Academic Discussion

[quatin]

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]

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]

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]

armedpolak ~

What a beautiful, moving post.

Everyone, go read that one again.

pax

 

[Jim March]

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]

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.

 

[quatin]

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]

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]

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`]

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]

I'll post a few questions that may answer your questions.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Registration

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[ProguninTN]

quatin

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?