What does this mean? Were you unable to see my entire post? I can see it in its entirety.Deleted from post to meet 4000 character limit.
No, I propose making the necessary revisions, making the law a mandatory requirement to purchases, and enforcing them by imposing hefty penalties for sellers who don't practice the law.We have background checks. The system is not working. Do you propose expanding a system that is broken?
The only "historical" support that you have for that statement is the collection of firearms campaign that took place across the pond (so to speak) in the UK which, just so you know, didn't rely on any gun ownership lists...they just went around to peoples' homes and collected their guns which the people handed over willingly.The idea that gun registration leads to confiscation has historical data to support the idea. Take also the statements made by those who are in Office who have said they support confiscation and you could understand that promises made today ate not trusted.
No, so what's your point? That is, why question what isn't a part of/has no bearing on the discussion?Yes, the firearm industry provides significant economic activity. Has that stopped any State from enacting laws that force manufactures to relocate and States losing the revenue?
It is not by "nature" that any people distrust their governments, it is a conditioned response based upon a history of disappointment derived from having experienced the sort of corruption, perversion, deception, duplicity, and abuse of power we've seen exhibited by our presidential cadre, none of which we've seen exhibited by our current president.Americans by nature distrust government, the corruption, false promises and the fact our Country was born from a revolt due to a government is part of the DNA and are factors you must consider when pondering why people have certain beliefs about registration.
However, you cannot fault all government or all governmental provisions or policies based on the actions or behaviors of those that have come before them/the experiences of the past as to do so is akin to unfairly discriminating against someone before they've given any cause for such bias.
What about the number of murders that resulted from firearms falling into the hands of the mentally unbalanced? Or the criminally inclined?I have yet seen a compelling argument that shows the benefit of such a registration, nor to expand the background check system we currently have. Maybe you could present an argument that would satisfy common sense, not step on rights of the innocent and would not be abused by government.
If background checks were enforced we'd be more readily capable of keeping firearms from falling into the wrong hands/into the hands of those who aren't interested in, or capable of, being upstanding gun owners.
Further, if registration were enforced, we'd be able to trace the trail of the gun's ownership back to its source to then be able to determine how it came to be in the hands of the miscreant/offender, be it through legal transfer of ownership or theft, not to mention the ability of enforced registration to dissuade the criminally minded from exposing themselves just to get their hands on a weapon.
So there are a number of not only "compelling", but especially reasonable, arguments" FOR gun registration and background checks.