wouldn't do anything, not because they can't but because they won't. In my view, they care about their right to carry a firearm, nothing else.

@bmanva: I'm just a glitch in the matrix...

I don't consider people having gun caches crazy, I consider people who indiscriminately murder crazy...

What do you consider to be a huge collection?

Now, not every firearm is the same, for obvious reasons. My .17 rifle is for small game and practice shooting where as my .270 and 30/30 are for large game hunting. 20 gauge shotgun I'll use for hunting quail/dove where as I'll use my 12 gauge shotguns for pheasant, duck, and skeet shooting. They also all weigh different and ammo costs differently so that always factors into the equation as well. My .22 pistol is for practice shooting, yet my 9mm pistols are duty weapons (Glock 43 is my backup weapon and my department issued Glock 17 is my main).

Honesty is the key word in any dialogue between two opposing views. I'd love for a liberal to explain why it is logical to attempt to ban AR model firearms (that are rarely used in murders) yet handguns (which do the majority of the killing) are completely ignored. Would it not make more sense to attack that which causes the most problems? I don't know about you but I am not comfortable in allowing a corrupt and inept government to decide who gets to (and to what degree) exercise their rights.

Do I expect honesty from a liberal when it comes to firearms? Absolutely not.

We've got like 50 guns in our house and there's nothing you can do about it. We don't even use them.

First of all, gun control crowds do not represent the American people. Roughly half of the American household are armed, and according to Pew, survey results of public opinion fluctuate halfway for gun right over gun control (in fact the trend for gun rights is increasing) (http://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/gun-rights-vs-gun-control/#total) so contrast to your assertion there's hardly a general consensus among the "American people" on the matter.

Second, there's no such causation relation that can be drawn between spread of guns and gun violence. The fact that guns in circulation have been skyrocketing in recent decades (mostly thanks to gun control effort ironically) and at the same time gun violence have been on a steady decline again contradicts your claim. If anything I feel that a strong correlation could be drawn between the increase central role social media is playing in our lives as well as degradation of traditional values and the increase of mass shootings, but there have been few calls to curb social media or restrengthening of those traditional values as potential ways to reduce violence overall.

Third, gun ban is the logical eventual end state of gun control. I will pose to you the same series of questions I've been asking almost everyone making the whole "gun control is not gun ban" argument: do you believe the policy changes you are advocating would completely eliminate all future mass shootings, or gun crimes or gun suicides? If not, then do you believe when those incidents inevitably occur that most of gun control people would be satisfied that we exhausted the gun control solution space and that the real answer to mass shootings (or gun crimes or suicides) lie in other policy areas? Or do you think that they will just keep pushing for even more restrictions we reach the legal limits on gun control AKA gun ban? Because ever since 1934, the trend has been the latter. On the other hand, gun right isn't and never advocated unrestricted access to guns for EVERYONE. In fact, if you study your gun control history you would know that NRA was in support of the Gun Control Act of 1934 before the gun control effort proved itself to be not one of reasonable approach to a problem but one that ignores real world results toward an ideological end regardless of consequences. Even if you survey most gun owners you will find that they are overwhelmingly in support of enforcing and streamlining the current background check system (with some exceptions like getting rid of NFA) not dismantling it completely so that criminals and the mentally sick can gain easy access to guns.

Lastly, none of the amendment should be an partisan issue. Do yourself a favor, rise above the left wing propaganda and recognize that supporters of second amendment are not limited to the stereotype redneck racists, that many people from all walks of life choose to support the natural right of self defense.

I find what the defense lawyer said about his conservative friends being more tolerant of his liberal values than his liberal friends with his gun collection and self defense training is very true. I often find that my right leaning friends/coworkers are more willing to have an open conversation about more progressive sides of social issues than many liberal individuals .

@bmanva:

Canada just had a massacre where four to five people were killed, yet Canada has greater gun control laws than the United States. However, how frequently do massacres and gun crime in general happen in Canada compared to that of the United States? It's lower. Implementing more gun control laws doesn't mean that guns will be taken away, nor does it mean that it'll stop gun violence. It just means that qualified individuals will be obtaining guns (not criminals, not the mentally ill, not questionable people, and etc) and that the frequency of gun violence will also go lower if the laws are justified and sound (and to be clear, I don't support the Assault Weapons ban because it doesn't make sense). The video itself supports my argument: They're progressives but they support gun control at a certain level, but it sucks that a defense lawyer's progressive friends have mistreated him because of his views.

While the question of whether you support gun control vs gun rights is neck-to-neck, it's not a good question since it implies that gun control is a gun ban. Again, it's not. When questions are asked if "there should be background checks," "limits on how many guns," or "how many days to wait until you receive a gun" most gun owners would agree with such statements. Here's a linkto that.

I've held and fired with handguns and rifles before and like certain types of guns but I have no interest in purchasing and owning one, nor would I want to ban it for everyone else. I do, however, support gun control measures to at least lower the frequency of gun violence and massacres happening in this country, which most gun owners would agree to.

That doesn't really answer any of my questions. Is the Canada the golden standard of acceptable massacre frequency then? So it's not so much about the victims of gun violence as how we stack up compare to our neighbors? I never understand some people's apparent obsession in comparing two completely different countries. From a policy implementation perceptive it's absolutely asinine to expect the same results from two nations with such difference in almost every aspect. There are other more important contributing socioeconomic, cultural factors that explain why violent crimes (not just mass shootings or even gun violence) are more frequent in the states than Canada. The statement that simply add "more" gun control laws will somehow curb gun violence is as credulous as a 5 yo asking why we don't print more money to solve poverty problem. It's typical of most gun control advocates to be completely ignorant of the current gun laws, how they are being implemented now, how effective they are now or have been in the past, what are some of the policy changes being proposed, what are the potential impacts of those changes etc. And the same goes for many of the politicians pushing for more gun restrictions. No, I don't agree that "more" gun control is what we need; what we need is not let singular media hyped event dictate the direction of the country and lose perspective on the bigger picture. Mass shootings aren't the biggest problem facing this country, not even close. And it isn't even an issue of lack of gun laws, but one of culture; when did we stop requiring our celebrity to live up to higher standards and moral values? When we celebrate morally bankrupted people like the kardashians then fame can be issued simply based on notoriety.

But I digress. Gun control is gun ban simply because that's the direction people leading the charge is taking it. Unless you are someone of critical importance in the gun control movement, you don't get to claim that gun control isn't gun ban because you personally don't believe it should reach that point. Don't know what video you are watching but no one in the videos I linked remotely suggest they are in support of more federal gun control law. Beck, the ex-SEALs said that she supports harsher penalty for illegal gun uses which isn't gun control.

Beck supports harsher penalties for illegal uses of a firearm is gun control. In fact, the self-proclaimed progressives in the video advocated for the right to bear arms but also restricting access to guns and creating harsher punishments for criminal acts with a gun, which is what gun control is. Background checks and a waiting period are all gun control measures. You can support the second amendment, yet support certain restrictions such as banning open carry or requiring a permit.

Perhaps those advocating gun control tend to go overboard and advocate for a complete gun ban, at the end of the day, gun control isn't a gun ban. Gun control is the regulation of firearms and their use.

Also, Canada isn't the gold standard, it was just an example. France, Germany, UK, the Nordic countries, and Australia all say hello. They've had shootings but not the same frequency as the U.S. and their gun crime rate is much lower. Yes, there are social and economic considerations as well as education attainment but the point is that gun control isn't a gun ban. Could gun control effectively decrease gun violence? IMO, most likely but it won't lead to a massive decrease in crime.

I don't know what else to say. People advocating for gun control yet advocate for a gun ban don't know what they're talking about. Gun control is the regulation of firearms. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now we are just arguing semantics, it's more accurate to say that tougher potentialities for what's already considered illegal acts isn't "more" gun control law per se only enforcement of the existing ones (like what the NRA has been asking for all along). In fact, it's precisely the opposite of what most gun control actions have been about, of which are more restrictions that boils down to punishing the law abiding gun owners not curb gun violence (none of the historical decline in gun violence can be attributed or even correlated to any major gun control bills). I'm all for enforcing the current background check requirements, providing additional resources to law enforcement to process NICS more expediently, and getting rid of laws that's based on irrational fear rather than real world statistics (like the assault weapons restrictions, magazine capacity limits, or the NFA restrictions on suppressors and short barrel rifles or shotguns). But frankly both you and I understand that's not goal of gun control groups; we both know that those groups won't stop blaming the ANY gun violence on lack of effect of existing gun laws and will continue to push for more restrictions until guns are banned for all civilians. That's ultimately what you are in support of when you advocate for more gun control.

It's not so much overboard as it's the basis of their argument which is always been only government representatives can be trusted with firearms. Even the consistent reference of European countries which have effective gun bans as example to follow supports this argument (something you are guilty of yourself). And you act like we are discussing something new or unheard of but truth is there have already multiple restrictions placed upon guns. Each time tragedies are exploited to advance further erosion of gun rights bit by bit. Sure, the NFA of 1934 was a gun control bill, but the subsequent attempts at further restrictions are just edging us toward the logical end state of a complete gun ban.

Outside of totally different countries, do you actually have any statistical proof that gun control leads to decrease in gun violence in the states? Because there are plenty of contrasting examples like Baltimore, DC, Chicago, part of NJ etc. Yes, on surface it makes sense that less guns equates to less gun violence. But that's completely ignoring the nuisance of how laws actually affects society. Gun laws don't apply to criminals and vast majority of the guns used in crimes but the law do affect law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves. In concept both prohibition and war on drug sound great too. Less alcohol results in less alcohol related crimes, same with drugs and crimes. But the actual real world results of those attempts have been catastrophic failures.

I don't find it sickening just sad. I've never been so terrified of life or society that I felt a need to keep a personal arsenal and I don't want those who have them to "defend" me, my rights, or my freedom. Unless you wear a military uniform or carry a badge I don't trust your ass to defend or protect shit.

The affordable Care Act for one.

Looks like lots of people are prepared and content to just be food in the inevitable zombie apocalypse. Not me.

I dont think anybody supports the rights of the mentally ill and felons to possess firearms.