Hypothetical gun laws question

Since Wordforge has officially transitioned to "all guns, all the time" here's a hypothetical for y'all:

Let's just say that all gun laws were revoked, meaning you could buy, own, possess or carry anything you wanted. Any assault rife, any size magazine, any type of bullet, whatever. You can carry anywhere with no permit, open or concealed, whatever your heart desires. And no background checks, no tax stamps, no waiting periods. Basically, gun laws go back 100 years.

BUT...everything you buy, no matter what it is, has to be registered in a database, which is maintained by a third-party but accessible to the government if a crime has been committed or in times of emergency. The registration carries a nominal fee, but not registering a firearm would carry a severe penalty.

Would you support this? And would it be better or worse than what we have now?

On the surface it seems to be a pretty fair trade, any government willing to deregulate firearms like that would probably have my confidence, as long as they held to the deal.

It would certainly be far simpler, both in implementation and compliance.

As the recent publication of the home addresses of registered gun owners demonstrates, government (and by extension, the government contractor who would operate this database program) can't be trusted with such information.

What I would prefer is an unrestricted right of open carry and a licensed concealed-carry, which would amount to a locally-issued permit to carry concealed. Said rights applying to small arms, not tactical nuclear weapons (before one of you bozos goes in that direction).

Registration is what makes confiscation possible. Since governments change, I would have little confidence in the perpetuity of such an agreement.

It sounds very nice as you proposed.

Would Almighty God Himself guarantee the terms, I'd take it.

Sounds good on the surface except for that "or in times of emergency" part.

Looking a bit deeper, however, Actormike is suggesting no restrictions at all. None. Including violent felons. Not sure I'd be okay with that.

Registration is generally a non-starter because of the possibility of using the database for confiscation. And now that the NY dem's wish list got exposed with confiscation at #1, nobody gets to say that nobody wants to confiscate them any more.

My basic "if I was in charge" concept would be, anybody can buy whatever they want in terms of rifles, shotguns and handguns. An instant background check is fine by me. permitting required for concealed carry on a must-issue basis is fine by me.

BUT, the first time you use your gun to commit a crime, off to the hoosgow you go for an extremely long time, no appeals, no parole, no plea bargaining.

Why not?
Why should someone who has paid their "debt to society" be deprived of their natural right of the ability to self defense?

Hmmm. Interesting scenario.

The problem for me (and I suspect many gunowners) is that I don't oppose every gun-related law made in the last 100 years. I have as big an interest as anyone in seeing that felons and the mentally unbalanced don't acquire firearms.

But if the option is, essentially, completely unregulated (albeit with third party registration) instead of what we seem headed for? Yes, I'd make that trade.

I generally agree with this, but need clarification on what constitutes a crime? Pointing it at someone? Actually shooting someone? Self defense (like in NY)?

Okay fine, but not the Irish.

I'm telling you, that "or in times of emergency" clause is gonna bite you in the ass.

Yeah, does emergency constitute, the fire brigade is on it's way, what are they gettin in to, or a hurricane has hit, hand in your only means of defense?

I'd say emergency is any kind of "shit hits the fan" scenario. Major disaster, insurrection, terrorist attack, etc.

Pointing a gun at someone is a crime. It's assault with a deadly weapon.

Sure, why not? So long as it was done right & intelligently. I'm NOT a gun lover, but I like your idea here. My addendum to it would be to computer chip guns so they can be easily traced the way cell phones are & can be. Maybe some guns are made that way already? Members of WF's gun community would have to verify if they know if any guns are computer chipped for locating them or not.

Only if the person is aware that you're pointing a gun at them, apparently.

Ah, here come the lawsuits...

Martial Law, military coup, forced round-up of civilians, genocide...

What if I catch the person raping my 15 year old daughter. Would my pointing a gun at the perpetrator be considered a crime?

Or I catch someone breaking into my house in the middle of the night?

As in to "call up the militia", or as in for confiscation because "a SHTF scenario is the worst possible time for clvillians to be armed"?

"Things that give Black Dove a boner?"

Fascinating how gun rights supporters indignantly deny that they are not opposed to "reasonable" restrictions, but when something is proposed it's always deemed "unreasonable" for some reason.

Did you actually read the thread first, or did you read the title, speculate as to how you thought the "gun rights supportsrs" responded and then post accordingly?

I never said anything about confiscation.

Like after Hurricane Katrina?

They're all unreasonable. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty damn rock solid in my opinion.

Do you think not allowing the mentally ill or those who have committed violent crimes to own firearms is unreasonable?

Look, I'm not picking a fight and I'm not arguing. I'm pointing out that no matter what someone proposes it has some fatal flaw in the opinion of some people. I've long since given up on the idea of getting any kind of consensus on the idea. I personally think it's not worth the time and argument, not to mention hard feelings to fight over an issue that's not going anywhere.

I tend to think that pointing a gun at someone with the intent to threaten or coerce (as in during a robbery), means that you're willing to murder them for personal gain. Off to the hoosgow!

But definitely NOT self defense.