Modest proposal: We should have a gun owners database … like the one used for child predators

posted at 9:21 am on January 14, 2016 by Matt Vespa

An armed society is a polite society. – Robert A. Heinlein

Only in liberal America would someone be less afraid of a criminal with a gun than a law-abiding gun owner. And certainly only in this warped sense of reality would they be for a gun registry, not for furthering an agenda, but for making play dates safe. That’s what Tricia Bishop of the Baltimore Sun wrote on January 6; that we should have a gun registry akin to those used to track sexual predators. No, I’m not joking [emphasis mine]:

I’m less afraid of the criminals wielding guns in Baltimore, I declared as we discussed the issue, than I am by those permitted gun owners. I know how to stay out of the line of Baltimore’s illegal gunfire; I have the luxury of being white and middle class in a largely segregated city that reserves most of its shootings for poor, black neighborhoods overtaken by “the game.” The closest I typically get to the action is feeling the chest-thumping vibrations of the Foxtrot police helicopter flying overhead in pursuit of someone who might be a few streets over, but might as well be a world away. But I don’t know where the legal gun owners are or how to ensure that their children, no matter how well versed in respecting firearms, won’t one day introduce that weapon to my daughter.

And so, as President Barack Obama announced plans this week to tighten background checks for gun buyers and increase gun tracking and research, I thought, that’s all well and good, but how about adding something immediately useful: a gun owner registry available to the public online — something like those for sex offenders. I’m not equating gun owners with predatory perverts, but the model is helpful here; I want a searchable database I can consult to find out whether my kid can have a play date at your house.

[…]

My only exposure to guns has been to legal ones. I remember as a teen-ager spending an afternoon with a couple of boys who were showing off after school, firing a family gun in the backyard and play aiming at one another. And I fired a .22 caliber pistol several years ago as a reporter covering handgun-carry regulations in Maryland; I still have the paper target practice sheet taped to my cubicle to flaunt my bullseye. There was a definite rush to handling the weapon, and I could see the attraction of target practice as a hobby. But the risk to owning the gun isn’t worth it to me.

Guns in the home are far more likely to be used accidentally, in suicides or family disputes than in self defense, according to studies based on anecdotal evidence. (Perhaps Mr. Obama’s improved research will show for sure.) And I’m pretty certain that if I’d had a gun the one time I was the victim of a violent crime (in upstate New York), the outcome would have been a lot worse than it was, with the firearm turned against me in short order. Instead, I was able to scream and break away from a mugger with a dull knife trying to force me into a vacant lot between rowhouses.

[…]

Gun owners may feel picked on, but they are not a persecuted class. They are individuals who have chosen to keep in their homes an object whose chief purpose is to injure or kill, whether in self defense or otherwise. The rest of us should have a right to know it’s there before we — or our children — enter.

Well, of course, one’s exposure to firearms has probably been in a legal setting, as virtually all gun owners are law-abiding; even Sen. Bernie Sanders know that. In fact, concealed carry holders are more law-abiding than the police. It’s great that both law enforcement and permit holders register extremely low on the felonious activity scale. Second, gun owners know their firearms are for self-defense. It isn’t some luxurious bottle of wine that you show to friends or guests. No one in his or her right mind is going to say, “oh, look a family friend’s kid is over–let’s show her my gun.” That’s nonsense–and totally irresponsible. Oh, and given that gun owners are law-abiding, it’s a crime to keep firearms within the reach of children.

Second, Bishop worries about safety. She’s genuinely afraid of gun owners. That’s fine; most liberals are terrified for wholly irrational reasons. To draw the sense of horror to the picture, she said that toddlers were shooting people all over the country. Of course, that fact was linked to a Washington Post article using some data from the Centers For Disease Control, whose data is infamously used by anti-gunners to inflate the number of gun deaths in the country, so as to strengthen their false narrative that America has become something akin to Escape for New York (good movie, by the way). The National Shooting Sports Foundation has slightly different numbers, which isn’t based off of “anecdotal evidence.”

Firearm-related fatalities in the U.S. have been decreasing consistently since record-keeping began in 1903 and dramatically in the last 20 years.

During the last decade, the number of unintentional firearm-related fatalities involving children 14 years of age and under has decreased by 28 percent and by 74 percent over the last 20 years.

Unintentional firearm-related fatalities are substantially lower than the number of unintentional fatalities caused by other forms of injury.

Firearms are involved in less than 1.5 percent of unintentional fatalities among children 14 years of age and under, and are among the least likely causes of unintentional fatality.

In the past 10 years, firearm-related fatalities in the home have dropped by 33 percent, and by 50 percent in the last 20 years.

Firearms are involved in fewer than 1 percent (0.5 percent) of all unintentional fatalities in the United States.

Lastly, a gun registry akin to sexual predators for gun owners; has it truly come to this? This will never happen any time soon, there are no votes for it in Congress. Also, I know Bishop wasn’t equating gun owners to perverts, but the fact that she wants to use the same enforcement measures on gun owners is telling. Child predators have hurt people–their victims and their families; gun-owning families have not done that in any way shape or form. To think otherwise is irrational, unadulterated nonsense. Anyone with a scintilla of brain function knows that buying a gun doesn’t violate anyone’s rights – raping someone does.

Ms. Bishop is right to say that owning a gun is a choice, but one that’s guaranteed in our Constitution. It’s one of the oldest civil rights that we have and millions of Americans – Democrat, Republican, men and women – have decided to exercise that right to the fullest. The notion of destroying the village to save it, which is precisely how this gun registry would be used to ensure safety, is both stunningly stupid and absolutely terrifying. I, for one, am not willing to shred other Americans’ constitutional rights so my hypothetical anti-gun fears can be assuaged. After all, there are already over 300 million firearms in the U.S. alone.

In fact, since Obama’s presidency, Americans have bought over 100 million guns. It’s a mind-boggling statistic. First, it shows how gun confiscation, let alone a gun registry, would easily tread into either unconstitutional or unfeasible territory. Gun registries have failed in other countries, and confiscation would most certainly have to include the military (due to lack of manpower), which is barred from police actions via Posse Comitatus.

We’re a country that doesn’t go after (or at least we shouldn’t be going after) people for their political beliefs or life choices, especially when those beliefs and choices fall right in line with the Constitution. Buying a gun in America should not subject one to ridicule, harassment, or any policies that would undermine Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights.

Ms. Bishop says that gun owners may feel “picked on,” but they’re not a “persecuted class” because they bought firearms. They were asking for it, I guess. Well, I’m certainly not going to tell a rape survivor (either directly or indirectly) that she shouldn’t exercise her right to self-defense by purchasing firearms because statistics show that of she could still die, or shoot her kids. That’s not my place, nor is it the place of some urban-based liberal elite to dictate that and other anti-gun policies to the rest of us. Also, that’s downright horrible to say to a survivor. She shouldn’t utilize every legal method to defend herself and her family? Well, that gun registry proposal that’s modeled after those who keep track of child predators, but it isn’t when applied to gun owners because that would be idiotic, would do exactly that to those people: pick on them and other law-abiding Americans.

“That’s not who we are.” Remind me who said that over and over again?

Editor’s Note: Crosspost from Townwhall.com


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Schadenbishmore.

CurtZHP on January 14, 2016 at 11:09 AM

Guns in the home are far more likely to be used accidentally, in suicides or family disputes than in self defense, according to studies based on anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is not “studies”. What a nitwit.

Ward Cleaver on January 14, 2016 at 11:09 AM

The Bishop article was reactionary blather by a woman so safely insulated in her life that she is easily induced to imagine risks where there are none.

Even worse, she will foolishly act to reduce those non-existent risks in ways that are deeply counterproductive.

She undoubtedly also fears GMOs, quite possibly vaccines, climate chaos, the hazards of plastic water bottles left in a hot car leaching deadly toxins into her water, the idea of asbestos/mercury/lead, sex predators lurking outside her door, and Republicans making birth control illegal.

She admits she stays away from the black neighborhoods in Baltimore, so she is not entirely lacking in common sense, but this tendency to weave amorphous fearful scenarios is a situation that middle-class females, typically unmarried but often mothers, fall prey to.

Its a pity she’s afraid of boogymen in the closet, but its not my obligation to go on a boogyman hunt.

Dolce Far Niente on January 14, 2016 at 9:48 AM

Spot on! This is the true “affluenza”-upper middle class to wealthy white woman has nothing real to worry about, such as deprivation, hunger, or real physical dangers, so to justify her intrinsic anxiety level, she exaggerates imaginary or tiny risks into public policy issues to prove her maternal bonifides.
I guarantee you she also reads the “Ten things your Gynecologist won’t tell you” articles in Woman’s Daily without an ounce of skepticism and feels like she is “in the know.”
By the way, this kind of thinking is not limited to women, before I hear it from you guys!

Doc Holliday on January 14, 2016 at 11:09 AM

Perhaps a registry of liberals similar to the one used for sexual perverts. I’m not equating liberals with perverts, but the model is useful. How can I protect my child from silly, unscientific ideas, such as global warming is a threat despite a two decade pause in temperature increase and models that don’t reflect reality.
Besides, it will make it easier for criminals to know what homes to invade. If the person is on the liberal registry, then chances are they don’t have a gun and are safe to rob. What are you, prejudiced against criminals? Why do you want to make their lives harder? You’re probably racist too.

yetanotherjohn on January 14, 2016 at 11:04 AM

Liberals are more likely to be perverts than lawful gun owners are.

Ward Cleaver on January 14, 2016 at 11:11 AM

Then maybe we could get a Scarlet Letter or a yellow star on our clothing./

Seriously, though. Wouldn’t this make it extremely easy for criminals to know which homes DON’T have guns, and then target those? Unintended consequences of your fascism, lady.

(Didn’t read all the comments; please excuse if similar was already posited.)

SailorMark on January 14, 2016 at 11:16 AM

Then maybe we could get a Scarlet Letter or a yellow star on our clothing.

SailorMark on January 14, 2016 at 11:16 AM

It can be a new fashion trend. People who oppose gun rights can wear targets on their clothing.

malclave on January 14, 2016 at 11:26 AM

(Didn’t read all the comments; please excuse if similar was already posited.)
SailorMark on January 14, 2016 at 11:16 AM

That’s a major Hot Air rule violation, SM! You can get banned for that.

Marcola on January 14, 2016 at 11:26 AM

Let’s make this woman our next ambassador to ISIS.

trigon on January 14, 2016 at 11:28 AM

Counter propose a public-searchable database of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.

kurtzz3 on January 14, 2016 at 11:31 AM

JaneTricia, you ignorant $lut.

Sorry, but your daughter has a better chance of dying in an auto accident going to the house where there is a gun.

What you should ask is not if they have a gun…but do they have alcohol in the house, if you want to focus on a real killer…

right2bright on January 14, 2016 at 10:02 AM

Especially given that the author was convicted of drunk driving.

bigmacdaddy on January 14, 2016 at 11:43 AM

The stats are a bit misleading, not that I think they are intentionally so.

Yes, firearm deaths are down in the last two decades, but a great deal of that reduction is the advent and improvement of trauma care. Level I trauma centers have come online in multiple large cities and they significantly improve the chance of a person shot (or stabbed) surviving.

Would like to see a stat on shootings as opposed to survival.

MikeAT on January 14, 2016 at 11:50 AM

I can make guns if I want, I have all the tools. I don’t though.

If they did start a national registry, you can bet your bum I will make some. Maybe I’ll mass produce them. Maybe I’ll make tanks and planes too.

Idiots.

Andy__B on January 14, 2016 at 12:07 PM

a gun owner registry available to the public online — something like those for sex offenders. I’m not equating gun owners with predatory perverts, but the model is helpful here; I want a searchable database I can consult to find out whether my kid can have a play date at your house.

Translation: Like, I’m not totally equating gun owners with predatory perverts but like I really really am. I just won’t be honest and say it up front because I’m a disingenuous dumb liberal wench. Virtue signalling! Holla back grrls!

oryguncon on January 14, 2016 at 12:09 PM

I support this idea, but let’s flip it. If this twit is so concerned about law abiding gun owners how about instead of a registry of gun owners we have a registry of non-gun owners. That way she gets what she wants, and law abiding gun owners don’t have their rights violated. She and her fellow gun fearing morons can deal with the unintended consequence of becoming targets pf violent criminals on their own since they certainly don’t want law abiding gun owners to ever intervene on their behalf.

NotCoach on January 14, 2016 at 12:15 PM

NotCoach on January 14, 2016 at 12:15 PM

Yep.

Just post a sign in the yard.

questionmark on January 14, 2016 at 12:24 PM

No trolls rising to the bait.

Guess they’re feeding shotguns to each other.

itsspideyman on January 14, 2016 at 12:28 PM

Especially given that the author was convicted of drunk driving.
bigmacdaddy on January 14, 2016 at 11:43 AM

In that case, how about a public registry of all people convicted of drunk driving?
Better yet – all people ever arrested for drunk driving – since she has no concern for due process of law or “innocent until proven guilty”.

dentarthurdent on January 14, 2016 at 12:29 PM

Tricia Bishop of the Baltimore Sun should be gifted a gun so she can introduce guns to her daughter, and be tracked also.

And what about a knife registry, and a big stick registry. Those dodge balls are quite dangerous too.

TerryW on January 14, 2016 at 12:30 PM

You already have one, when you purchase the guns…how ignorant are the people?

Schadenfreude on January 14, 2016 at 12:31 PM

Molon labe

307wolverine on January 14, 2016 at 12:31 PM

You already have one, when you purchase the guns…how ignorant are the people?

Schadenfreude on January 14, 2016 at 12:31 PM

I love it when you ask rhetorical questions.

307wolverine on January 14, 2016 at 12:32 PM

How about we make the DMV registration records open to the public, so car thieves can find out who has the most valuable cars people can find out who has the dangerous cars capable of driving faster than 35 mph?

dentarthurdent on January 14, 2016 at 12:32 PM

How about we make the DMV registration records open to the public, so car thieves can find out who has the most valuable cars people can find out who has the dangerous cars capable of driving faster than 35 mph?

dentarthurdent on January 14, 2016 at 12:32 PM

You think that is a joke, but there will be demands in the future to know who isn’t using a driverless car before calls to outlaw non-driverless cars.

NotCoach on January 14, 2016 at 12:37 PM

You think that is a joke, but there will be demands in the future to know who isn’t using a driverless car before calls to outlaw non-driverless cars.

NotCoach on January 14, 2016 at 12:37 PM

No doubt – but I’d guess any kind of privately owned vehicle, since many leftists want to put us all on public transport – mostly train cattle cars headed for the camps…….

dentarthurdent on January 14, 2016 at 12:45 PM

Also, I know Bishop wasn’t equating gun owners to perverts

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Seems to me that is exactly the thought process of panty wetting liberal reporters (but I repeat myself redundantly) like Bishop.

Lammo on January 14, 2016 at 12:46 PM

Guilty until proven innocent.

Oxymoron on January 14, 2016 at 1:26 PM

In that case, how about a public registry of all people convicted of drunk driving?
Better yet – all people ever arrested for drunk driving – since she has no concern for due process of law or “innocent until proven guilty”.

dentarthurdent on January 14, 2016 at 12:29 PM

At the very least she should have a big scarlet “D” painted on her trunk.

bigmacdaddy on January 14, 2016 at 1:28 PM

We need to have a “Stupid Liberal” tax, er, revenue stream.

We can “invest” that money in dealing with actual criminals, the monsters that kind find it in their hearts and minds to murder others.

As this new revenue stream would be super-huge, we would have more than enough to build a very large fence across our Southern border and equip a couple hundred thousand more Border Patrol to enforce border controls and more ICE agents to enforce internal security to round up and deport visa overstays.

Win-win. Liberals get the new taxes, er revenues, they always whine about and the nation gets some real benefits from government spending for a change.

DrDeano on January 14, 2016 at 1:51 PM

Tricia, honey…you may want to avoid DC for playdates, too.

bigmacdaddy on January 14, 2016 at 2:02 PM

How about a database of those notional citizens that refuse to defend their children? I’d be very hesitant letting my kids play at someone’s house who’s parents thought so poorly of their own kids that they would not defend them – instead depending on a government entity to do it for them.

Documenting those people who self-identify will NOT be enough. We must have a cadre of highly trained weapons specialists who will search the homes and verify them as being weapons free just to be certain of these leeches intentions.

To Protect the Children, of course.

HBowmanMD on January 14, 2016 at 2:05 PM

This reminds me why I don’t visit Townhall. This is a horribly written article. Are there no editors left in journalism?

GAbred on January 14, 2016 at 2:07 PM

I want a searchable database I can consult to find out whether my kid can have a play date at your house.

Then it should be a complete database listing houses with booze, matches ladders, power tools, cleaning products, swimming pools, dogs, cars, bicycles, bathtubs…

RadClown on January 14, 2016 at 2:27 PM

…a gun owner registry available to the public online — something like those for sex offenders.

Better yet, a database of non-gun owners. It would accomplish the same thing and I’m sure they wont mind everyone knowing they’re unarmed.

RadClown on January 14, 2016 at 2:33 PM

You could just politely ask the person you are having a playdate with if they have guns in the house. They will tell you if they do. Also, it would be helpful for the gun owner to know that they have invited a raving liberal loon over for coffee and a playdate. It’s win-win. Or is she saying that she is fine sending her kids over to someones house for a couple of hours, but not okay with asking them a simple question? It’s like common sense is a foreign language, or something.

bitsy on January 14, 2016 at 3:04 PM

It’s inevitable when my husband and I visit family these days that the subject of violence in Baltimore comes up. Often, I’m the one who raises it.

Every family has got one of these characters, doesn’t it? LoL.

bitsy on January 14, 2016 at 3:10 PM

Guns in the home are far more likely to be used accidentally, in suicides or family disputes than in self defense, according to studies based on anecdotal evidence.

So are they saying they would rather have a criminal kill me than me accidentally killing myself?

The Notorious G.O.P on January 14, 2016 at 3:12 PM

The pathetic simpleton that wrote the article in question refuses to understand human history, that the one human-made thing that has murdered and harmed more human beings than anything else we’ve created is certainly not guns or legal gun owners, not even war – but government.

Establishment politicians and their sycophantic appointees are more now certainly more of a danger to American citizens lives and livelihoods and our children than legal gun owners.

How many people are murdered/killed/maimed/terrorized by illegal aliens every year that are here due to the overt and tacit actions by elected and appointed government officials that empower them?

How many people are murdered or harmed due to politicians keeping certain protected groups cloistered in high-crime ghettos for nothing more than crass political advantage?

The mindset of the woman who wrote the article is that of those who are condemning their own children to lives under the iron thumb of authoritarian/totalitarian government – and we know that such governments do not value the lives of those they rule.

DrDeano on January 14, 2016 at 3:15 PM

It’s inevitable when my husband and I visit family these days that the subject of violence in Baltimore comes up. Often, I’m the one who raises it.

Every family has got one of these characters, doesn’t it? LoL.

bitsy on January 14, 2016 at 3:10 PM

And I’ll bet the rest of the family no longer invites them over either – and pretend nobody is home when they show up at the door…..

dentarthurdent on January 14, 2016 at 3:19 PM

They tried that in Canada, it was a great success. Never solved a single crime, but the criminals got hold of the list and found out exactly which houses to break into to steal the guns. Didn’t matter that the law required them to be stored in a safe, if you know exactly where and how they’re stored you can bring whatever you need to get to them.

Socratease on January 14, 2016 at 3:27 PM

In what was post-WWII America, Tricia Bishop couldn’t have found any place safe for her daughter … and back in those days, the guns were rarely locked-up, and the kids knew right where the guns were.
Homes away from suburbia nearly always had a .22 rifle somewhere right near (behind?) the front door, and I can guaran-damn-tee you the ammunition wasn’t kept all that far away or locked-up, either. Hell, some of those .22s were kept loaded, by the front door.

listens2glenn on January 14, 2016 at 3:34 PM

You already have one, when you purchase the guns…how ignorant are the people?
.
Schadenfreude on January 14, 2016 at 12:31 PM

.
Well, at least one of them understands that skeet shotgun isn’t as dangerous as a “regular” shotgun.

(If I could link to that comment, I would … it was priceless…)

listens2glenn on January 14, 2016 at 3:39 PM

listens2glenn on January 14, 2016 at 3:34 PM

Heck – in 1970s America, when I was about 12 or 13, my parents bought me a .22 rifle to kill the woodchucks eating up our garden.
That rifle was never locked up, usually sitting in a wooden gun rack on my wall, not loaded, but with a loaded magazine nearby – and I used it regularly out in the yard – unsupervised.
Killed a few woodchucks with it – but somehow never shot any people….

dentarthurdent on January 14, 2016 at 4:05 PM

I seriously hope this Bishop is not related to our Bishop.

Nutstuyu on January 14, 2016 at 4:31 PM

Here … we … gooo . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
Gun ‘Seizure’ Bill Introduced by State level Democrats in Georgia.

listens2glenn on January 14, 2016 at 4:32 PM

I’m not equating gun owners with predatory perverts, but the model is helpful here; I want a searchable database I can consult to find out whether my kid can have a play date at your house.

Hope you don’t have any Mooslum neighbors. That play date could turn into a marriage proposal for your kid.

Nutstuyu on January 14, 2016 at 4:38 PM

In what was post-WWII America, Tricia Bishop couldn’t have found any place safe for her daughter … and back in those days, the guns were rarely locked-up, and the kids knew right where the guns were.
Homes away from suburbia nearly always had a .22 rifle somewhere right near (behind?) the front door, and I can guaran-damn-tee you the ammunition wasn’t kept all that far away or locked-up, either. Hell, some of those .22s were kept loaded, by the front door.
.
listens2glenn on January 14, 2016 at 3:34 PM

.
Unfortunately, I did send a .22 WRM bullet way too close to a farmer, who was on his tractor doing some “disking”. The farmer was out of my sight, over the brow of a ‘hill’, off to my right, but within 35 degrees on angle relative to where I was shooting. The bullet took a bad ‘ricochet’, and the farmer came right back up over the hill towards me
.
dentarthurdent on January 14, 2016 at 4:05 PM

.
Unfortunately, I did send a .22 WRM bullet way too close to a farmer, once, who was on his tractor doing some “disking”. The farmer was out of my sight, over the brow of a ‘hill’, off to my right, but within 35 degrees of angle relative to where I was shooting. The bullet took a bad ‘ricochet’, and that farmer came right back up over the hill towards me, in a very foul mood.
The distance between us when the shot was fired, was something near 300 yds.

But I was 20 years old at the time of this incident, and had not incurred any previous “close calls”, that I’m aware of.

But I did manage to kill my first deer, at age twelve, hunting unattended. It was two years after that, when the Pennsylvania Game Commission made the rule requiring all 12-13 year old hunters had to have a parent or legal guardian with them, and 14-15 year olds had to have anybody 18 years and up, with them.

listens2glenn on January 14, 2016 at 4:56 PM

I can see where crooks would love to tap into a data base and learn where the weapons are…..and which particular ones they are.

Here’s a thought: How about a database of all the ding-bat liberals and where they live.

GarandFan on January 14, 2016 at 5:27 PM

Maybe journalists should be registered, the pen is mightier than the sword, afterall.

rgranger on January 14, 2016 at 5:39 PM

They already have all the names of those that have gone through background checks. How far back, I don’t know. Contrary to popular belief (and the LAW) we found out a few months ago that they haven’t been purging their databases after doing the checks.

You know, if they go through with this (and I have no doubt to think they will) thousands of people will be fired because the suits will be worried that Joe Gun Owner is a “ticking time bomb” just waiting to go off…and probably a raciss to boot.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 14, 2016 at 5:51 PM

and if this goes to the Supreme Court, I have no doubt that the Court will back it up under Free Speech or some such nonsense. It’s the same mentality where if you buy a house it becomes permanent public record, or get married, or get divorced, or are born, or die…even if you just get arrested (not even so much as arraigned in court yet) you get your name and/or your mug shot in the paper and/or online for all the world to see.

As soon as the govt. touches something, then it’s no longer private all of a sudden.

In the future Socialist States of America, this mentality will be applied to ALL citizens. You’re either a taxpayer or on the dole…either way, your’re connected to government, therefore have no right to an expectation of privacy.

Oh, and they are coming for your 401ks, your pensions, your bank accounts and your guns one of these days. The Beast will do what it has to in order to survive at all costs. The government may just as well be run by someone like Al Capone or Dutch Schultz.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 14, 2016 at 6:14 PM

Bump.

Still waiting on an answer to these questions. If CD won’t answer, maybe some other of our resident leftists would like to take a shot:

What evidence suggests to you that Obama can be trusted to deal with his opponents honestly?

What evidence suggests to you that Obama’s gun control proposals are “based in reality”?

What evidence suggests to you that the NRA’s position is not based in reality?

GrumpyOldFart on January 14, 2016 at 6:17 PM

I’m guessing this Trish person has a whole lot of other lists she’d like to put people on and have published as well.

Christians.
Conservatives.
People who oppose abortion.
People who oppose certain lifestyle choices.
People who dislike certain racial or ethnic groups.
People who oppose certain favored religious organizations.
People who vote Republican or Libertarian.
People who think Climate Change is a bunch of BS.
People who think the government is corrupt.
People who don’t like Barack or Hillary.
People who don’t like the same books she does.
People who don’t like the same shows or movies she does.
People who don’t like her favorite color.
People who breath funny.
People she finds ugly.
People who find her to be ugly.
Just that a-hole who looked at her funny.
Just because.

babylonandon on January 14, 2016 at 6:35 PM

Why does to public always want a program, that usually always already exist, to solve their problems? Maybe because too many of public do not read the proper documents “Public Records” wherein all the answers already exist.

MSGTAS on January 15, 2016 at 9:56 AM

It would take a lot less work to keep a database of houses with no guns.

That would provide an opportunity for each gun hater to proudly and publicly take a stand.

Rather than imposing on others to disclose information, gun haters would happily disclose their position.

But can you imagine the lawsuits by/for criminals shot in homes that were guaranteed to be defenseless?

I know people who would lie about being a target, just on the off chance of dropping a POS.

ha_tspc on January 15, 2016 at 10:30 AM

I know people who would lie about being a target, just on the off chance of dropping a POS.

ha_tspc on January 15, 2016 at 10:30 AM

1. Get a new place
2. It has no guns in it, right? There you are.
3. Move your stuff in.

If someone wants to trust their lives to whether or not the list will get updated, they are welcome to.

GrumpyOldFart on January 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM

Ok….

So, as long as we are going to have a database of those owning guns, I vote for having a similar database in which each person in the United States would be required to place their personal information and an indication of their religious beliefs.

Because, of course, you never know when an atheist won’t go off by mistake.

unclesmrgol on January 15, 2016 at 1:02 PM

Because, of course, you never know when an atheist won’t go off by mistake.

unclesmrgol on January 15, 2016 at 1:02 PM

I’m more concerned about muslims – they have a much stronger tendency to explode.

dentarthurdent on January 15, 2016 at 1:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2