Here is an interesting read about the "Gun Walker" scandal

[azmjs]

You think that Clinton wanted to exterminate the Jews?

If not, then it's hard to imagine what would make him worthy of comparison with Adolf hitler...

It stretches credulity beyond any sane bound to suggest that William Jefferson Clinton was plotting to subject the united states to totalitarian rule.

 

[Tommygunn]

The problem is not that registration is unconstitutional, the problem is that it will lead to unconstitutional actions.

That's nonsense which would be dismissed out of hand by the courts. Unless you have the power to see into the future, prophesies about the future are not at all sufficient as a basis for legal arguments.

The only thing which leads to unconstitutional actions is the decision to take unconstitutional actions.

Gun registration is plainly not unconstitutional, because it does not infringe the right to keep and bear arms, because it does not prevent anyone from keeping or bearing arms.

If the people decided to outlaw weapons without amending the constitution, then that would be unconstitutional.

First, it is not a "legal" argument, it is a historical argument. It has happened -- in America, as I pointed out.

"The only thing which leads to unconstitutional actions is the decision to take unconstitutional actions."

Oh really? Right now, Obama's healthcare proposal is being challenged in court and it will likely go to the Supreme Court. I don't know what their verdict will be, but I can fairly safely guess the president did not believe he violated the constitution when he signed the law. I disagree of course.
In the 1930s, FDR signed the National Industrial Recovery Act into law, and SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional. Did FDR try to violate the constitution?
Other laws have also fallen victim to SCOTUS decisions.
I don't know what the future holds so far as registration of guns is concerned, but your reaction to my post above as well as your arguments indicate a very superficial understanding of the facts in question and a misunderstanding of the points I was making. A court may very well not entertain a suggestion that gun registration would be unconstitutional. My point was that such things have happened in history. Your reaction to my post is thus non sequitor.
It would have been better had you responded to the historical point I was trying to make rather than deal with it as a matter a court would -- or would not -- entertain.

 

[azmjs]

Not true.

By claiming that making one choice now will inevitably lead to making another choice later, you aren't making a historical argument, you are making a prophesy.

A historical argument would say that a decision made in the past has tended to coincide with another decision made in the past.

In this case, that countries which required gun registration later chose to confiscate guns.

Unless you have the power to see into the future, you cannot give a compelling argument that choosing to require gun registration in our country would inevitably lead to choosing to confiscate guns.

You will discover that falsely equating gun registration with gun confiscation, and arguing against gun confiscation when the question at hand is instead gun registration is a strategy that is doomed to fail.

 

[kozak6]

That may be true, but the real question is what does gun confiscation have to do with the price of tea in China?

I would argue that since no one is seriously advocating personal firearms registration, it doesn't really matter either way at this point.

 

[Deanimator]

I would argue that since no one is seriously advocating personal firearms registration, it doesn't really matter either way at this point.

"No one" or "no one in this forum"? If the former, that's LUDICROUSLY false. Just about EVERY well known gun control advocacy group advocates firearms registration AND restrictive owner licensing.

 

[rajb123]

AzMJS said, in response to the NYS gun laws question:
Or, more accurately, they [NY lawmakers] believe that the danger of the proliferation and misuse of handguns is greater than the danger of the proliferation and misuse of rifles and shotguns.

I would not be surprised to learn that the facts back this up, and that most violent gun crimes [in NY state] are committed using hand guns. Would you be surprised to learn that this is the case?

Hmmmm. You did not answer my question. Yes, I will conceed that it is likely that most violent gun crimes are committed with hand guns.

Is the required gun registration of only hand guns in NY designed to allow for quick confiscation when the NY legislator concludes that too much proliferation and misuse of hand guns has ocurred in NY and that it is now time to end the so-called madness?

 

[Tommygunn]

Not true.

By claiming that making one choice now will inevitably lead to making another choice later, you aren't making a historical argument, you are making a prophesy.

A historical argument would say that a decision made in the past has tended to coincide with another decision made in the past.

In this case, that countries which required gun registration later chose to confiscate guns.

Unless you have the power to see into the future, you cannot give a compelling argument that choosing to require gun registration in our country would inevitably lead to choosing to confiscate guns.

You will discover that falsely equating gun registration with gun confiscation, and arguing against gun confiscation when the question at hand is instead gun registration is a strategy that is doomed to fail.

:banghead:

Tyrants either enact it in order to find and confiscate firearms, or, they use a previous leader's registration records for their gun grab.
This is not theory.
It is history.
And it has happened in America. It has happened in New York City and in California

Everything I said WAS true. Get over it.
And I am not trying to be a "prophet."
In the 1960s New York City enacted registration of firearms. The progun side argued that this would lead to confiscation; the Beam administration replied it would not, this was only intended for "law & order" purposes.
Then, a generation later, under Mayor Dinkins, certain of those firearms were banned, and the city actually used the registration list in searching out and checking for non compliance. In one case I've read about the actual gun owning family had moved years ago when the NYPD's version of SWAT busted in their door while they were eating breakfast, looking for guns that weren't there, but had been removed by their owner to Montana.
Also, you can check what happened to gun owners in Californa with the Roberti-Roos law.
Now, I don't know that we're going to have either registration or confiscation on a national level. I am not, despite your bizarre and contrarian assertions, a prophet, but I wouldn't want to place a bet on anything given the past actions of certain of our political leaders.
You can bury your head in legalistic fine points and what would or would not be accepted as a legal argument in court, but keep in mind one thing; I am talking real-world events, what is actually happened(ing) out in the real world, not in side some nerdy legal office in the basement of a county court building.

A historical argument would say that a decision made in the past has tended to coincide with another decision made in the past.

BS. A "historical argument" is nothing more than using an example from history to illustrate a point, or to show something has actually happened.

"Those who do not learn from history are forever doomed to repeat its mistakes." ~~ George Santayana.​

The idea that such a "decision made in the past has tended to coincide with another decision made in the past" is utterly meaningless and without any merit whatsoever. It doesn't even have any existential meaning!

countries which required gun registration later chose to confiscate guns

How can you express this one idea in a completly comprehensible manner and be so obscure elsewhere?

This is correct, and yet how were these countries able confiscate the guns? Because they knew where to look. The Weimar Republic enacted registration, Hitler made use of those lists. Weimar may not have intended to confiscate anyone's guns, but that entirely misses the point I -- and others -- have been trying to make. It isn't required that those who register the guns want to confiscate anything; it only requires a subsequent administration come into power which does not consider itself beholden to a previous administration's promises.
That has nothing to do with courtroom etiquette, it is simple historical precedent.

 

[rajb123]

Fortune magazine published an article on the proposed U.N. treaty to require registration of small arms worldwide. Amung other observations, they correctly implied that this is a backdoor approach to place further limits on the U.S. 2nd Amendment.

It would not surprise me that the gun-grabbers here [Hillary CLinton and Obama] in the US are behind this measure.

Fox News has called for the resignation of Eric Holder for his involvment in "Fast and Furious"

 

[NJ Accountant]

My favorite bit is how the justice department is claiming that back in 2010 Issac and others were briefed, in closed meetings, on, among other things, operation "fast and furious " but Holder when questioned back in April or May(?) said he'd only been told about theoperation weeks ago.

These guys can't keep their stories straight on a truely comedic level.

 

[Bubbles]

CBS News: Another Murder Linked to US Gunwalker Case
CBS News has confirmed that ATF Fast and Furious "walked" guns have been linked to the terrorist torture and murder of the brother of a Mexican state attorney general last fall...

...This latest revelation complicates the already strained relationship between the U.S. and Mexico since CBS News first reported on the gunwalker scandal last February.

CBS News has learned that U.S. officials called Mexico's attorney general the day before last week's gunwalker hearing to inform her of the link to the murder.

 

[elano]

If that's not f'ed up then I don't know what is. Though the criminals could have also used bats and knives I suppose.

Atf director should be charged with treason and manslaughter at least.

 

[azmjs]

You might want to reread the constitution and reconsider that "treason" talk...

 

[azmjs]

The historical argument that in the cases you specify, a choice at one point was later followed by another choice, at another point in time, is not a compelling reason not to make the first choice.

Gun registration is something entirely separate from gun confiscation.

If you argue that we shouldn't have gun registration because gun confiscation is unconstitutional, your argument is doomed to fail, because it is so excessively, obvious simple to rebut.

It is akin to saying that we should outlaw kitchens, because the appliances in them can be used to make methamphetamine, and making methamphetamine is illegal. Choosing to own a kitchen is not the same as choosing to make methamphetamine, even though in many cases, people who own kitchens also make methamphetamine.

Not only is does gun registration not force gun confiscation, but gun confiscation does not require gun registration to begin with.

No number of historical examples can be compelling unless you can prove, by way of prophesy, that choosing to require gun registration in America would equate to choosing to implement gun confiscation.

If you could register a gun, and also keep and bear it, then the argument would fall apart completely.

If a law requiring gun confiscation was later passed, that law would have to pass constitutional scrutiny, and it wouldn't because it would prevent you from keeping and bearing arms. The supposed precedent of gun registration wouldn't bolster its chances of passing constitutional muster.

 

[azmjs]

Fortune magazine published an article on the proposed U.N. treaty to require registration of small arms worldwide. Amung other observations, they correctly implied that this is a backdoor approach to place further limits on the U.S. 2nd Amendment.

It would not surprise me that the gun-grabbers here [Hillary CLinton and Obama] in the US are behind this measure.

Fox News has called for the resignation of Eric Holder for his involvment in "Fast and Furious"

Changes to the US Code require legislation to be passed and signed into law.

Changes to the constitution require a constitutional amendment.

 

[glockfan2]

It is not surprising to me that the Obama administration would do this.

There are also efforts to move a U.N. resolution and ratify a treaty that would require registration of all small arms worldwide.

Registration is the first step to confiscation.

 

[kozak6]

Fortune magazine published an article on the proposed U.N. treaty to require registration of small arms worldwide. Amung other observations, they correctly implied that this is a backdoor approach to place further limits on the U.S. 2nd Amendment.

It would not surprise me that the gun-grabbers here [Hillary CLinton and Obama] in the US are behind this measure.

Do you have a link to the article?

As far as I can tell, any such UN treaty has nothing to do with the registration of personal firearms. Can anyone provide a link to such a treaty on the UN's website where it states personal firearm registration would be required? It seems that those sorts of treaties are intended to combat illicit international trade rather than the contents of your gunsafe.

A UN treaty is an awfully stupid backdoor gun control approach. Treaties have to be ratified by a 2/3 Senate majority, and even then, international treaties are overridden by the Constitution.

 

[Colonel]

gun confiscation does not require gun registration to begin with

Well, put it this way:

It definitely HELPS ... and more than any other policy in existence!

And since gun registration, over many decades, in many cities and states, has proven to be a complete and unmitigated failure at achieving its ostensible purpose – reducing or solving crimes – it becomes quite clear that its only possible purpose and raison d'être – from Day One – is gun confiscation.

They did it in Germany.
They did it in Australia.
They did it in Bermuda.
They did it in Cuba.
They did it in Great Britain.
They did it in Greece.
They did it in Ireland.
They did it in Jamaica.
They did it in Soviet Georgia.
They did it in New York City.
They did it in California.

Might a diagram help?

 

[Ringo1234]

ATF head Melson not taking the fall for Fast and Furious/Gun Walker scandal.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-atf-guns-20110624,0,7283758.story

 

[Ringo1234]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110621...unrunner_a_pet_project_of_guncontrol_senators

 

[NJ Accountant]

I think it can be agreed upon that there is a strong correlation between gun registration and gun confiscation.

This does not prove causation.

But any attempt to further enact gun registration should be met with questioning how this furthers any goal other than confiscation.

I believe that the gunwalker scandal was part of an attempt to push for further gun registration. This I also believe would eventually lead to confiscation of certain arms by class of arm and redefining "prohibited persons."

This would be speculation based on observable correlation in a historical context not prophecy.

 

[Colonel]

Changes to the constitution require a constitutional amendment.

...or an act of "judicial nullification" by five of nine U.S. Supreme Court justices.

 

[Tommygunn]

(1)The historical argument that in the cases you specify, a choice at one point was later followed by another choice, at another point in time, is not a compelling reason not to make the first choice.

(2.)Gun registration is something entirely separate from gun confiscation.

(3.)If you argue that we shouldn't have gun registration because gun confiscation is unconstitutional, your argument is doomed to fail, because it is so excessively, obvious simple to rebut.

(1.)If you have the slightest sense of historical trends, it ought to be. It staggers me you cannot understand this argument. It's like debating with a brick wall. Registration may not be necessary for confiscation, but it has been used so often to thoise ends (even in America, as I have pointed out) you would have to lack even the good sense God gave a pump handle to comprehend the danger.

(2.) "Separate?" Maybe. That it is inclusive or separate is not even a point of my argument and to try to claim this is an act of deliberatly missing the point. If you've been paying attention you will note that NYC even debated the issue of registration leading to confiscation back in the 1960s and the govt. promised it would not be used to confiscate any guns. Unfortunatly, as said, Mayor Dinkins had those registration lists used to confiscate the guns.
Now, tell me, please, just how are the two things separate now? Dinkins' decision certainly came at a later date, but it came in spite of an earlier administration's promises it would not happen. Knowing this, as surely you MUST by now, are you really so sure that you are in favor of registration??

(3.) First of all, I have rebuted it perfectly well using historical examples. Moreover you SERIOUSLY, SERIOUSLY NEED TO GET OVER THE IDEA I AM TRYING TO MAKE A LEGAL AND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT. I am making one based upon historical records.

(1.)It is akin to saying that we should outlaw kitchens, because the appliances in them can be used to make methamphetamine, and making methamphetamine is illegal. Choosing to own a kitchen is not the same as choosing to make methamphetamine, even though in many cases, people who own kitchens also make methamphetamine.

(2.)Not only is does gun registration not force gun confiscation, but gun confiscation does not require gun registration to begin with.

(3.)No number of historical examples can be compelling unless you can prove, by way of prophesy, that choosing to require gun registration in America would equate to choosing to implement gun confiscation.

If you could register a gun, and also keep and bear it, then the argument would fall apart completely.

(1.) One of the most flawed analogies I've ever heard.

(2.) I have never said registration FORCES confiscation. I have, as have others, pointed out that registration of guns has often led to confiscations of them by subsequent governments. You can ignore this at your will but it will not alter the historical record, you can deliberatly miscomprehend it but that too will not change a thing.

(3.) Prophesy is irrelevant. Can you "prophesize" that if we register guns, there will never be any gun confiscation? Hostory is a great example of the propensities of humankind in relationships that involve a balance of power, and yet you deliberatly ignore this fact.
Take the ***** horseblinders off.

If you could register a gun, and also keep and bear it, then the argument would fall apart completely.

Until a later administration were to confiscate it.

But again you misunderstand my point. Registration paves the way for confiscation, historically. I am against it because of the history behind it, not because I have some sort of crystal ball, which you idiotically seem to believe is a requirement for my argument.

 

[pilotc7a]

pilotc7a

After all is said and done, we're faced with gun registration in most states.
Our current problem is not that. It's obama and his regime. He's the guy we have to get rid of. But before we do that, we have to find "someone" capable of running the american government. This is the problem confronting all of us.

I'm a shooter, a reloader, and veteran of two wars. I lived twenty years in brownsville, texas and am aware of the problem there. It's just one of numerous prolems faced by americans,

unless we have "someone" capable of administrating our government, we'll never get anything done to resolve these problems

 

[Colonel]

After all is said and done, we're faced with gun registration in most states.

Sorry, bud. Not true. Not even close.

 

[Baba Louie]

except in that gun registration has never been used for any productive purpose and will in virtually every case result in blanket confiscation down the road.....Why else is a registration "necessary", and what else does it facilitate besides confiscation?

Hypothetical... In keeping with the 2nd amendment, for Militia purposes, every US citizen will have arms and ammunition for that arm and shall be "registered" so authorities know when Mr Baba Louie shows up for Militia muster he has the proper weaponry necessary to secure a free state.

That's about the only real reason to register a firearm or it's owner in my opinion... and it hasn't and won't happen in this country.

But if it did, would you register your "militia" weaponry? (rhetorical and off topic)

In Clark CO NV (LV), all concealable weapons must be registered with the sheriffs office. Reason they give nowadays, Officer safety should the po po be called to a residence or pull someone over, dispatch will alert them to weapons in house. Cannot imagine if the local dept (Metro) had an active burglery ring within it as I read somewhere Chicago's finest had at one point. But that can never happen in America. I'm sure those reports out of Chicago were... bogus (ahem ahem)

back on topic... mainstream media gives no play (yet) to loading the numbers for flying "under the radar" control of certain (all?) semi-auto rifles and I'd never expect a .gov employee to give credance to said conspiracy theory, since internal governmental conspiracies never happen in real life... eh?

Like Fast & Furious... just some good old fashioned governmental police work in action, no conspiracy there to deprive any citizens of their civil rights. Rather, bringing down the Mexican Drug Cartels from within... yeah, that's the ticket.

I'm very sorry Agent Terry. You were govt issue and died for a good cause. Securing our southern border. An unwitting hero in a tragic comedy (comedic tragedy?), perhaps. I hope more whistle blowers come forth, but do not expect any smoking guns to be exposed. (very bad pun not intended)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?