"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 1/18/2014 4:38 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:20:37 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...


I wonder...could that be due to the population increase over the past
40 years coupled with the
source of the increase? The number of small arms either manufactured
or imported during the past 25
years has gone from about 3.7 million to 8.7 million. I suppose DHS
accounts for a bunch, but it has
only about 230,000 employees. Even giving each of them a couple guns
doesn't account for the growth.

The handgun chart is really weird, showing 5% gains and drops in
household possession in two year
periods.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/co..._with_handguns

You can't get accurate stats on guns. Violates the 2nd.

In what way?

Unless guns are universally registered, it's just guessing.
Do you think universal registration violates the 2nd?
I have no opinion on that. You might have an opinion.
But the reason for lack of registration is the 2nd.
In any case, statistics on ownership are garbage.


Unless you interpret the "shall not be infringed" part as meaning
registration is unlawful, I don't see anything in the 2nd that would
otherwise prohibit registration. My opinion is they *should* be registered.

I am very much against registration. The people killed at Concord Bridge
were objecting to gun confiscation. Why make it easier for the government?
The 2nd is not there for hunting, or sport shooting! It was put in by
people who had just used personal guns to toss a government they did not
like.