Academic Discussion

[benEzra]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

3 pages and still not one reason given as to why we might want registration at all, even given just the expense...

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

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

 

[junyo]

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]

Hell, let's register all clothing in colors worn by gangs.

Why shouldn't we?

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

 

[quatin]

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]

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.

 

[ArmedBear]

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.