NY Times Is Super Enthused For Massive Gun Registration Schemes

Despite anti-gunnite talking points, most law abiding gun owners are not against background checks. We have no problem with making sure that the person attempting to purchase a firearm is not a bad person. But, do background checks actually stop Bad Guys from getting guns? For the most part, no. Hence, the NRA is not suggesting that we do away with the backgrounds check system, they just think it’s absurd to expand it, because it will almost never stop a bad character from getting a gun. And they are against the gun registration schemes of the anti-gunnites, because it is simply a big government control scheme. Furthermore, the government fails to enter those who are “adjudicated mentally incompetent into the National Instant Check System.” But, nothing will ever stop the gun haters from pushing their schemes

Gun Control That Actually Works

FOR more than 80 years, the United States has enforced a tough and effective gun control law that most Americans have never heard of. It’s a 1934 measure called the National Firearms Act, and it stands as a stark rebuke to the most sacred precepts of the gun lobby and provides a model we should build on.

Leaders of the National Rifle Association rarely talk about the firearms act, and that’s probably because it imposes precisely the kinds of practical — and constitutional — limits on gun ownership, such as registration and background checks, that the N.R.A. regularly insists will lead to the demise of the Second Amendment.

In speeches, publications and a steady stream of fund-raising literature, the N.R.A. rails against gun registration and gun owner databases. In 2008, the organization’s chief executive, Wayne LaPierre, claimed that photographing and fingerprinting gun owners was “the key gun control scheme” of the candidate Barack Obama, who, Mr. LaPierre predicted, would confiscate every gun in America before the end of his first term as president. The N.R.A. now says that the “real goal” of “gun control supporters” like Hillary Clinton is “ gun confiscation.”

But the longstanding National Firearms Act not only already mandated the registration of all owners of machine guns, short-barreled rifles, silencers and other weapons deemed highly dangerous at the time, it created a national database of those gun owners with their mug shots and fingerprints, and a detailed description of each weapon purchased, including its serial number. Purchasers of “N.F.A. weapons,” as they are known, must pass an F.B.I. background check, be approved by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and pay a $200 tax. Stolen weapons must be reported to the A.T.F. immediately — the sort of requirement the N.R.A. opposes for other gun thefts.

In other words, the article is about requiring registration, mug shots, and fingerprints, among others, of all guns and their owners. A woman who wants a small .9mm for protection? Take her mugshot and fingerprints, just like she’s a criminal. Yet, these same people who push to treat law abiding gun owners like felons want to turn around and make things easier on actual felons.

Mr. Folloder, a manufacturer and collector of machine guns and silencers, is no fan of the firearms act. He’d like to make machine guns more readily available, and lobbied successfully to repeal a requirement that N.F.A. owners be preapproved by a local law enforcement officer. But Mr. Folloder and the A.T.F. agree that registrants are rarely implicated in crimes. People with registered weapons who can pay $40,000 for a machine gun “bend over backwards to obey the law,” he says. “If you’re going to spend that much money and put that much effort into obtaining one of these, you’re not going to be holding up the liquor store.”

N.F.A.-classified weapons do show up at crime scenes. But nearly all of them were unregistered, so the simple act of possession was a crime. According to A.T.F. analysis, among N.F.A. weapon owners there were only 12 felony convictions between 2006 and 2014, and those crimes did not involve an N.F.A. weapon. If that conviction rate were applied to the owners of the other privately owned firearms in the United States, gun crime would virtually disappear.

The idea here is to make it so damned expensive and burdensome to own a firearm that only those who can afford them will get them, and it won’t be people who will use them for crime. In essence, only people with money will be able to get them, people who tend to live in fancy pants neighborhoods, which rarely see crime, leaving the lower and middle classes un-armed, easy prey for criminals who do not get their guns legally.

Who will be most in danger? Women. Way to support women being able to defend themselves, Liberals.

The case for licensing and registration is stronger now than ever. Yet to today’s N.R.A. such measures are an existential threat to the Second Amendment. If that is true, why hasn’t the government used the N.F.A. database to confiscate weapons? Why has it failed to move against the holders of hunting licenses and concealed carry permits who readily submit to milder forms of gun licensing and registration?

Because they are a tiny number of weapons. But, let me turn the question around: why is it that anti-gunnites constantly push for schemes that make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase and carry firearms? Why do they constantly push for more burdensome registration schemes for law abiding citizens? Why do them want things like registration, mug shots, and fingerprints for law abiding citizens? Why are they not pushing for measures against the criminals that use them and obtain them illegally? Why is it that the cities and states with the most burdensome gun schemes, areas run by the Democratic Party, tend to have the high amount of gun play?

I have a compromise: if law abiding gun owners agree to having their fingerprints and mugshots take for gun ownership, how about doing the same for an official voter ID card, which would be necessary to place a vote? Would that be acceptable to the anti-gunnites?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

19 Responses to “NY Times Is Super Enthused For Massive Gun Registration Schemes”

  1. Dana says:

    The Second Amendment:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Just what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t the left understand?

  2. Dana says:

    Howsomeever, I do have a problem with your use of the term “anti-gunnite.” Shotcrete, a form of concrete sprayed against a vertical surface is also called gunite, or just as frequently, gunnite, and no one should ever be opposed to concrete.

    A typical gunnite application would be swimming pool construction.

  3. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host asked:

    But, let me turn the question around: why is it that anti-gunnites constantly push for schemes that make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase and carry firearms? Why do they constantly push for more burdensome registration schemes for law abiding citizens? Why do them want things like registration, mug shots, and fingerprints for law abiding citizens? Why are they not pushing for measures against the criminals that use them and obtain them illegally?

    It’s simple: because they don’t know how!

    Every crime committed with a gun is already against the law; there is nothing left for the legislature to do, despite the continual calls for the legislature to “do something.”

  4. Dana says:

    Instead, we have the left calling for restoring voting rights to felons, rather than saying what needs to be said, that felons who have committed violent crimes need to be locked away, on their very first offense, for so long that they either come out with grey hair or die in prison. How many crimes are committed by people who have already been previously incarcerated, or convicted and given a slap on the wrist?

    An 18-year-old armed robber who gets five years in the penitentiary winds up becoming a 23-year-old armed robber. If the 18-year-old armed robber had been locked up for fifty years instead of five, a whole lot of crime would have been prevented.

  5. John says:

    The thing is Teach many unlawful shooting are not done by “bad guys”
    They are done by people who legally own guns but usually in the heat of emotion shoot someone
    Without so many people being able to kill someone by simply squeezing a finger many many people would not die
    All other Amendments have restrictions
    So should the 2nd

  6. Jeffery says:

    Dana,

    Rocket launchers? Hand grenades? Fully automatic? Small nuclear devices?

    Are any weapons off-limits, based on your interpretation of the 2nd?

    And what’s that “well regulated Militia” part mean?

    I have two gun safes filled with rifles, shotguns and pistols. Am I part of the “well regulated Militia”?

  7. Jeffery says:

    Dana,

    Rather than lock up every violent criminal forever, why not just execute them right away?

  8. drowningpuppies says:

    Who said it?


    “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

    A. Karl Marx
    B. Adolph Hitler
    C. Joseph Stalin
    D. Barack Obama
    E. None of the above

  9. drowningpuppies says:

    Answer:
    E. None of the above.
    Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004

  10. drowningpuppies says:

    Rather than lock up every violent criminal forever, why not just execute them right away?

    Wait a second, isn’t that what they do to unwanted babies?

  11. Jeffery says:

    Babies are executed?

  12. drowningpuppies says:


    Babies are executed?

    Yeah, but in a very humane way.

    One clinic worker described the sounds as like a ‘screeching alien’ before the spinal cord was severed.

  13. The thing is Teach many unlawful shooting are not done by “bad guys”

    I addressed this in the opening. Pay attention.

    They are done by people who legally own guns but usually in the heat of emotion shoot someone

    Background checks, fingerprinting, mugshots, etc, will stop this how, exactly? California and Chicago have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Yet, people are still shot.

    Without so many people being able to kill someone by simply squeezing a finger many many people would not die

    So, you’r advocating what? Restricting legal gun ownership? By what standards? How are they applied? Please, tell us your plan. Because current methods do not work in liberal areas with massive restrictions.

    All other Amendments have restrictions
    So should the 2nd

    We do not allow convicted felons to own firearms. We require background checks. Certain people are forbidden, like some who are mentally ill and non-citizens. Please, tell us your plan.

    BTW, the restrictions in the Bill of Rights are on the Government, not on the citizens. You should take a civics class.

  14. Dana says:

    John wrote:

    All other Amendments have restrictions
    So should the 2nd

    Other than the First and Third, the other Amendments have language which allows restrictions: what is the test of “cruel or unusual,” for example.

    If you believe that the First and Second Amendments should have restrictions, then I suggest that you push for further constitutional amendments to replace them. Of course, the left won’t do that, because they know that such would never, ever pass.

  15. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host noted:

    We do not allow convicted felons to own firearms.

    And we can do this due to the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, which does allow for the suspension of constitutional rights for felony convictions.

    One wonders: why don’t the left, who favor restoring voting rights to convicted felons, since they’ve served their time and paid their debts to society, don’t also favor the restoration of their Second Amendment rights?

  16. Jeffery says:

    The wording of the 14th Amendment doesn’t mention felony.

    or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime,

    or other crime… jaywalking?, marijuana possession?, speeding?, shoplifting?

  17. Dana says:

    Jeffrey, you’re right, and yes, I would certainly remove the right to vote for anyone convicted of using or possessing marijuana, or shoplifting.

  18. Jeffery says:

    Why not speeding and jaywalking? Aren’t those considered crimes?

  19. Kontominas says:

    Good day! This is my 1st comment here soo I jus wanted to give
    a quick shout oout and say I rerally enjoy reading your posts.
    Can you suggest any other blogs/websites/forums tthat go over the
    same subjects? Thank you!

Bad Behavior has blocked 5800 access attempts in the last 7 days.