Academic Discussion


PDA






The1911Man
December 7, 2006, 03:10 PM
Hi, newbie here. I am interested in checking both sides of the "Gun Rights" issue and this site was recommended. So please, humor a fence sitter and please put forth some academic discussion.

Isn't the second Amendment for Militias only?
How does the second Amendment apply to an individual?
Why is banning certain types of guns like assault rifles a bad thing?
Why is registering your guns a bad idea?

Please no flames, I won't speak to members who put the flames out and it won't do your cause any good.

Thanks
The1911man

If you enjoyed reading about "Academic Discussion" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jnojr
December 7, 2006, 03:21 PM
Isn't the second Amendment for Militias only?

No. A "militia" is made up of "The People". And "The People" in the Second Amendment are the same "The People" in all the rest of them.

How does the second Amendment apply to an individual?

"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."

That's how.

Why is banning certain types of guns like assault rifles a bad thing?

Why should "assault rifles" be banned? And what good do those "bans" do? Cocaine and heroin are "banned", but easily available just about everywhere.

We do not need to defend how or why we exercise our rights. You need to defend why it's necessary to infringe upon our rights.

Why is registering your guns a bad idea?

Why is registration a good idea?

Registration leads to confiscation. That's what the Nazis did, among others... make everyone register so they knew where to go when it waas time to round up the guns and "troublemakers".

I hate to break it to you, but the Second Amendment does not exist to protect a right to self-defense, or to hunt, or to target shoot. It exists as a check against a tyrannical government. Our War for Independence was not fought against a foreign invader... the Crown of England was, technically, our lawful government. I say "technically" because we had good reasons to break away from them, and, of course, we won :) The Second Amendment exists to enshrine our right to throw off another government that becomes tyrannical, that tramples upon our rights, and no longer represents us.

Keith Wheeler
December 7, 2006, 03:37 PM
How does the second Amendment apply to an individual?

Why would the others apply to individuals? The first, second, and fourth all use the same phrase "the right of the people". If we're going to be academic, just what exactly in the phrasing of "the right of the people" in the first is legally different from the phrasing of "the right of the people" in the second?

If one was to argue that the second is only a "group" right, then the same must be argued for the first and fourth.

I guess it could be argued that the fifth and sixth are explicitly individual rights, using the terms "No person" (singular) and "the accused" (emphasis added) respectively. Taking a very legalistic approach one could argue that if the first and second were meant to be individual rights like the fifth and sixth, they would have been written "No person shall be denied the right to keep and bear arms".

But to state that, based on wording, the second is a "group" right, one must concede the first as well.

azredhawk44
December 7, 2006, 03:40 PM
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 311

311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



We are all part of the militia. As such, our government acknowledges the need and right for militia to bear arms.

More importantly, IMO: The natural rights argument. Our government was created by men who greatly feared excessive government power. They started their foundation with zero power, granted 100% power and rights to the people. They then began the process of granting powers to government. But they finished the job with a list of "thou shalt not..." mandates that the government is never to breach, to affirm the natural rights of all men, regardless of the words of government.

Keith Wheeler
December 7, 2006, 03:47 PM
Why is banning certain types of guns like assault rifles a bad thing?

Legally? Try defining "assault rifle". If you can't come up with a clear, concise, legal definition of something, trying to ban it seems to be an irrational move.

Philosophically? Well, that depends on your viewpoint of how people should be able to live their lives. If you believe that the state is the ultimate keeper of "the people" then by that line of though control is not a bad thing.

If however you're viewpoint is that "the people", being free, should be the ultimate keeper of their lives on an individual basis, then you would understand that the concept of a state protecting the people, "for their own good" is merely another form of oppression.

So which is it? People should be free to live their lives as they see fit, or should they be slaves to others fears?

quatin
December 7, 2006, 04:06 PM
Why is registration a good idea?

Registration leads to confiscation. That's what the Nazis did, among others... make everyone register so they knew where to go when it waas time to round up the guns and "troublemakers".

I have to ask here if registration makes any difference when it comes time that they decide to strip guns from the country. Would you just sit about and do nothing even if your gun wasn't registered? Wasn't the point to have guns to defend the bill of rights? How is this different from motor vehicle registration?

Jim March
December 7, 2006, 04:10 PM
I'll take on one of these questions: the "assault weapon" thing.

The reality is that all fully-automatic weapons (multiple shot per trigger pull, usually switch-selectable to single-shot-per-pull) have been STRICTLY controlled (to the point of being as close to banned as you can get) since 1934. The registration process is horrendous, few people go to the trouble and it's gotten much nastier since 1986. REAL military "assault weapons" are full auto (or three-round-burst, legally the same thing as full auto).

What the more recent "assault weapon" bans are actually controlling are semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) guns that are "related to" their military cousins but have different trigger group parts and cannot accept the military full-auto parts.

Why would people want to own the semi-auto near-cousins to military rifles?

1) Because spare parts from the surplus market are cheap. Military rifles are always produced by multiple vendors so there's always parts and accessories floating around.

2) Because the military versions have to be tough to survive both battlefield conditions AND full-auto fire, their de-tuned civilian cousins that never see full-auto fire are if anything even tougher.

How do you get good at anything?

Answer: practice.

John Farnham runs a series of rifle marksmanship courses running three days. Students are expected to bring 1,500 rounds of ammo as they'll be shooting 500 rounds a day. Care to guess what happens when you shoot that sort of duty cycle through a hunting rifle? It breaks. Period. Most high-dollar super-accuracy rifle barrels in serious calibers have a lifespan of about 1,000 rounds or less. A military-pattern rifle won't do quite as tight a group as a good deer rifle (although there are exceptions) but it will shoot a LOT more ammo through and still function.

People with no access to semi-auto military-cousin guns in states like California who want to master riflework have to do most of their practice with 22s as the low power of these gives them a long lifespan, and then try and translate those skills to a full-power hunting rifle as quick as they can, and still end up sending the big gun to a gunsmith once or twice.

In short, the ban on this sort of gun is really a ban on SKILLS, an attempt to do "people control" disguised as hardware control.

Whatever is banned becomes "cool" and "scary" and instantly in demand by criminals. Who thankfully usually can't shoot worth a damn but they get ahold of "the goodies" regardless.

The people who either buy these (or would buy them but can't) to develop skills are no more a threat to public safety than the average advanced martial artist. Ask any cop how often they get their butts kicked by somebody skilled (as opposed to freaked out on drugs or ridiculously strong from pumping iron behind bars). The "kung fu bad guy" is a Hollywood myth, as anybody with that sort of discipline has got it together upstairs enough to avoid a life of crime.

Same with John Farnham's students. They're not the ones you've got to worry about, yet they are the ONLY class of people (well, other than collectors) who are affected by this type of ban.

So the final question is, SHOULD average Americans be allowed to develop serious rifle skills?

Allow me to introduce to you a piece of United States Federal Law that nobody on the gun-grabber side likes to talk about:

-------------

311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Source: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

---------

Go to the source URL above and click "how current is this" - it will tell you that this particular law library last updated their Title 10 section in mid-'06. If any updates to this subsection had been made since then, trust me, we of all people would know about it :).

I know this is definitely pre-WW2 and I believe late 19th century. Somebody may chime in narrowing it down. There have been advances in equal protection law since that MIGHT force women to be included in the "unorganized militia" today but set that aside for a moment. The proof that this is NOT a reference to the National Guard (the "organized militia" along with the current "Coast Guard" Naval militia) is the reference to women being in the "militia" of any type ONLY so long as they're in an organized militia.

That means WE are in the unorganized militia. We can be called to militia service in time of need, or even an unexpected emergency.

Which is exactly what happened on United Flight 93, and what happens whenever citizens band together to deal with any emergency on a community basis, whether violence is involved or not.

There are a lot of forces within the gov't and outside who prefer to see all such "community defense" issues be handled by the state, even if it causes a fatal delay in protection. They see civil defense by ordinary citizens as "anarchy".

They're wrong.

People must have the ability to assist in group defense or protection in a pinch, otherwise they're not citizens...they're sheep who can be led to slaughter at the whim of the first totalitarian to take control with the most guns.

Governments are the most murderous forces in history. Anybody who forgets that dooms their children.

junyo
December 7, 2006, 04:10 PM
I have to ask here if registration makes any difference when it comes time that they decide to strip guns from the country. Would you just sit about and do nothing even if your gun wasn't registered? Wasn't the point to have guns to defend the bill of rights? How is this different from motor vehicle registration?Because registration saves them the time/manpower/effort of door to door, yard by yard, searching the woods, confiscation, as opposed to having a computer spit out a list of addresses.

quatin
December 7, 2006, 04:13 PM
Because registration saves them the time/manpower/effort of door to door, yard by yard, searching the woods, confiscation, as opposed to having a computer spit out a list of addresses.

Does that really make a difference if they're coming for your guns anyways? Should I not register my car in case they don't want us to be mobile during searches? Serious question here..

OK-gobbler
December 7, 2006, 04:19 PM
I view a gun as a tool. I use these tools to hunt, protect my family and property, and for recreational shooting. In many rural areas hunting and protecting livestock isn't a hobby, it is a way of life. Taking guns from farmers and ranchers and trappers would be the equivilent of taking a businessman's cellphone and laptop.

If someone attacks someone with a hammer, should we ban all "assult hammers?"

If someone commits a crime using a computer, should everyone have to register their computers and electronic equipment with the government?

Just some things to think about. Welcome to THR

carlrodd
December 7, 2006, 04:23 PM
in answer to all your questions:

the framers intended civilians to keep arms as not only a constant reminder that 'we the people' are in charge, and are prepared to ensure that it stays that way, and also so that we might actually have the means to enforce our collective will if our government ever forgot. it stands to that reasoning that we should have every small arm at our disposal that federal forces have at theirs.

if there is any question as to the propensity of even our very own government to flagrantly disregard the will of the people, one need only turn on the television, the radio, or read the papers.

any effort to infringe upon the above-mentioned rights and reasoning should be viewed with great suspicion.

junyo
December 7, 2006, 04:24 PM
Does that really make a difference if they're coming for your guns anyways? Should I not register my car in case they don't want us to be mobile during searches? Serious question here..If we assume that confiscation is a given, then I'm assuming that what they don't know I have is harder to confiscate than what they do know I have, and harder increases my chances of keeping. If we assume that confiscation exists as a variable risk then, all other things being equal, increasing the cost and difficulty of accomplishing the task would tend to decrease that risk.

Car and guns are an apples to lugnuts comparison; you don't have a Constitutional right to use a car on public roads. However nothing stops you from keeping an unregistered car (or say a small, fuel efficient dirtbike, bought with cash) in your garage.

azredhawk44
December 7, 2006, 04:26 PM
Does that really make a difference if they're coming for your guns anyways?

Absolutely.

If all my guns are registered, they know how many I have.

But, If they aren't registered, I can give the 4 cops/soldiers/whoever is collecting up guns my 38special revolver, my .22LR single shot rifle and my 30-30.

They will drive down the street to the next house. I then go next door to my neighbor/gun range/activist center/church/whatever, where all the upset people are meeting. We decide we've had enough of this nonsense. Everyone busts out their unregistered M1 Garands, M14's, AR-15's, etc. and we water the tree of liberty a bit.:fire:

Then I get my 38, .22 and 30-30 back.:neener:

cropcirclewalker
December 7, 2006, 04:28 PM
Yo, Mr. 1911man, I applaud your willingness to seek the truth.

It's not often that we get a chance to dialog with a true Fence Sitter and I, for one, welcome the opportunity.

Please do not consider this a flame because I, like you am interested in the academic discussion.
Isn't the second Amendment for Militias only?
How does the second Amendment apply to an individual?
Why is banning certain types of guns like assault rifles a bad thing?
Why is registering your guns a bad idea?

Therefore, I am sure in you search, you have logged on to a pro-gun control site and asked questions such as;

1) Doesn't the Militia really consist of all the people?
2) How does the second amendment's reference to "The People" differ from the first and the fourth amendment?
3) Why is banning certain types of guns like assault rifles a good thing?
4) Why is registering their guns a good idea?

I would be interested in reading some of the responses.

Linky?

The Real Hawkeye
December 7, 2006, 04:30 PM
The1911man, the Second Amendment relates to our right to keep and bear arms because it references that right as belonging to every person. This is not the part of the Second Amendment, though, that is considered law, as merely to mention the existence of a fact is not to establish law. Same goes for the part about militias. That too is a mere statement of fact, with no legal force. The part of the Second Amendment which establishes law is the part that says "shall not be infringed." This constitutes a prohibition on the infringement of the right referenced. Any Federal Law, therefore, which has the effect of infringing on (placing limits on or cutting back on) the right of each person to keep and bear arms is, right then and there, null and void. No ruling is required to make it so, since the Amendment serves that function automatically.

It is incorrect, by the way, to say that the legal force of the Second Amendment "applies" to us. It only "applies" to the Federal Government, in that it has the effect of nullifying any law passed under Federal auspices which has the effect of infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.

quatin
December 7, 2006, 04:30 PM
If we assume that confiscation is a given, then I'm assuming that what they don't know I have is harder to confiscate than what they do know I have, and harder increases my chances of keeping. If we assume that confiscation exists as a variable risk, then all other things being equal, increasing the cost and difficult of accomplishing the task would tend to decrease that risk.

Car and guns are an apples to lugnuts comparison; you don't have a Constitutional right to use a car on public roads. However nothing stops you from keeping an unregistered car (or say a small, fuel efficient dirtbike, bought with cash) in your garage.

So if a gun is constitutional right, then why bother about fearing the government knowing you possess one? If you are planning on a defense against when the government decides to scrap the bill of rights, shouldn't you not register anything for the strategic purpose of them not finding you at all?

*edit all in one post

Therefore, I am sure in you search, you have logged on to a pro-gun control site and asked questions such as;

1) Doesn't the Militia really consist of all the people?
2) How does the second amendment's reference to "The People" differ from the first and the fourth amendment?
3) Why is banning certain types of guns like assault rifles a good thing?
4) Why is registering their guns a good idea?

I would be interested in reading some of the responses.

I actually haven't roamed pro-gun control sites. I'm pretty settled on 1-3, but I can't find a good reason against 4. Registering guns just doesn't "register" as anti-2nd to me. Banning ARMS is anti-2nd, knowing that you have a gun doesn't blip on the radar.

Manedwolf
December 7, 2006, 04:35 PM
As for registrations, Canada has a registration.

It's also quite likely it's been hacked, and is now serving as a shopping list for criminals. There's been a rash of thefts of entire gun collections that the thieves would have NO WAY of knowing about otherwise.

quatin
December 7, 2006, 04:39 PM
As for registrations, Canada has a registration.

It's also quite likely it's been hacked, and is now serving as a shopping list for criminals. There's been a rash of thefts of entire gun collections that the thieves would have NO WAY of knowing about otherwise.

Irony that keeping a firearm for home defense perpetuates people into breaking into your home? Perhaps I should put up the sign of "THERE ARE NO GUNS IN THIS HOME" so that I can prevent people from robbing me. Even still, that's like registering your car will allow thieves who hack to know which guy has the best car. Registration still doesn't seem to be the problem, people who abuse it seem to be the problem. Just like guns aren't the problem, people who abuse it are.

longrifleman
December 7, 2006, 04:51 PM
Registration still doesn't seem to be the problem, people who abuse it seem to be the problem. Just like guns aren't the problem, people who abuse it are.

Accurate as far as it goes, but if there is no registration, there is no way to abuse it.

I think this disagreement comes up because some people just can't bring themselves to really distrust govt, deep down where it counts. Therefore registration doesn't seem to be a problem. Some of us are a bit more cynical.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

azredhawk44
December 7, 2006, 04:54 PM
Irony that keeping a firearm for home defense perpetuates people into breaking into your home? Perhaps I should put up the sign of "THERE ARE NO GUNS IN THIS HOME" so that I can prevent people from robbing me. Even still, that's like registering your car will allow thieves who hack to know which guy has the best car. Registration still doesn't seem to be the problem, people who abuse it seem to be the problem. Just like guns aren't the problem, people who abuse it are.

Over the last hundred years, the greatest abusers of registered gun owners have been governments. Germany, Cambodia, Russia, China, Canada, California, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Washington DC. All to varying degrees, from harrassment, to property confiscation (theft), to murder or genocide.

Would Waco have happened if the FBI/BATFE didn't know anything about any firearms at the site?

Would Ruby Ridge have happened if FBI/BATFE didn't know or care about unregistered short-barreled shotguns?

junyo
December 7, 2006, 04:54 PM
So if a gun is constitutional right, then why bother about fearing the government knowing you possess one? If you are planning on a defense against when the government decides to scrap the bill of rights, shouldn't you not register anything for the strategic purpose of them not finding you at all?

Registration still doesn't seem to be the problem, people who abuse it seem to be the problem. Just like guns aren't the problem, people who abuse it are.But that's exactly the point. No matter how much you like the government now, you don't know what you'll get down the road. And it's not like once registered you can go down to the local registry office and say "I'd like to unregister all my weapons because the new government scares the living bejeezus out of me". So ideally you should never have to register anything.

A lot of systems work great on paper. Heck, communism worked on paper. Mix in the human propensity to f' up a good thing and the road to hell is paved with yadayadayada...

cropcirclewalker
December 7, 2006, 04:58 PM
Sorry, Mr. quatin, I wasn't really speaking to you. I was asking the Original Poster.

To me registration will succeed in getting most subject to just turn in the firearms when the time comes.

No, there will not be search parties going door to door. Those that fail to turn in will just get caught one by one during the course of everyday law enforcement.

Sorta like it is now.

We had a guy down here got so POd about a police helicopter hovering over his trailer looking for marijuana (flagrant violation of 4th amendment) that he took a deer rifle out and shot it down. Yes, they got him.

He got 7 years. I think at least 5 of them were for "felon in possession"

That kinda thing.

Manedwolf
December 7, 2006, 05:01 PM
As for registrations, Canada has a registration.

It's also quite likely it's been hacked, and is now serving as a shopping list for criminals. There's been a rash of thefts of entire gun collections that the thieves would have NO WAY of knowing about otherwise.

ksnecktieman
December 7, 2006, 05:02 PM
Is the first amendment for journalists only?
How does the first Amendment apply to an individual?
Should we ban high speed printers?
Should we register printing presses?

armedpolak
December 7, 2006, 05:03 PM
I was born and raised in Poland (1980). I remember the martial law taking effect, becasue of the raising popularity of the solidarity movement, the soviets ordered polish satelite government to take care of it, or else they would. Jaruzelski in response orders the military takeover of the country ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojciech_Jaruzelski ). Now, solidarity was a peaceful movement, aimed at taking over the control of the country. Peaceful, because we were disarmed. So, here's what happens: soldiers and tanks on the streets (btw, if you ever wondered why most roads in eastern block were so narrow they could barely fit two cars, it's because they were designed to be blocked by one tank). no one allowed on the street after dark till 6am. permits needed to travel outside of your hometown. not to mention the borders were sealed too. it get's worse... since socialist government controls everything, guess what happens... food disapears from the stores. water gets regurarly cut of, gas too. i guess the thinking was to keep people busy scrumbling for food and fire, so they don't have time to revolt. of course we couldn't anyway... no guns.

now, for the punch line: my parents once told me, that when all this was taking place, people getting shot on the streets and terrorized by their own government (for their own good of course) they waited and prayed USA would step in and help!!! it didn't happen, oh well.

so to answer your questions: I, personally, went to sleep hungry and dirty, in a cold apartment, because government cut of our supply of food, water, and heat. all in the name of equality, freedom, and social justice.

i know, some people brag how they will never surrender their guns. i only pray i will have enough currage to fight, once the confiscation begins. i came to this country, learned the language, got a job, paid taxes, and now i live as a free man. i will not quietly cry at night because my child is asking me for food, and I can't provide... like my parents did when i was little.

hope that gives you some perspective into what governments are capable of.

live free or die.

ArmedPolak

EDIT: read this: http://www.videofact.com/english/martial_law.htm

quatin
December 7, 2006, 05:05 PM
Accurate as far as it goes, but if there is no registration, there is no way to abuse it.

Let's not get into that :( I believe that's how gun control started. If there were no guns no one would abuse it. Let's blame the abuser not the system.

But that's exactly the point. No matter how much you like the government now, you don't know what you'll get down the road. And it's not like once registered you can go down to the local registry office and say "I'd like to unregister all my weapons because the new government scares the living bejeezus out of me". So ideally you should never have to register anything.

A lot of systems work great on paper. Heck, communism worked on paper. Mix in the human propensity to f' up a good thing and the road to hell is paved with yadayadayada...

But that's not a solution to avoiding an oppressive government. If it was legally done, then you can elect not to be governed by such by either moving or fighting for change. Hiding guns doesn't seem to be like setting a good example if your intent is not to ever allow guns to be banned in the first place.

mountainclmbr
December 7, 2006, 05:08 PM
The first draft of the 2nd ammendment did not have the militia clause in it. Most of the founders feared a standing army that owed allegience to politicians. They favored a military of armed citizens that would prevent the government from attaining total power. The founders thought that the best way to keep a free state was for the citizens to be the ones who controlled the firearms and that is why the militia clause was added. The 100 million or so people killed in the last century by their own leftist governments is a good example of the danger of totalitarian government power. The fact that it is almost always the leftists here that argue for gun registration and bans should really alarm anyone who has learned from history.

glummer
December 7, 2006, 05:08 PM
quatin
How is this different from motor vehicle registration?
How is registering Jews different from motor vehicle registration?
Motor vehicle registration has never been used as a means of suppressing peaceful, lawful political/social activities.
Gun control is always about suppression of somebody, and it is virtually never criminals who are the real targets.

pax
December 7, 2006, 05:12 PM
armedpolak ~

What a beautiful, moving post.

Everyone, go read that one again.

pax

Jim March
December 7, 2006, 05:16 PM
The1911Man: ironically, the reason we MUST oppose registration at all cost is that some segments of government are fighting to define their ability to completely disarm us at their whim.

A very good example of this "thinking" is the latest 9th Circuit opinion on the subject:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/Silveira.pdf

NOTE: this is the original version. It relies in part on the "scholarship" of a guy name of Michael Bellesiles. Shortly after the Silveira decision was published, Bellesiles was thrown out of his teaching position at Emory in disgrace and stripped of his history prize for the book "Arming America". When that happened, a new "official" copy of the Silveira decision was published excising the link to Bellesiles. But that wasn't enough, because the decision also linked to "scholarship" that in turn was based on Bellesiles' work. Anyways. The official decision on Findlaw or whatever will be the edited variant, while the link above may be the only text of the original decision available.

You can also see my de-construction of this decision here:

http://www.americanminutemen.org/reinhardt.htm

Right now the 9th Circuit and 5th Circuits are split on the subject of whether or not we have an individual civil right to self defense and the arms necessary to ensure that right. In several other circuits there are also "no individual right" decisions in place BUT they differ with each other (and the 9th) on exactly what mechanism caused the 2nd Amendment to either evaporate somehow or was null and void at inception.

IF the US Supreme Court ever came down firmly on our side and ended the debate (or at least put it on hold for a while), gun registration would be less dangerous.

As it is, large sections of our gov't at both the Judicial and Legislative branches (and as of this moment, minor elements of the Executive branch) are avowed criminals, with the stated GOAL of stripping us of yet another civil right - the right to self defense. Read the 9th Circuit decision in Silveira and my rebuttal if you don't believe me - you'll see that the Silveira decision was actually penned in part by the ACLU.

Under those conditions, do you really see registration as a good thing, when the registry will end up in the hands of admitted criminals?

Old Fuff
December 7, 2006, 05:18 PM
Frankly, the state want's you to register your car so that each year they can hit you with a (sometimes substantial) fee or tax. The amount is obviously much larger the the actual cost of doing the registration.

Gun registration is often advocated as a means of controling an object (the gun) to prevent criminals and other questionable persons from obtaining or using them. Again, it should be obvious that those persons that aren't supposed to have guns aren't going to pay any attention to the rules. States and cities that have strict gun control laws are awash with illegal ones, and always have been.

Permits and registration are tools that can only be used againist the law-abiding.

It may shock some to learn that the Supreme Court has ruled that you can't make a convicted felon register a gun because doing so would violate his/her 5th Amendment rights. :what:

quatin
December 7, 2006, 05:20 PM
How is registering Jews different from motor vehicle registration?
Motor vehicle registration has never been used as a means of suppressing peaceful, lawful political/social activities.
Gun control is always about suppression of somebody, and it is virtually never criminals who are the real targets.

Your race, gender, parents and name are registered when you are born. Car registration COULD be used as a means of suppression. After all isn't that the whole argument here that gun registration COULD be used to pick up guns when the time comes? Either way, I don't see blaming registration as the cause of gun control. If the government wants your guns, they'll come for it registration or not. The problem then is not registration, it's government.

benEzra
December 7, 2006, 05:24 PM
Hi, newbie here. I am interested in checking both sides of the "Gun Rights" issue and this site was recommended. So please, humor a fence sitter and please put forth some academic discussion.
Hello, and welcome.

Isn't the second Amendment for Militias only?
The militia is only mentioned in the amendment's preamble. The main clause states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Not the militia--the people.

How does the second Amendment apply to an individual?
As individuals make up the "people" in the first, second, and other amendments, the 2ndA applies to an individual the same way the others do. By requiring, at the very least, a Strict Scrutiny paradigm for any potential infringements.

Why is banning certain types of guns like assault rifles a bad thing?
You're probably thinking of the term "assault weapon," since actual assault rifles ARE strictly controlled by Federal law, and mere possession of one without a BATFE Form 4 is a 10-year Federal felony.

"Assault weapon" isn't a type of gun; rather, it's a term of demonization used by the ban-more-guns lobby. The most common definition of "assault weapon" is a civilian self-loading rifle with a handgrip that sticks out; a civilian rifle or pistol that holds more than 6 or 10 rounds of ammunition; or a civilian shotgun that holds more than 3 or 5 shells. Broadly defined, an "assault weapon" ban could affect half of all gun owners, including my wife and I.

Also, please note that according to the FBI, all rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides annually. That is reason enough to show the idiocy of banning popular civilian target/defensive rifles and shotguns because of the way the stock is shaped.

Don't take my word for it--see for yourself:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

Why is registering your guns a bad idea?
Because there is a small but very well-funded lobby in this country attempting to ban various makes and models of firearm, and the lack of a centralized "who owns what" list is the single biggest obstacle to such confiscations.

Thanks for your questions.

glummer
December 7, 2006, 05:25 PM
1911
Isn't the second Amendment for Militias only?
It doesn't say that.

How does the second Amendment apply to an individual?
It says "right of the people", in English. Why would you think it meant anything else?
(That's not a rhetorical question. You have a reason for somehow not reading plain English properly. What is that reason? The only ones I can think of involve intellectual dishonesty. I hope you can show me a GOOD reason.)

Why is banning certain types of guns like assault rifles a bad thing?
Why is banning certain types of hairdos like dreadlocks a bad thing?
Why is banning certain types of headgear like yarmulkes a bad thing?
These are all hate laws, crafted by people who wish to suppress/eliminate certain cultural behaviors/groups.

Why is registering your guns a bad idea?
Why is registering Jews a bad idea?

LanEvo`
December 7, 2006, 05:26 PM
I have to ask here if registration makes any difference when it comes time that they decide to strip guns from the country. Would you just sit about and do nothing even if your gun wasn't registered? Wasn't the point to have guns to defend the bill of rights? How is this different from motor vehicle registration?Not to be glib, but as my high-school driver's ed teacher told me years ago, driving is a privilege...not a right.

You don't need to go through an FBI background check, submit to fingerprinting, and sign a federal registry to exercise your right to free speech or to practice your chosen religion. Why is the right to protect your life and liberty treated any differently?

Even worse is the issue of CCW. Why should a local police chief (frequently a politically appointed position...and clearly an agent of the state) get the final say as to whose life is worth protecting and whose isn't? Around here (Boston), a jeweler can get a CCW without any trouble...but a doctor or stay-at-home mother (for example) can't get one. Who is the police chief to make such an arbitrary value judgment about people's lives?


Car registration COULD be used as a means of suppression. After all isn't that the whole argument here that gun registration COULD be used to pick up guns when the time comes?No...that is not the main argument at all. The main argument is that the ownership of firearms and the ability to carry firearms are Constitutionally protected, fundamental civil liberties that should never be infringed upon. Registration, licensing, fees, CCW permits, etc. are all steps in the direction of disarming the people and leaving all the power in the hands of uniformed agents of the state. This is an outcome that the founding fathers specifically wanted to avoid.

Like armedpolak, my family is from a part of the world (the Balkans) where we saw first-hand what happens when the people are disarmed and the government has too much power. Things wouldn't have turned out so badly for us in Kosovo if we could fight. Of course, Americans and Canadians will be quick to reply, "But that could never happen here. This is America!" They should ask themselves WHY America is different. Our respect for civil liberties is a large part of the equation...and not something we should give up for no reason.

DogBonz
December 7, 2006, 05:27 PM
1. If every black person had a firearm in colonial America, how long do you think that they would have stayed slaves?
2. If every Jew in Nazi Germany owned a firearm, do you think that “the final solution” would have been effective?

Do you see where I’m going with this?

junyo
December 7, 2006, 05:31 PM
But that's not a solution to avoiding an oppressive government. If it was legally done, then you can elect not to be governed by such by either moving or fighting for change. Hiding guns doesn't seem to be like setting a good example if your intent is not to ever allow guns to be banned in the first place.It's not hiding them to not tell people with no legitmate reason to care what I own, any more than it's "hiding" my watch to not flash it in a bad neighborhood. I'm a law abiding citizen, verified by state and federal government check at purchase. What further ongoing interest do they have in what I own?

And in a democracy, bad laws will get passed, and bad governments will get elected. Not everyone sees things the same as me (idiots, every one of them!). Nevertheless, snatching up a rifle everytime the law doesn't go your way isn't the answer either; removing a government by force isn't something to be done lightly, or while peaceful, democratic alternatives still exist. But it is something that free people reserve the right to do, and the right to maintain the tools to accomplish.
Car registration COULD be used as a means of suppression. After all isn't that the whole argument here that gun registration COULD be used to pick up guns when the time comes?Keep in mind that car registration is only required to use your car on public roads. If you want to buy a car and do donuts in your front yard, on private property, no registration required. And cars are a lot more dangerous than guns. So why should the mere ownership of a firearm require registration?

quatin
December 7, 2006, 05:34 PM
It's not hiding them to not tell people with no legitmate reason to care what I own, any more than it's "hiding" my watch to not flash it in a bad neighborhood. I'm a law abiding citizen, verified by state and federal government check at purchase. What further ongoing interest do they have in what I own?

And in a democracy, bad laws will get passed, and bad governments will get elected. Not everyone sees things the same as me (idiots, every one of them!). Nevertheless, snatching up a rifle everytime the law doesn't go your way isn't the answer either; removing a government by force isn't something to be done lightly, or while peaceful, democratic alternatives still exist. But it is something that free people reserve the right to do, and the right to maintain the tools to accomplish.

True, I've yet to see a good reason for gun registration. I'm merely saying that I've yet to be convinced there is an egregious effect from it.

So you propose to disobey the law when you judge it to be a bad law? Or do you see right to bear ARMS as a right that calls for revolution if ever tampered with?

ArmedBear
December 7, 2006, 05:44 PM
Deleted flame. -- pax

qwatin:

True, I've yet to see a good reason for gun registration. I'm merely saying that I've yet to be convinced there is an egregious effect from it.

Germany, 1936. That may not be real to you, but it's real to me. My parents lived under Nazi rule. Registration first, then siezure. That was the Nazis' 2-step plan, and it worked.

But if Nazi Germany, the Sudan, or Rwanda are too "extreme" for you, what about the Anglosphere, which resembles the US far more closely.

England, in the last decade. First registration, then confiscation of all handguns. Then autoloader centerfire rifles.

Australia confiscated all autoloader rifles and all shotguns other than doubles and singles, with a few pump guns allowed to those who "need them for work." This also happend in the past 10 years.

Since criminals with any level of sophistication don't use guns that are currently traceable to them, they would only be more careful if guns were registered. LE knows this. Therefore, the only purpose that registration could serve would be to make it a lot easier to confiscate firearms from the law-abiding who register them.

ArfinGreebly
December 7, 2006, 05:48 PM
Why is registering your guns a bad idea?

Well, let's look at that.

What possible reason could a government have for wanting registration?

The registration of cars has this valid aspect: cars use the roads and bridges that the government maintains, and the registration of cars is used (in theory) to offset the cost of this maintenance. We will ignore the fact that car registration is now used for identification and tracking purposes. We will further ignore that the access to this database of virtually every adult in the country is openly accessible by all layers of government.

What about guns? No infrastructure to maintain. In fact, if anything, gun ownership by civilians helps relieve some of the pressure on police forces, since common folk are now able to defend their own persons and domiciles.

Okay . . . any OTHER reason a government could have for wanting to know where all the guns are? Anyone? Bueller?

Doesn't help with tracking hunters. Hunters already have to buy a hunting license. If the "hunting" logic held any water, then fishing rods would be licensed, too.

Any OTHER reason a government might want to know where all the guns are?

Could it possibly be they're worried that one day they will do something they know will anger enough of the population that an uprising is possible? Well, that's an easy fix: just follow the guidelines of the Constitution. Simple. No uprising required.

No, that would only make sense if a legislator or legislators knew -- and planned -- that they would eventually write legislation that was so heinous (not to them, to the populace) that there would inevitably come a time when they'd have to disarm the people to avoid a "correction" of the government.

Can't happen here? What on earth would make anyone think that?

We have, right now, in our government, legislators whose ideal system is not a constitutional republic, but rather a socialism with a large, centralized government. Their term for this is "social democracy" but the term is deliberately misleading.

You've heard the argument that goes, "well, if you're not breaking the law and have nothing to hide, then what do you care if [abridged civil right here]?"

Here's a story that's familiar to many. I'll tell it as I can recall it, and those who know it better can correct me:
Many years ago, California, it was completely legal to own and use such weapons as the AR-15, and other weapons suitable for combat. There were precisely zero incidents of anyone ever staging a revolt with them (or with anything else, come to that). Using spurious "worry" logic, the legislature managed to convince the population that they should register these weapons, just to be safe. They promised that this would not lead to confiscation. Then one day, the legislature, with the stroke of a pen, criminalized the ownership of these same weapons. Conveniently, they already had a list of these weapons and who owned them and where they lived.

Okay, we now have examples, not only from foreign countries, but also from one of our own states in this union.

School book texts are being incrementally dilluted every year to de-emphasize and mis-characterize the 2nd amnendment and aspects of our history that established the culture that we have. It's quite likely that this is not because the books' authors are getting progressively more stupid or forgetful.

So, what possible reason could a government have for wanting registration of firearms?

Only one, really. To facilitate their removal when it's time.

quatin
December 7, 2006, 05:49 PM
Germany, 1936. That may not be real to you, but it's real to me. My parents lived under Nazi rule. Registration first, then siezure. That was the Nazis' 2-step plan, and it worked.

But if Nazi Germany, the Sudan, or Rwanda are too "extreme" for you, what about the Anglosphere, which resembles the US far more closely.

England, in the last decade. First registration, then confiscation of all handguns. Then autoloader centerfire rifles.

Australia confiscated all autoloader rifles and all shotguns other than doubles and singles, with a few pump guns allowed to those who "need them for work." This also happend in the past 10 years.

Since criminals with any level of sophistication don't use guns that are currently traceable to them, they would only be more careful if guns were registered. LE knows this. Therefore, the only purpose that registration could serve would be to make it a lot easier to confiscate firearms from the law-abiding who register them.

Once again, I have to repeat that the problem then is government, not registration. Would the Nazis have been nicer if gun registration was not allowed? Would Rawanda rebels have been not so murderous if only there was no gun registration?

junyo
December 7, 2006, 05:54 PM
True, I've yet to see a good reason for gun registration. I'm merely saying that I've yet to be convinced there is an egregious effect from it.

So you propose to disobey the law when you judge it to be a bad law? Or do you see right to bear ARMS as a right that calls for revolution if ever tampered with?The egregious effect is mostly potential - right now. There have been a few limited instances of the list of people who possess carry permits being dumped into police databases so that they're flagged duringa traffic stop; with registration it's just another dataset to be dumped. But as we discussed earlier, once done it's hard to take back. and it's easy to imagine scenerios where it will facilitate abuse. My question to you is what do we as citizens gain from registration? because I believe it's not enough to say "it does no harm"; to force me to submit to any fee, chore, or duty I think the government has to show me a tangible benefit.

As to the latter question, as a completely personal answer, I believe that my loyalty to the political construct of our government and my obediance to it's laws are part of a pact, that I am party to so long as they act with good faith toward me, as defined by the Constitution. There is a process to amend the Constitution, so the possibility of some tampering must be accepted; if I can't live with it, I need to find another country. However, if and when they break that pact, and violate those rules, I'm no longer subject to their laws.

carebear
December 7, 2006, 05:54 PM
When a bad law has been passed it is the DUTY of the citizen to oppose it. First through their representative, then through the courts and, yes, if necessary through disobedience. Sometimes these efforts occur simultaneously.

The exact parallel is the Civil Rights movement (actually 2nd Amendment struggles are explicitly PART of the former) in this country. Any time a right, enshrined in the Constitution, like the right to bear arms or the right to vote is restricted by government we have to oppose it.

To use another parallel. Gun registration is an exact parallel to "literacy tests" to vote. They make some sense, kinda, and in theory they don't restrict the franchise but in practice they could be and WERE used to deprive innocent, law-abiding people of their rights by government. Thus they had to be opposed.

I would turn your question around, what is the positive side of gun registration. How exactly does it benefit society if it worked perfectly and all law-abiding gun owners participated 100%? Name one thing.

How exactly does it ensure that the only folks we really care about, criminals, who break other laws, would follow it? More police intrusion to make sure all guns are registered? If they don't search my house they have no idea how many guns I have and the system (like Canada's) fails out of the gate. And I'm a "good guy".

The criminal with a gun is already breaking the law, is he going to be more deterred if that already illegally possessed gun is also unregistered? Short of imposing an instant execution policy I don't see why.

It's unworkable in practice (and theory by anyone who thinks about it for a couple minutes) and doesn't have the ability to achieve any positive goal (not that I can think of one) without NECESSITATING further violations of individual's rights.

There's no upside. Why do it?

Also, in debate and in life, it's the ethical duty of the one proposing adding a law to justify and defend it, not of those opposed to say why it shouldn't.

So, what's the "pro" argument, in detail? :confused:

ProguninTN
December 7, 2006, 05:55 PM
Yes, government is the problem. Registration is a tool to aid tyranny. Gun registration lists are little more than a list of who has the means to resist. Once a person is determined to be capable of resisting (they have guns), their means (the guns) must be confiscated to make them subservient.

ArmedBear
December 7, 2006, 05:55 PM
I have to repeat that the problem then is government, not registration. Would the Nazis have been nicer if gun registration was not allowed? Would Rawanda rebels have been not so murderous if only there was no gun registration?

Actually, the Nazis wouldn't have been nicer, but they'd have been deader. You have to understand that they didn't start out by announcing their intentions. They started out by neutralizing their opposition. By the time the Jews knew of their real fate, they could do little or nothing about it, for example.

Same goes for Rwanda. Had families been able to defend themselves, the slaughter would have been halted. As it stood, a man with a machete could easily kill whomever he wanted to.

And of course the problem is government. But that's been true for all human history. Government must be held in check at many levels. There's no such thing as a government that never abuses its power. Government is just a bunch of people, not angels.

Nearly every day, I hear some politician say something on the news, and I think, without all the safeguards we have, there would be someone who'd happily be a Nazi, or a Stalinist, or whatever, if it brought him money and power. And I think we have a reasonably GOOD system.

quatin
December 7, 2006, 06:10 PM
I would turn your question around, what is the positive side of gun registration. How exactly does it benefit society if it worked perfectly and all law-abiding gun owners participated 100%? Name one thing.

You're going to have to go back a few posts where I stated that I don't see any meaningful effects of gun registration.

The1911Man asked : "Why is gun registration a bad idea?" to start this thread. Let's not turn the question back onto itself.

My answer to that question is that I don't see any egregious effects. Saying the US government COULD use gun registration to ban guns is awfully speculative. I don't see any argument saying gun registration has harm itself, but that it COULD be used to ban guns. A gun COULD be used as harm and historically HAS been used for evil, but that alone does not legitimize a ban, because again we are not blaming a tool or a system, but those who abuse them. Does banning guns eliminate criminals? Does it harm the innocents? Does banning gun registration eliminate anti-gunners? Does THAT harm the innocents?
Well that last question I really don't know. I've yet to see a good argument FOR gun registration. I see gun registration as a moot point, not evil not good.

ArmedBear
December 7, 2006, 06:21 PM
I've yet to see a good argument FOR gun registration. I see gun registration as a moot point, not evil not good.

Did you read my post?

1. Criminals avoid using traceable guns or registered guns. There's ample evidence for this here in the US and in similar societies with registration and gun bans, e.g. the UK.

2. Law Enforcement is aware of this fact, and can not in good faith believe that registration of firearms will lead to easier apprehension of criminals, or deter crime.

3. Because of this, the only rational purpose of registration of firearms by law-abiding citizens is to allow the government to revoke that registration, i.e. take the firearms from the citizens.

I am not stating that registration could lead to confiscation. I am stating that this has happened regularly wherever it is implemented, and that, rationally, the only purpose of requiring the law-abiding to register their firearms is to allow the government to easily take them.

The purpose of our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, is to prevent the government, even when acting with the support of the majority of Americans, from usurping fundamental rights. These include freedom of speech, property ownership, and realistic self-defense.

Our government works because it is limited, not because it could ever be perfect!

If it was legally done, then you can elect not to be governed by such by either moving or fighting for change.

Without any weapons?

Or are do you think that modern Iranians, Germans in the 1930s, North Koreans, or even many people in Latin American can "fight" by voting?

If a government is truly oppressive, will it allow you to simply tell it to buzz off? Hasn't happened yet.

carebear
December 7, 2006, 06:24 PM
Exactly.

If it has no good, there's no need for it at all.

Under the principles of freedom and liberty the default setting for laws, rules and regulations is "do not make more" UNLESS they can provably prevent an evil or achieve a good.

Registration cannot be demonstrated to do either, thus making it law should not even be discussed. Much less debated like passing is a potential option.

brufener
December 7, 2006, 06:26 PM
The1911Man asked : "Why is gun registration a bad idea?" to start this thread. Let's not turn the question back onto itself.

My answer to that question is that I don't see any egregious effects. Saying the US government COULD use gun registration to ban guns is awfully speculative. I've yet to see a good argument FOR gun registration. I see gun registration as a moot point, not evil not good.

Seems to me if there is no good argument for gun registration, but there are ways gun registration COULD be used badly (even if it is unlikely), then there shouldn't be gun registration because it does no good and has the potential for bad.

Is there a flaw in my logic somewhere?

ArmedBear
December 7, 2006, 06:35 PM
Well, bruefner, I'd say that your logic is similar to the logic that parents apply when they don't leave a lit kerosene lamp on a table near an unattended toddler.

The kid probably won't knock it over, in fact that table is pretty stable. Still, though, we put out the lamp, because the consequences are great.

When one evaluates risk, one also must evaluate the consequences of the downside, however unlikely.

Most of us avoid low-risk actions that carry with them extreme negative consequences, e.g. looking down a gun barrel. Guns are highly unlikely to just "go off." But do you look down the barrel of a loaded one?

benEzra
December 7, 2006, 06:47 PM
Saying the US government COULD use gun registration to ban guns is awfully speculative.
Registration has already been used to facilitate bans/confiscations in this country, of guns labeled "assault weapons."

Registration lists wouldn't be used to target ALL guns, just those affected by the ban du jour. "Assault weapons," small handguns, .50's, etc.

quatin
December 7, 2006, 06:48 PM
I am not stating that registration could lead to confiscation. I am stating that this has happened regularly wherever it is implemented, and that, rationally, the only purpose of requiring the law-abiding to register their firearms is to allow the government to easily take them.

I've addressed this earlier in my post. Although that's very speculative of what gun registration does, if it was true IT DOESN'T MATTER. If the 2nd A is worth fighting for, it SHOULDN'T MATTER if they know you have a gun or not, because after all what have we been arguing the whole time against gun control? ANYTHING can be used as a weapon and there are things more POTENT than a gun. IF you think the 2nd A is worth fighting for, WHAT DOES IT MATTER if the government knows you have a gun? They should know everyone who has a gun is willing to fight for it. Even if they knew who has a gun does that mean you have now forefitted your weapons? Do you now not fight back now that they know you have a gun?

Seems to me if there is no good argument for gun registration, but there are ways gun registration COULD be used badly (even if it is unlikely), then there shouldn't be gun registration because it does no good and has the potential for bad.

Is there a flaw in my logic somewhere?

No, I guess I should've been more clear that the "COULD" in that sentence doesn't mean I claim there is one. I should've also implied gun registration "COULD" be used for benefit. My point being I see no REASONABLE potential for harm or good from gun registration.

ArmedBear
December 7, 2006, 06:55 PM
Even if they knew who has a gun does that mean you have now forefitted your weapons? Do you now not fight back now that they know you have a gun?

Think about this just briefly.

If they don't know you have it, you don't have to fight for it.

If they do know you have it, and they come and take it, you have the choice to give it up or to start shooting.

If you give it up, you are disarmed, like the Jews in 1936.

If you resist passively, they will take the gun, and then take you to jail.

If you stand and fight, you will die. You may take some with you, but you will end up dead.

Those are your two choices, if "they" know what guns you have.

Maybe you don't have a family, but I do, and that's not a Hobson's choice that ought to be forced on me.

Note that the 2nd Amendment is to defend against oppression, so we could do a bit more than hope it won't happen. If a government isn't oppressive, there won't be any need for armed resistance. You only need the gun in a situation where the government has crossed the line into oppression.

TX1911fan
December 7, 2006, 06:56 PM
If gun registration were like car registration, many of us may actually be ok with it. I can buy a car from an individual, decide not to drive that car on public roads, and never register it. It can be on my farm, etc. and the government never knows I own it (listen to Rush's famous song Red Barchetta for a great example) (the band Rush, not the talk show Rush).

So, to use that example, if I buy a gun, if I decide I don't want to use it at public facilities, but instead use it only at private ranges, then I don't have to register it.

I agree with the other posters that anything that makes exercise of a right more difficult is an infingement, so those wanting to do the infringing must prove why it is necessary, and that the infringement will be effective at achieving it's intended purpose. Unless a good reason for registration can be given, and that reason is more important than the harm to the rights upon which it infringes, then there should be no registration.

Think for example if we required anyone who wanted everyone who ever spoke negatively about the President of the United States to have to register. Would that be a bad idea? Of course it would, for many reasons.

the pistolero
December 7, 2006, 06:56 PM
The problem then is not registration, it's government.

Considering, however, that firearm registration is a government (or State sanctioned, if you prefer) scheme, well then, yes, to that extent it is indeed a huge problem. The State's record isn't so good in the 20th century, with I believe some 170 million killed by their own government in that century alone. One might think we're immune to what's gone on in other countries in the 20th century, but as for me, I don't want to find out the hard way that the people we elected to lead us were indeed not immune. As Alex Kozinski said in his dissent to the denial of appeal in Silveira v. Lockyer,

The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

I don't see blaming registration as the cause of gun control.

Registration doesn't cause gun control; it only facilitates it, as Arfin said. It is only going to make it that much easier for those who would disarm us to do the deed. And that's more than enough for me (and many others, I am sure) to say that its costs far outweigh its benefits.

Would the Nazis have been nicer if gun registration was not allowed?

I don't remember who exactly put it like this, but it was right on the money:
Q: Why do we have the Second Amendment?
A: Because an armed population is not so easily herded into cattle cars.

Somehow I think if the Nazis had not known where exactly the armed Jews were, (which would, I guess, had been the case had the aforementioned Jews told the Nazis what they could do with that registration scheme) the Nazis would have acted with a little more trepidation when it was time to go round the Jews up and herd them into cattle cars.

Once again, to recap:
Registration is a problem because it is a scheme drawn up by a body which has, to say the least, a less-than-stellar record when it comes to the natural rights of the people it presides over.

Moving on...
So you propose to disobey the law when you judge it to be a bad law?

You make this out to be a bad thing, but as carebear pointed out, citizens have a duty to disobey bad laws. And juries throughout our history have recognized citizens following this duty by returning not-guilty verdicts -- when they believed the accused to be guilty -- in cases involving the harboring of slaves, and more recently in the 1930s when Prohibition was in effect. This is known as the doctrine of jury nullification. What carebear is talking about is something like that on the citizen level.

carebear
December 7, 2006, 06:59 PM
Forget corruption or confiscation then.

Oppose it simply to save money. Once there's a registration passed, they'll need software, manpower, offices, training etc. ad nauseum. This can be documented by the incredible waste of money in Canada's recent attempt and the numerous state-level schemes currently in existence.

How will they fund it? Registration fees. If those don't cover the cost then it will have to be tax dollars.

But then the anti-gunners will complain that they get no benefit from the law so why should they pay, so registration fees will go up for those who do. Until gun ownership is effectively taxed out of the means of many people, like car ownership has started to become.

Heck, if you are a Schumer or Pelosi, who needs an actual ban if you can set it up so that it it costs half the cost of the gun to register it every couple years (car registration for me is now close to $200, there's a LOT more guns out there to track and it wouldn't be spread out state by state). And, if you don't pay, they know your name and address and can come ...wait for it... fine you/lien you/cite you or ...wait for it... confiscate it for non-payment.

Correia
December 7, 2006, 07:00 PM
Saying the US government COULD use gun registration to ban guns is awfully speculative.

Is there any country in the history of the world that has not proceeded to confiscate or ban weapons once there was a registration?

I see gun registration as a moot point, not evil not good.

Okay, let's break this down to its component bits. For it to be neutral, neither evil or good, we would need 50% good points, and 50% bad points right?

Good Points:

1. Crime control. Doesn't work. Criminals will steal or use unregistered guns, hence them being criminals.
2. People control. Only good if you think that citizens are the equivelent of livestock to be tagged and milked.

Total Good points: 0

Bad Points:

1. Registration leads to confiscation, even if you don't think it does, or that it is because a government is evil, and not registration is evil, either way, it is a tool of confiscation. 1 point.
2. It costs a ton of tax payer money: See Canada. They are spending billions of dollars, and because the good folks of Alberta and the NW Territories have the guts to stand up to the .gov, it doesn't work. 1 point.

Okay, zero to two. Scales are tipped.

Quatin, you've talked repeatedly about how it isn't registration that is bad, it is the government that is bad. Okay, so lets say that registration is in fact totally neutral. But it can't be used as a tool for good, but it is a dandy tool for evil, so why exactly should we give that tool to a government that may decide to be evil someday?

Nuclear power is neutral too, but I don't want to give Iran a bunch of plutonium.

You've also brought up the whole thing about that if we were actually going to defend our rights, then it wouldn't matter if we were registered. Okay, here's my personal take on that.

If there is a .gov To Do list, I should be in the upper portion. I'm a licensed dealer and manufacturer of machine guns and suppresors. I like to think of myself as a canary in a coal mine. So when guys like me start to vanish, then you know that there's a problem.

Then you have people with 4473s or CCWs. The powers that be know that these people are armed with at least something. Personally I would like for there to be so damn many people with CCWs that the .gov would just look at the huge number of them and say "I'm not going there!"

But then you have the ace in the hole. The unregistered stockpiles. You think Iraq has a lot of guns hidden in it? Try Idaho. There are people out there who could arm their entire block with the stuff they have hidden in their basement, and none of those guns are on paper. The more people like that, the better for freedom.

Basically to believe in registration, you have to believe that the 2nd Amendment is not a good thing. If you believe in the 2nd Amendment, then you have to believe that registration is a bad thing.

As to the other original questions:

Isn't the second Amendment for Militias only?

What are militias made up of? Individuals.

How does the second Amendment apply to an individual?

See above. I'm pretty sure that the founding fathers weren't talking about the National Guard since the National Guard didn't get invented for another 160 years. :rolleyes:

Why is banning certain types of guns like assault rifles a bad thing?

It is feel good nonsense. Most people who harp about banning assault rifles wouldn't know one if it bit them in the rear.

Assault rifle has become a media term like Saturday Night Special. Once again, these laws are about people control.

If you believe in the 2nd Amendment, then you believe that people should have good weapons. I missed the part in there about hunting.

Plus the guns that are considered assault weapons are funner to shoot. :)

hugh damright
December 7, 2006, 07:02 PM
Isn't the second Amendment for Militias only?
I believe the Second Amendment is for the federal government only. I do not believe the federal government has power to disarm the militia or the people or the individuals - they are not delegated gun control powers.

How does the second Amendment apply to an individual?
I believe that the only federal protection of the individual RKBA is as it relates to militia, and that this federal protection is not from the Second Amendment but regardless of it.

Why is banning certain types of guns like assault rifles a bad thing?
If Virginians wanted to ban certain "assault rifles", and we did ban them, then I reckon we would consider that to be a good thing. But if the US bans certain "assault rifles" in Virginia, that is a bad thing, because they are not delegated any such power.

Why is registering your guns a bad idea?
For the same reason that registering your valuables with crooks would be a bad idea - their temptation would be too great.

junyo
December 7, 2006, 07:02 PM
Let's not turn the question back onto itself.

My answer to that question is that I don't see any egregious effects. Saying the US government COULD use gun registration to ban guns is awfully speculative. I don't see any argument saying gun registration has harm itself, but that it COULD be used to ban guns. A gun COULD be used as harm and historically HAS been used for evil, but that alone does not legitimize a ban, because again we are not blaming a tool or a system, but those who abuse them. Does banning guns eliminate criminals? Does it harm the innocents? Does banning gun registration eliminate anti-gunners? Does THAT harm the innocents?
Well that last question I really don't know. I've yet to see a good argument FOR gun registration. I see gun registration as a moot point, not evil not good.But we have to turn the question back upon itself to examine it's very premise and validity. I was wrong, there is a day to day practical detriment to an active gun registration process; cost. Nothing the government does is without cost, borne by all, and taken away from something else. Let's assume for a second as a purely theoretical exercise that the scales are completely balanced on registration, no benefit, no risk, completely neutral. Then as a matter of common sense, why should taxes be going to pay for something that provides zero benefit?

Now I don't believe that, as others have said, I believe that any risk on one side of the equation against zero gain makes the choice obvious. and I'm not really seeing any refutation of that other than not accepting that any risk exists.

Also I take issue with the statement "A gun COULD be used as harm and historically HAS been used for evil". Most solid objects and forms of energy could be used to harm and as far as I know guns have only been used to throw projectiles really fast. And the myriads of people through the ages that have put food on the table, defending their families, and thrown off oppression, either their own or someone else's would probably object to the characterization of their actions or intent as evil. Asking the exact same question that's being asked of registration, it's trivial to show the immediate benefits and gains, despite the obvious risks and drawbacks. Yet you're lumping them togather? May I ask why?

the pistolero
December 7, 2006, 07:06 PM
Although that's very speculative of what gun registration does, if it was true IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Well, yes, it does matter. It's not just about the guns, it's about the mindset of the people who choose to own them. It all starts on a grass-roots level. You take away the guns, and the people, to varying extents, are going to be more dependent on the all-powerful State (once again, who, in one place or another, has killed 170 million of its own people in the 20th century), and thus, more acquiescent to whatever that government wants to do -- if only because they have no choice in the matter because the government took away their most basic means of resistance.

brufener
December 7, 2006, 07:16 PM
If the 2nd A is worth fighting for, it SHOULDN'T MATTER if they know you have a gun or not, because after all what have we been arguing the whole time against gun control? ANYTHING can be used as a weapon and there are things more POTENT than a gun. IF you think the 2nd A is worth fighting for, WHAT DOES IT MATTER if the government knows you have a gun?

It matters because if it comes to a fight, it makes it easier for the "them" to win.

I agree that there are things more potent than a gun, but it doesn't logically follow that less potent things (i.e. guns) should be registered or taken away.

They should know everyone who has a gun is willing to fight for it.

You don't really believe that, do you? I don't even believe that everyone with a gun is willing to fight for it.

Even if they knew who has a gun does that mean you have now forefitted your weapons? Do you now not fight back now that they know you have a gun?

Like I said above, a registration system just makes it easier for "them."


No, I guess I should've been more clear that the "COULD" in that sentence doesn't mean I claim there is one. I should've also implied gun registration "COULD" be used for benefit.

I finally figured out what we are disagreeing. You want to ignore the fact that the government will interact with a gun registration system. On your terms, I agree with you.

A gun registration is not per se (i.e. inherently, or without reference to extrinsic circumstances) bad or evil.

Of course, gun registration (or anything for that matter) does not exist in a vacuum. Evaluating gun registration without looking at external factors (such as government) is a waste of time because gun registration will never exist without interacting with everything else. It is this interaction (i.e. government using gun registration) that has a potential for bad consequences.

My point being I see no REASONABLE potential for harm or good from gun registration

Numerous examples have been posted on this thread showing that gun registration leads to confiscation which leads to other evils. If you don't want to recognize what history has shown, that's your choice.

TX1911fan
December 7, 2006, 07:24 PM
brufener, you hit the nail on the head. One of the reasons Economics frustrated me so much in college was that you had to assume a perfect world in all of the examples you looked at. Nothing was ever real because if you used real facts, then the fancy formulas didn't work. That's what quatin is doing. Refusing to acknowledge the real world facts involved in a registration system is putting your head in the sand to the extreme. The FACTS indicate that in every situation a registration system has been implemented, it has (i) lead to confiscation, (ii) been enormously expensive, and/or (iii) been used for criminal purposes.

Sean Dempsey
December 7, 2006, 07:24 PM
Who are these PEOPLE in the government that will support seizing the weapons once they are registered?

I mean, WHO among us, which gun-toting LEO's and military are going to be the ones that knock on our doors and take the weapons? Obviously if they are there for our guns, they have guns. So they obviously think guns are useful.

How many LEO's on this board would seize the guns of citizens if ordered? Seriously, it always confuses me. The "government" is just made up of our fellow neighbors and citizens. So which neighbors are going to carry out the orders?

Plus, if the government comes after the guns, won't they need guns to do so? And wouldn't that mean that the optimal position for us, the citizen, is as an agent of the government? If the only people with guns are the totalitarian police, you could always join them and keep your guns.

TX1911fan
December 7, 2006, 07:25 PM
Sean, you can't be serious! Have you forgotten Hurricane Katrina already? At least there, the cops had to go door to door. Just think what a boon it would have been had they had a print out.

I think I've made similar comments to Sean in the past, but have learned that there are more than a few LEOs who would resort to confiscation if told to do so.

quatin
December 7, 2006, 07:30 PM
Well I think we have boiled it down to this point. I don't think gun registration is a large hindrance.

We are now arguing over the potential use of gun registration. I don't see the POTENTIAL use of gun registration as a means to confiscate weapons enough to make it entirely egregious. I'm not the one to call alterior motive on gun registration as some of you have. I'm not sure how to convince me or anyone otherwise once we've reached this point. So I guess now is where we go to the voting booths to fight it out, so to speak.

As for the vehicle registration thing, I had meant it in the terms of "anything could be a potential weapon". If I had a registered vehicle, in a war it means I have a mobile bomb. Could this be treated similarly?

As for the whole "what if the government decides to confiscate all guns" musings. At that time you can either follow the law and give up your guns or you can mobilize and form a defense. What use is a gun hidden in one man's closet? You shouldn't be waiting for the opposing force to knock on your door asking for your weapons in the first place. I'm not into tactical musings, but I'd like to think in all rationale that if the government did want to oppress you, you're in a losing battle whether you have guns or not. Your gun is no match for a F-22 raptor or a M1A2 Abrhams tank. You'd still lose, although if it makes you feel better you take some with you.

brufener
December 7, 2006, 07:34 PM
Who are these PEOPLE in the government that will support seizing the weapons once they are registered?

LEOs, just like the ones in New Orleans during Katrina. Don't forget, a federal court found the gun confiscations illegal, yet none of the LEOs had the foresight or courage to see what the court saw.

How many LEO's on this board would seize the guns of citizens if ordered? Seriously, it always confuses me. The "government" is just made up of our fellow neighbors and citizens. So which neighbors are going to carry out the orders?

The people that carry out the orders are those who think they have something to gain by doing it. Usually it is some sort of financial favor from those in power, or perhaps a higher position of authority. Sometimes they just want to avoid being stepped on by those in power.

Plus, if the government comes after the guns, won't they need guns to do so? And wouldn't that mean that the optimal position for us, the citizen, is as an agent of the government? If the only people with guns are the totalitarian police, you could always join them and keep your guns.

That assumes you have no moral problem with oppressing your fellowman and ignoring the constitution. It also assumes that they will let you join them. Do you think a Jew could have signed up to serve in the Nazi army?

TX1911fan
December 7, 2006, 07:39 PM
Ask the troops in Iraq right now if those guns are useful against F22s or Abrams tanks. They seem to be doing pretty well.

quatin, are there any Constitutional rights you would be opposed to being infringed through registration? What if you had to register in order to exercise your First Amendment rights? Should we require that anyone wanting to practice their religion register first? And, since it will cost, then you have to pay to register before you can join a religion. And since there are fewer Anglicans than Baptists, the cost should be more for them to maintain the registration. And since we don't think atheist is even a religion, you can't register for that. And some day when the government decides it doesn't like Mormons any more (like what happened in the 1800s in Missouri), then we just go to our handly list and round them all up, right?

Or, if you want to oppose the government, you have to register first. Then, when the government decides they are tired of all this opposition, they know where to go to find all the rabble rousers. Or, conversely, if you oppose the government without first registering, then we get to throw you in jail right now.

With respect to vehicle registration, many dictatorial countries have restrictions on their people and have either prohibited private ownership of motor vehicles, or have made the process of obtaining travel permits so difficult that people no longer exercise their right to move about freely. A vehicle registration list provides a convenient resource for doing so.

brufener
December 7, 2006, 07:39 PM
As for the whole "what if the government decides to confiscate all guns" musings. At that time you can either follow the law and give up your guns or you can mobilize and form a defense. What use is a gun hidden in one man's closet?

It lets you choose the time and place of the battle, instead of "them."

You shouldn't be waiting for the opposing force to knock on your door asking for your weapons in the first place.

Assumes you have notice that "they" are coming.

I'm not into tactical musings, but I'd like to think in all rationale that if the government did want to oppress you, you're in a losing battle whether you have guns or not. Your gun is no match for a F-22 raptor or a M1A2 Abrhams tank. You'd still lose, although if it makes you feel better you take some with you.

Our current situation in Iraq indicates otherwise.

ArmedBear
December 7, 2006, 07:43 PM
You'd still lose, although if it makes you feel better you take some with you.

As someone whose entire family lived and nearly died under the Nazis, that's all I ask. It's my duty.

How many LEO's on this board would seize the guns of citizens if ordered?

Uh, probably more than one.

And 99.999% of LEO's AREN'T on this board. Ever met any?

Try to have a conversation with them about the morality or effectiveness of some laws? It's eye-opening, to say the least. (I'm not bashing LEO's; I am, however, saying that there are many, many, many LEO's who will confiscate weapons from law-abiding citizens if told to, and they'd believe they were doing the right thing.)

I can say with good confidence that humans believe all sorts of odd things if told in the right way, and LEO's are not immune.

I see quatin, though, as an example of an American who has no real concept of what an oppressive government means. It's a good thing, in one way, but it could lead to our demise as a free nation, in another.

carebear
December 7, 2006, 07:49 PM
3 pages and still not one reason given as to why we might want registration at all, even given just the expense... :confused:

Are we promoting it as something to have, just to have? Let's register microwave ovens or guitars then. :rolleyes:

Just one reason, however specious, that's all I ask.

junyo
December 7, 2006, 07:51 PM
for the vehicle registration thing, I had meant it in the terms of "anything could be a potential weapon". If I had a registered vehicle, in a war it means I have a mobile bomb. Could this be treated similarly?
Which has been commeted on several times. Most of those things actually require zero registration, and are scarcely monitored after purchase. So why are firearms a special case?

I'm not into tactical musings, but I'd like to think in all rationale that if the government did want to oppress you, you're in a losing battle whether you have guns or not. Your gun is no match for a F-22 raptor or a M1A2 Abrhams tank. You'd still lose, although if it makes you feel better you take some with you. Someone contemplating such oppression has to factor how they're going to accomplish it with a couple million law enforcement and military against fifty million gun owners with a couple hundred million guns sprinkled throughout the country. Tanks and planes are wonderful tools against armies, hard to hit a single guy though, and everything you hit by accident makes another potential enemy. if you were the guy making the call, are you liking those odds?

ArmedBear
December 7, 2006, 07:52 PM
Hell, let's register all clothing in colors worn by gangs.:p

Why shouldn't we?

If you're not a gangbanger, what are you afraid of?

quatin
December 7, 2006, 07:53 PM
Ask the troops in Iraq right now if those guns are useful against F22s or Abrams tanks. They seem to be doing pretty well.

Why? Did someone actually succesfully defend themselves against fighter aircraft with a rifle?

quatin, are there any Constitutional rights you would be opposed to being infringed through registration? What if you had to register in order to exercise your First Amendment rights? Should we require that anyone wanting to practice their religion register first? And, since it will cost, then you have to pay to register before you can join a religion. And since there are fewer Anglicans than Baptists, the cost should be more for them to maintain the registration. And since we don't think atheist is even a religion, you can't register for that. And some day when the government decides it doesn't like Mormons any more (like what happened in the 1800s in Missouri), then we just go to our handly list and round them all up, right?

No. There's not. As long as those rights are not hindered or violated afterwards I don't. If the government decides to hinder those rights, then SHTF and you'd have more things to worry about. As for the fees, if they do not outweight the benefit then yes. I fail to see why registering as a different religion should cost more? You make it seem just because your name is on a piece of paper and your views are public then all hell has gone lose.

carebear
December 7, 2006, 07:55 PM
With no benefit (even ignoring all possible harm) why do it in the first place?

Answer that question.

Why do something when doing nothing has the exact same effect?

Do nothing and enjoy the sameness. :evil:

ArmedBear
December 7, 2006, 07:57 PM
No. There's not. As long as those rights are not hindered or violated afterwards I don't. If the government decides to hinder those rights, then SHTF and you'd have more things to worry about. As for the fees, if they do not outweight the benefit then yes. I fail to see why registering as a different religion should cost more? You make it seem just because I put my name on a piece of paper and made my views public then all hell has gone lose.

Whoa!

You don't oppose registering Jews OR guns?

You should have said so earlier, before we all typed so damn much. Clearly, you don't think that history or the world around us have any lessons for us. There's no point arguing over facts on this fine Pearl Harbor Day.

quatin
December 7, 2006, 07:58 PM
With no benefit (even ignoring all possible harm) why do it in the first place?

Answer that question.

Why do something when doing nothing has the exact same effect?

Do nothing and enjoy the sameness.

I've answered this several times. That's not what I was replying to. The question was why is gun registration bad, not why is it good or why should we have gun registration?

*edit
You don't oppose registering Jews OR guns?

Wait...you didn't know or are you opposed that every person born in America has their race,gender and parents registered in the system?

cropcirclewalker
December 7, 2006, 08:02 PM
Mr. quatin,

I can't figger out what you are up to.

Why are you being so simple?

Well I think we have boiled it down to this point. I don't think gun registration is a large hindrance.

In this modern day of refrigeration, carrying an albacore around your neck would not be a large hindrance. So?

You think it would be OK to require that we all do that?

While admitting that there is no benefit, you are willing to accept.

Are you a registerer? I am increduluous.

Nextly, the tenth amendment does not allow fed.gov to register firearms. Regardless of 2a.

The states can require registration, but the states can't have f22s or M1 tanks.

the pistolero
December 7, 2006, 08:02 PM
You make it seem just because I put my name on a piece of paper and made my views public then all hell has gone lose.

I would think that being mandated by law to put your name on a piece of paper because of what you think or what you own is certainly a good sign that this hell you speak of is well on its way to breaking loose.

quatin, are there any Constitutional rights you would be opposed to being infringed through registration?No. There's not. As long as those rights are not hindered or violated afterwards I don't.

So did someone guarantee you those rights would not be hindered or violated? Even if they did, and even if it was worth at least the paper it was written on, that's really not relevant either. I don't have anything to hide, and I certainly won't be going around shooting people at random with my guns, but as far as I am concerned, the government has absolutely no business knowing what's in my gun safe, notwithstanding the benefits (imaginary or real) of that knowledge.

carebear
December 7, 2006, 08:03 PM
No, you've actively not answered that question several times and then also dismissed actual (repeated through example to the point of inevitability) historical examples of "why not" as irrelevent.

At a certain point you need to either come up with a positive or be willingly to compelling argue that this one instance of gun registration absolutely would not turn out like all the others.

Otherwise you turn into John Cleese in the argument sketch.

junyo
December 7, 2006, 08:04 PM
quatin, ultimately, it's a question of evaluation of risk. I wish we could convince you that our evaluation is more solid, but ultimately a lot of it is your perception of the benevelence of government and what's important. Most of the folks here are belts and suspenders, worse case scenerio types, me included; not everybody is, which is cool. Scary and dangerous, but such it life. Hopefully you're right. I really, truly, hope you are.

I'll make you a deal though. If I'm right, you have to moon a tank before you get a rifle. :D And junyo has left the building.

quatin
December 7, 2006, 08:12 PM
the pistolero

So I guess the difference between me and you is that I don't care enough about guns registration that if I was required to put in a piece of paper saying I had a gun, it wouldn't bother me. I didn't say I believe EVERYONE is required to do it.

cropcirclewalker

You are a few steps behind my posts. I stated that I wasn't FOR gun registration, certainly not to where I said we should be REQUIRED to do it. I stated that I was ambivalent to it's cause since I see no point to it.

Fine you can call me ignorant of the "impending doom" that is gun registration, but I just fail to see the hidden motives. Do you guys see the "impending doom" of global domination by the East by purchasing this monitor full of ceramic and metal film components that profits an ever powerful opposing military? To me they are both the same...


I'll make you a deal though. If I'm right, you have to moon a tank before you get a rifle
*Edit
Does that mean I have to moon 2 tanks already? :( I certainly hope I'm right then.

brufener
December 7, 2006, 08:13 PM
You don't oppose registering Jews OR guns?

Wait...you didn't know or are you opposed that every person born in America has their race,gender and parents registered in the system?

You're talking about two different things. Being Jewish isn't about race, it is a religion.

Quatin,

Although it is hard to believe with your high post count, you are coming across as a troll. I'll give you another chance though.

Why is it, specifically, that you do not see what happened in Germany being possible here?

ArfinGreebly
December 7, 2006, 08:14 PM
Quatin, dude, your conduct in this discussion is disingenuous.

Here, let me help you:

Registration is bad because it ALWAYS leads to confiscation.

You don't like phrasings that include "could" or "might" or whatever.

Fine. Registration WILL lead to confiscation.

Now, all you have to do to refute that argument is post a clear example where a government has mandated registration and not followed it up with confiscation.

You have the floor.

carebear
December 7, 2006, 08:17 PM
So now you'd have no problem with a voluntary system of registration?

:rolleyes:

Okay then, go right ahead. Just don't use any of my tax dollars and don't ask me to subsidize it through any other fees or in any other fashion and we're just fine.

So I guess you can just email the ATF and call it good.

quatin
December 7, 2006, 08:25 PM
You're talking about two different things. Being Jewish isn't about race, it is a religion.

Quatin,

Although it is hard to believe with your high post count, you are coming across as a troll. I'll give you another chance though.

Why is it, specifically, that you do not see what happened in Germany being possible here?

I thought when you said Jews you meant THE Jews. The race...the ones in the middle east that started Judaism. Also why is that if I take the opposing side of what is purportedly an "Academic Discussion" I become suspicious of being a troll? :scrutiny: It's kind of funny how I start saying that I don't see gun registration is bad and I don't care if it exists or not, that I get all the flames that I don't care about history or am ignorant of global politics. SORRY can't help it, someone have a list of instructions on how to get me to think differently? I'm gonna end it here and say I'm still not convinced despite what's been said...it's not like I can think real hard and change my mind. I'll let The1911Man get back to his discussion, I think 3 pages of OT is long enough.

The Real Hawkeye
December 7, 2006, 08:28 PM
I thought when you said Jews you meant THE Jews. The race...the ones in the middle east that started Judaism. Also why is that if I take the opposing side of what is purportedly an "Academic Discussion" I become suspicious of being a troll? It's kind of funny how I start saying that I don't see gun registration is bad and I don't care if it exists or not, that I get all the flames that I don't care about history or am ignorant of global politics. SORRY can't help it, someone have a list of instructions on how to get me to think differently?Quatin, maybe it's because some very straightforward questions have been asked of you, and you've refused to answer them. The answer to those questions would resolve a lot, but you refuse. Why? Seems a trollish tactic.

ArmedBear
December 7, 2006, 08:30 PM
It was I who wrote "Jews", and I was referring to your post regarding your not having any objection to requiring registration and fees for those who wished to speak freely, publish writings, practice a religion, keep arms, have privacy personal papers and effects, not testify against oneself, get a writ of habeas corpus, etc.

Therefore, Jew refers to a religion. It's been a while since Muslims, Christians or Buddhists got slaughtered in a Western nation, so Jews worked better.

Or did you not know what was in the Bill of Rights?

As far as how you could learn to think differently, start with a month-long visit to North Korea. Book learning only goes so far.

BTW my father's family is only alive today because they weren't registered as Jews (my great grandfather was Jewish but never legally married my Catholic great grandmother, though they lived together for life). My mother's father only had a gun in 1939 because he never registered it with Hitler's government. Maybe that's not real to you, but it's damn straight real to me. Like I said, no sense arguing over facts.

brufener
December 7, 2006, 08:38 PM
I thought when you said Jews you meant THE Jews. The race...the ones in the middle east that started Judaism. Also why is that if I take the opposing side of what is purportedly an "Academic Discussion" I become suspicious of being a troll? It's kind of funny how I start saying that I don't see gun registration is bad and I don't care if it exists or not, that I get all the flames that I don't care about history or am ignorant of global politics. SORRY can't help it, someone have a list of instructions on how to get me to think differently? I'm gonna end it here and say I'm still not convinced despite what's been said...it's not like I can think real hard and change my mind. I'll let The1911Man get back to his discussion, I think 3 pages of OT is long enough.

I don't consider taking the opposing side of an academic disucssion being a troll.

Refusing to answer legitimate questions to further the discussion is being a troll.

Taking an overly-simplistic view and refusing to explain why facts and history do not apply is being a troll.

No one can convince you, only you can convince yourself. However, that means taking the time to think through a few questions.

Best of luck to you!

quatin
December 7, 2006, 09:01 PM
Well I guess last word in to defend my reputation. I can't answer questions from 7 people asking at the same time, especially since my time today was not entirely dedicated to posting on forums. I guess I could have ignored 6 of you, but then 6 of you would call me trolling. I did my best to post as I went along, but I'm sure you can understand that I can't answer all your questions RIGHT NOW or even with repeated prodding as I'm dealing with a series of postings from multiple people and I guess at that point is where my thoughts may have gone incoherent as I can't follow one train of thought from being pulled from one point to another. If someone still wants to really discuss this further, perhaps through PM or a separate thread and a lot of patience to let me answer questions fully and not quite so simplistically or completely overlooked as some of you have stated.

Glockfan.45
December 7, 2006, 09:14 PM
Isn't the second Amendment for Militias only?
How does the second Amendment apply to an individual?
Why is banning certain types of guns like assault rifles a bad thing?
Why is registering your guns a bad idea?


The second amendment reads "the peoples right" people means individuals like you and me.

Banning certian types of guns is bad news due to the whole "shall not be infringed" thing. Let them ban one today, tommorow they will want to ban another. Let them trash one amendment, they will want to trash more.

Registering guns is a bad idea for a few reasons.

1.) It does not do a single thing to stop crime. Most guns used in crimes are stolen so the criminals using them could care less if they are registered or not.
2.) Registration is an open door to confiscation. Pleanty of people like me would never register all their guns, so by that alone the registry would be an ineffective waste of tax money.

jnojr
December 7, 2006, 09:16 PM
the pistolero

So I guess the difference between me and you is that I don't care enough about guns registration that if I was required to put in a piece of paper saying I had a gun, it wouldn't bother me. I didn't say I believe EVERYONE is required to do it.

You're free to send a letter to the DOJ any time you want, listing all of your guns and their serial numbers. Why do you need "registration" to do that?

"Registration" means I must tell them about my guns. In my case, it doesn't matter... California already knows about my handguns.

Oh, and CA used "assault weapon" registration to locate and confiscate SKS Sporters, which for some bizarre reason were deemed to be some sort of an "assault weapon" that was too dangerous for anyone to have, registration or no.

The Real Hawkeye
December 7, 2006, 09:38 PM
Oh, and CA used "assault weapon" registration to locate and confiscate SKS Sporters.Perfect example of registration leading invariably to confiscation. That said, how can anyone continue to live in a state that would do that to its citizens?

Glockamolie
December 7, 2006, 09:43 PM
I haven't read all 4 pages of this post, but here's an Attorney General's Office opinion on the matter:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Gene Beasley
December 7, 2006, 10:05 PM
I haven't read the four pages so far, but will later as I noticed some good information.Isn't the second Amendment for Militias only?
How does the second Amendment apply to an individual? These two questions that go hand-in-hand, having been well answered in the first reply renders any question of banning or registration of any firearm moot. They're simply a non-issue. I long for the day when a Supreme Court (I know, don't hold my breath), strikes down ALL of the unconstitutional infringements currently being allowed on our 2nd amendment rights.

akjren
December 7, 2006, 11:33 PM
The1911guy,

I would like to add my own welcome to the highroad. I am not really an active poster, in fact I think this is my first post, but I have been lurking here for a bit and have been able to grow and learn a great deal from the many useful discussions here.

In addition to the list of negatives of firearm registration already put forth as well as the list of theoretical positives that have been shown false in reality, I would like to add to the comparison to car registration and drivers licenses.

Everyone who drives a car on a public road is required by law to have a license to do so. Every car that is driven on a public road must also be registered according to law. However, neither licensing nor registration prevents the thousands of injuries and deaths caused every year in car wrecks caused by accidents, reckless driving, dui and a host of other causes.

Licensing and registration doesn’t stop people from speeding, they don’t stop people from driving drunk, they don’t stop people from driving recklessly, they don’t stop people from driving without a drivers license, registration, or insurance, and they don’t stop people from making fake license plates.

As an example, I was sideswiped in traffic over the summer by someone in a truck that refused to pull over to give me his insurance info. I wrote down his tag and called the police and my insurance company but they could not find the tag number.

This is just my 2cents worth that firearm registration would be bad because it would not do any good and as already discussed would cost an excessive amount of time, effort and money to keep going.

Alex

Edited to add: Oops, I have posted here before, I had forgotten and thought I made those posts at TFL. Regardless I am not a very prolific poster on this site myself.

ArmedBear
December 8, 2006, 01:56 AM
BTW, for those who think it's far-fetched to register people who want to write, publish and express their opinions, it's happening right now, in China, our "friend" and trading partner.

http://instapundit.com/archives2/2006/12/post_853.php

What is the result? China is the world's foremost jailer of journalists.

That's WHY they register them: so they can squelch free speech, not so they can protect it.

Those who think the 2nd Amendment is no big deal (e.g. ACLU) should consider whether they want the rest of 'em subject to "common sense restrictions", as well.

lurkersince03
December 8, 2006, 03:15 AM
LOL....... you people.

carebear
December 8, 2006, 03:19 AM
I'm not sure how 2-3-4-or even 12 people asking essentially the same question get so hard to answer... :rolleyes:

MountainBear
December 8, 2006, 03:41 AM
Do you all think that you scared off the originator of this thread. I have read the responses, and most are very informative, well thought out, and well supported arguments. However, some are overboard.
Then I realized that The1911Guy never responded to any of the responses. Just an interesting realization I thought should be pondered.

mike101
December 8, 2006, 03:58 AM
Interesting name for a "fence sitter". Welcome aboard !

Armedbear and others have already commented on this, but sometimes you have to restate the obvious.
What possible purpose can registration serve, other than to let the government know who has what guns ? And why would the government need to know this ? Gun registration, like other gun laws, doesn't do a thing to prevent crime. The gov't. wants to know whose door to knock on (kick in?) if confiscation ever becomes the law of the land.

Gun registration may not bother some people, like quatin, which is fine. They are entitled not to be bothered. But they seem to feel that confiscation could never happpen. Well, as has already been pointed out, it has already happened in California.
In California, they banned SKSs. They could just as easily ban and confiscate revolvers, shotguns, peashooters, or any other type of gun they wanted. This should also demonstrate why singling out "assault" rifles is a bad thing. If you can single out one type of gun, you can single out all types of guns, one at a time, and grab them.

Sometimes, it's not an outright ban. Sometimes, the antis tactics are more insidious. I'll give you an example. In NJ, the state legislature passed a bill mandating smart guns (guns that have an electronic internal locking mechanism and can only be fired by their owner). When the first smart gun hits the market, all other types of handguns will be BANNED from sale in the State of NJ. Chicago has already banned ALL handguns. The next logical step after banning is confiscation, and you better believe that they'll do it if they think they can get away with it.

armedpolak
December 8, 2006, 11:01 AM
first of all, registration is a violation of privacy! since when do i have to tell uncle sam what i have in my home/car or on my person?

the feeling i get, when i have to tell the government what i have :fire:
it is disgusting when political figures assume the role of saviers and violate our basic right in the name of so called good :barf:

registration is a slap in your face, it's a reminder that WE are the government and you're nobody. WE tell you to register your guns, and you better do it, or else.

:fire: :fire: :fire:

quatin
December 8, 2006, 11:16 AM
I'm not sure how 2-3-4-or even 12 people asking essentially the same question get so hard to answer...

Well, a few of you, who jumped in middle of discussion, asked some things I have addressed a few times earlier. I decided to pass over repeating posts over and over to move on with the discussion. If you really want to continue this, I probably do have answers to those questions, let's move it somewhere else so not to flood someone else's thread. I, like MountBear, have also noticed The1911Man hasn't returned to his own thread.

glummer
December 8, 2006, 11:29 AM
quatin
Try these:

There is no such thing as a "neutral" law. ALL laws are hostile acts: you will obey or be punished. And hostile acts are inherently evil, unless justified. There IS no justification for registration; therefore it is oppressive.

Or

Laws are not passed by accident. Any law (including a registration law) has people with strong motives behind it. Strong motives are either good, or bad (neutral motive is an oxymorn.) The motives behind registration are never good; they are always bad.

Or

A law is a weapon, like a gun. When the weapon is pointed at you, by people openly hostile to you, you are very foolish to pretend it is of no consequence.

cropcirclewalker
December 8, 2006, 12:00 PM
The 1911guy was not a fence sitter. He was an anti or one who had been seriously corrupted by the managed media.

I thought that immediately when I could see by his tone and thrust of his questions that he had been polluted.

It's like my grandson. He loves to throw something and watch his mother retrieve it. He was playing fetch.

I don't expect him to reply although I do expect him to lurk to see how many of us he has running. :o

edited.......I could be wrong. Maybe just a post and run troll. He posted at 1:10 yesterday and his profile says his last activity was yesterday at 1:11. If it had not been for Mr. quatin, this string woulda died a quick and painless death.

carebear
December 8, 2006, 03:01 PM
Even if he was trolling, he didn't get the effect he wanted. Trolls want angry rants and to get folks calling names and such.

The questions he asked have been addressed logically and calmly. A lot of good points have been made not only about every facet of the practical issues with registration but also the philosophical tension between freedom and regulation as a whole.

This has been a short, thorough seminar in libertarian thought. I doubt that's what an anti- wants to see. Even if it is preaching amongst the converted.

tinygnat219
December 10, 2006, 05:04 PM
To THR community:

I originally started this post under another name: The1911Man.
I wanted to see what would happen if I posted as an ill-informed anti (like an idiot). The responses I have seen here have been good and well-informed. There was no excuse, and it's something I shouldn't have done and will not do again. Please accept my sincerest apologies.

Thank you.
TJ

pax
December 10, 2006, 05:37 PM
And on that note, this thread is closed.

A very, very sincere "thank you" to every member of the THR community who posted in this thread and avoided the temptation to stoop to name-calling, flames, or vitriol. Five pages of polite, well-reasoned discussion on a touchy topic definitely make me proud to be a member of this community. Give yourselves a pat on the back!

Kudos of a more scowly sort go to the now-reformed troll, who has taken his medicine like a man. A public apology is not an easy thing to do, and he has assured the moderating staff that it will not happen again.

It was my sole decision to give him a second chance, and I believe he won't let us down.

pax

If you enjoyed reading about "Academic Discussion" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!