Why are people against registering guns?

[Kwanger]

Hey guys,

I was wondering, why are people opposed to having to register their guns with local authorities?

What I mean by that is - everything else stays the same as it is right now - ccw permits ok, assault weapons ok, no limit on guns owned, ok....but you just have to register them and have a similar process as for, say, a ccw permit.

Genuine question. I sometimes wonder if a step like that might avert some of the gun banner calls.

 

[jmorris]

They do this first so they know where to go to pick them up. Get out a few history books.

 

[ArmedBear]

The result of registration has inevitably been confiscation.

The only reason for guns to be registered "with the authorities" is so that those authorities can come and take them. Why else WOULD they be registered?

Granted, the reason the guns would be taken might be legitimate (conviction for a violent felony), but the reason for confiscation will not be limited to those reasons. The recent history of countries that share our language and have a similar culture demonstrates this clearly.

Furthermore, there is no indication that those who support banning guns will EVER stop. So, we register our "assault rifles", and tomorrow they're banned. We have no choice but to turn them in, go to prison, or be killed by SWAT when they come to take them and we try to resist.

What do you think happened in England with handguns? Registration, followed by confiscation.

Finally, the 2nd Amendment is, even per Justice Ginzburg, intended as a final, last-ditch safeguard against tyranny. If the government controls our guns, then that government turned tyrranical will immediately seize them. This obliterates any such safeguard.

Again, what reason is there for anyone to support registration, if it is not for the purpose of knowing where the guns are so that government agents can come and seize them?

 

[highorder]

I sometimes wonder if a step like that might avert some of the gun banner calls.

The calls of some of the sheep gun-banning followers, maybe.

However, it will NOT deter the few leaders from their long term goals.

 

[Kwanger]

What I was kinda thinking was the process could include a bit better background check than currently done, and showing some form of training etc. I was thinking registration for the purposes of safety and such. i.e. you meed a license to drive a car, why not one for a gun.

I didn't even think the confiscation angle...all good points. But...I gues the flaw in that is that anyone with a ccw permit is already registered....

 

[ArmedBear]

I gues the flaw in that is that anyone with a ccw permit is already registered....

Nope.

It's no secret that I probably have a gun.

But the permit doesn't say that I do, or how many, or what kind.

In Idaho, the permit also allows carrying a large fixed-blade knife concealed. For all that the permit specifically states, I could be a traveling chef.

 

[dbarile]

you meed a license to drive a car, why not one for a gun

You don't have a constitutional right to drive.

 

[jcwit]

Remember owning and possessing a firearm (gun) is a right as in the Bill of Rights. It not a priviledge like having a car or boat and registering it.

 

[Calibre44]

Because it’s the ‘thin end of the wedge’ – trust me because I know.

First off, they will make it law that all guns have to be registered (this will cost you and the Gov will make money for doing nothing except building and populating a database). Once they know where all the guns are they’ll ban certain types of firearms and you will have to hand them in or they will come and get them. If you don’t, or haven’t registered them and they find out, then you become a criminal and they’re ban you from ever owning a firearm again.

Please don’t follow our miserable example.

 

[Kwanger]

Armedbear,

Very good point - I think I probably need to backtrack a bit here on the strength of that one.

So ok, guns are not registered - but how about their owners being? i.e. mandated training, etc. This is what I am getting at with registration - I overlooked the 'take them away' side of it.

 

[Kwanger]

Cal44.....thanks for that....shocking indeed. So in UK did they actually force people to hand in their guns? Did they compensate owners for being out of pocket?

 

[jnyork]

So, Kwanger, you think that gun registration or owner registration would be a good thing, and help prevent crime, etc. Just like we have to register our cars and register (license) the driver.

That would be a great idea, just like auto registration and driver's licenses has eliminated crime with autos (car jacking, drunk driving, cars used in robberies, etc) and has ensured that all drivers on the road are competent and safe, and that all drivers on the road are indeed licensed.

The only reason for any type of licensing and registration is so the government can collect taxes from you and control you in one way or another.

 

[Tommygunn]

Registering guns serves absolutly no purpose insofar as fighting crime.
Criminals will never register theirs.
The ONLY thing it does is tell the government where the guns are, as nealy every poster above has said.
The next step is confiscation. I believe that will be inevitable if registration happens ... registration just DOESN'T SERVE ANY OTHER PURPOSE.

 

[BhmBill]

100 years ago, guns were totally unregulated.

People wanted guns regulated/banned, but they knew they couldn't do it overnight, they took what they could because the anti-gunners weren't losing anything, but we gun owners were. Like I said, you can't go from crawling on your belly to running speed overnight, gotta take babysteps first. They enact more and more laws and people don't care until they FEEL they have been affected.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699.htm

Also, if you read a little into gun history, registration is the first step before confiscation. If you let them know who, what, and where the guns are, you're setting yourself up.

If you feel that some gun laws are necessary for our safety, well then... refer to my signature. Laws only apply to those who don't intend to break them.

No gun law is REASONABLE. Do not COMPROMISE your rights.

NO ONE, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE, Should have to meet a criteria in order to own a firearm and protect themselves. All FREE MEN should have the same inalienable rights and should be allowed to own whatever gun they want.

 

[scottgun]

Kwanger, I don't see a difference between registering guns and registering gun owners, except for maybe a few details about the firearms. The same logic applies, increased government power and control. Either method of registration is a precursor to banning and confiscation of firearms.

Plus criminals won't register their firearms, and law abiding citizens who register their firearms will eventually become criminals if they don't follow the slipery slope of constant tighter restrictions.

 

[Justin]

If you want everyone trained to a certain minimum level of proficiency, it would just simply be better to institute "shooter's ed" programs in schools.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

By the way, this is a legitimate question. If you feel the need to post pictures of trolls or demand the OP leave, just click on to the next thread.

 

[Kwanger]

You all have me convinced the registration of weapons is bad. Got it completely.

But I still think that mandated training would be a good thing. And the trick there is....how to get everyone the training without somehow 'enforcing' it.

We all know there are inept gun owners out there and accidents that could be avoided if people had taken, say, at minumum an NRA safety course or something.

 

[Grey_Mana]

Why are protestants against confessing their sins to a priest, and accepting whatever penance is assigned, as the Roman Catholics do?

Not to raise a religious issue per se (and not to start any fights), but thinking about the sides of that debate will help you understand the sides of the gun registration debate.

What benefits does gun registration confer upon the registree? Mandatory registration is a taking (of information), and the Consitution provides for just compensation.

---
Regarding mandatory training - good idea, at the high school level. Bad idea for adults (too late, too much infringement).

 

[RugerBob]

Nice post, just out of curiosity--the countries that had there weapons taken, were they given money at all or just chit outta luck.? Not that it would make it any better. Then, if they were reimbursed, on what scale? Like I said, just curious as I have found nothing relating to that. Bob

 

[Kwanger]

Mandatory training in schools - I personally do think that would be an excellent idea. But can you imagine the can of worms with that?

I almost feel like the govt should cooperate with a body who promotes safety (such as the NRA) and have them administer the training for them.

If the whole thing was de-politicised, I think it would be a worthy and achievable aim.

 

[Ned Kelly]

I don't even support a firearms certification course as a requirement. You can find a knowledgable and responsible friend to show you the in and outs of gun safety.

To take a firearms course shows intent to own a gun. This does not prove without a doubt that you own a gun but it is enough for you to be flagged and placed in a database.

I have a ccw but I don't feel a person should have to take a course to carry concealed. Now I am flagged whenever I am pulled over by police and they run my plate.

 

[BhmBill]

But I still think that mandated training would be a good thing. And the trick there is....how to get everyone the training without somehow 'enforcing' it.

I Strongly Disagree.

Should someone have to take mandated training, background checks, pay a fee, or be forced to meet ANY sort of criteria before they can exercise exercise their rights that are guaranteed by the consititution, such as their freedom of religion? freedom of speech? right to counsel? right to unreasonable search and seizures?

Seems like you having to meet certain criteria before you can exercise your rights might be.... ohhhh whats that word... ummmm.... an INFRINGEMENT.

But I still think that mandated training would be a good thing. And the trick there is....how to get everyone the training without somehow 'enforcing' it.

You won't find the government paying citizens for their confiscated guns, because its never happened (paying citizens I mean).

They made it illegal to own something, they arent going to pay you for owning something illegally.

 

[Calibre44]

Cal44.....thanks for that....shocking indeed. So in UK did they actually force people to hand in their guns? Did they compensate owners for being out of pocket?

Financially speaking yes – but nothing … repeat nothing can compensate you for losing your rights.

We didn’t really think it would happen … but it did and now it’s just a sad story to worn you folks in the States about.

ps: yes we were forced

 

[blkbrd666]

Hey Kwanger,

I was wondering, would you be opposed to having to register all the hammers and pipe wrenches in your tool box, each knife in the kitchen drawer, all your kid's baseball bats, your fists and feet, each table lamp and vase in your house, your broom, your mop, your shovel, your pick, your axe, your hoe, your rake, your lug wrench, your screwdrivers, any rock in your yard over 3" in diameter, your iron skillets, your lawnmower blade, your pocketknife, your inkpen, your pencils, your golf clubs, your towchain, your chainsaw, your firewood, your fire extinguisher, your pool cue and rolled coins with local authorities???

What I mean by that is - everything else stays the same as it is right now - ccw permits ok, assault weapons ok, no limit on household items owned, ok....but you just have to register them and have a similar process as for, say, a ccw permit.

Genuine question. I sometimes wonder if a step like that might just give the government the control over the helpless herd that they want.


There, I reworked it a little...but still along the same lines.