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

[NJ Accountant]

Well effectively there is a partial gun registration in place already on a federal level. Granted they'd have to collect the forms from the dealers first.

Hence why there is always a push to close the "gunshow loophole" ie ban private sales.

Some states have de facto registration and others have voluntary registration and de factor registration if you don't volunteer. NJ has this

I would love to know what percentage of guns are actually in states that have registration or de factor registration.

 

[azmjs]

(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.) 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.



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.

Arguing with the high court is very much like arguing with a bring wall, because they are under no compulsion to accept anything except the most rigorous logical thinking. Many arguments that seem on their face to be compelling are in fact dismissed out of hand because they don't really follow.

The experience of this can be similar indeed to going up against a brick wall.

2), the fact that at the time NY required gun registration, it did not also require confiscation tends to prove the opposite of what you're arguing. The later decision to confiscate guns was explicitly not part of the original decision to require gun registration, as per your own example of "promises" made by the state government.

3) historical examples are not sufficient to prove what you're arguing.




Gun registration is not gun confiscation, no matter how many examples you can find where one correlated with the other. One of the fundamental assumptions of logic is that correlation does not imply causation.

As long as you continue to argue that two different things are the same thing, your argument can and will be defeated by simply pointing out the difference.


A 'later administration' could confiscate guns without gun registration. It is not a necessary precursor, and it does not in any way force the issue.

--

I don't need to prophesy that gun registration will never lead to gun confiscation, because things are not constitutional and unconstitutional based on separate, future, different, possible actions.

Gun confiscation's constitutionality would be challenged in its own right if it were ever an issue. Gun registration would not be germane to that discussion.

 

[azmjs]

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.

You went very quickly from a potentially compelling argument to one that has to be dismissed out of hand.

Gun registration may simply aim to take a census of gun ownership, it may aim to keep track of stolen guns, or help solve gun crimes, it may aim to keep a record of who might be most able to serve in the militia, it might simply exist to promote good citizenship.

These aims may or may not be achieved, and each one can be evaluated separately on its own terms, and that analysis used to determine how wise it would be to implement gun registration, and that whole process is sensible and valid.

However, pretending that you have omniscience and the ability to know the limits of possible motives, does not.

Any argument that claims it knows the "only possible reason" for something is doomed to fail, since all that is required to rebut it completely is the conception of a single alternative reason.

This aside from the fact that such a statement is based in hubrisitc fantasy, rather than any kind of rigorous thinking.

 

[CapnMac]

We have to register to vote, among other basic rights.

Voting is not a constitutionally-protected right.

The present expansions of the franchise to vote are defined by Federal law, not the Constitution (other than 14th restrictions on uniform application).

 

[Colonel]

Gun registration may simply aim to take a census of gun ownership

Why? Who cares? Do we check who owns golf clubs or table saws or vibrators or cement mixers? What difference does it make? Who wants to know, why do they want to know and why is it any of their business?

More to the point, they've already done that about 50 times...just without names keyed to gun ownership.

...it may aim to keep track of stolen guns, or help solve gun crimes...

Thieves and gun smugglers and people who buy guns illegally register guns? Gee whiz! Why don't we just get all people engaged in criminal behavior to register themselves! Hey, problem solved!

You're either really stupid, or really dishonest, trying to make that dopey argument, my friend.

...it may aim to keep a record of who might be most able to serve in the militia...

I've got news for ya, friend: We're all in the militia under current U.S. Code, whether you like it or not.

...it might simply exist to promote good citizenship.

Pray tell, how?

Your bait is rancid, troll. "Rigorous thinking." LOL. More like "lame argumentation that nonetheless took a day to come up with."

 

[azmjs]

Why? Who cares? Do we check who owns golf clubs or table saws or vibrators or cement mixers? What difference does it make? Who wants to know, why do they want to know and why is it any of their business?

More to the point, they've already done that about 50 times...just without names keyed to gun ownership.



Thieves and gun smugglers and people who buy guns illegally register guns? Gee whiz! Why don't we just get all people engaged in criminal behavior to register themselves! Hey, problem solved!

You're either really stupid, or really dishonest, trying to make that dopey argument, my friend.



I've got news for ya, friend: We're all in the militia under current U.S. Code, whether you like it or not.



Pray tell, how?

Your bait is rancid, troll.

Perhaps you should in the future make a modicum of effort to take what might be called "the high road" instead of acting like this?

There really is no excuse for your behavior.

 

[Colonel]

Perhaps you should in the future make a modicum of effort to take what might be called "the high road" instead of acting like this? There really is no excuse for your behavior.

"Modicum". That must be one a them-there intellectual words. I'm clearly outmatched.

Dear azmjs:

You ought to give credit for your signature line:

"I call it the paranoid style, simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind."

to its author, Richard Hofstadter. After all, "high road" readers might be interested in other gems of his "rigorous thinking," such as:

"My fundamental reason for joining the Communist Party is that I hate capitalism and everything that goes with it and I want to get rid of it." – Richard Hofstadter

Do you agree with that? If so, any chance that's why you seem to think we simpleton capitalist get-off-my-back Subjects should register our guns with the government?

Yes, I know you'll accuse me of red baiting but it's an honest question.

Hi.

 

[Tommygunn]

2), the fact that at the time NY required gun registration, it did not also require confiscation tends to prove the opposite of what you're arguing. The later decision to confiscate guns was explicitly not part of the original decision to require gun registration, as per your own example of "promises" made by the state government.

Yet again you have entirely missed the point. It hardly proves the "opposite" of what I was arguing; I was never arguing registration and confiscation happen simultaneously.

And you know, I think that is the only part of your response I will deal with. Your intransigent inability to comprehend my arguments is annoying and irritating, and I think I will simply ignore this thread from this point on.
The only good thing about beating your head against a wall is it feels good when you stop ...................................................................................................

 

[azmjs]

"Modicum". That must be one a them-there intellectual words. I'm clearly outmatched.

Dear azmjs:

You ought to give credit for your signature line:

"I call it the paranoid style, simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind."

to its author, Richard Hofstadter. After all, "high road" readers might be interested in other gems of his "rigorous thinking," such as:

"My fundamental reason for joining the Communist Party is that I hate capitalism and everything that goes with it and I want to get rid of it." – Richard Hofstadter

Do you agree with that? If so, any chance that's why you seem to think we simpleton capitalist get-off-my-back Subjects should register our guns with the government?

Yes, I know you'll accuse me of red baiting but it's an honest question.

Hi.

I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind.

I am, as should be immediately apparent, indifferent to gun registration.

 

[Davek1977]

Gun registration may simply aim to take a census of gun ownership, it may aim to keep track of stolen guns, or help solve gun crimes, it may aim to keep a record of who might be most able to serve in the militia, it might simply exist to promote good citizenship.

As reasonable as all that may seem to you, history takes a different view of gun registration and its intents. While confiscation is possible without registration, registration makes confiscation a mujch less daunting task. Its easy to confiscate things when you have a list of newly declared contraband registered to the owner, and much less easy when there's no record of who owns what. If I was able to pull r car registrations after BMW's were outlawed, wouldn't it make sense to focus my efforts first on confiscating those BMW's that were easily tracked down by their registrations? Wouldn't it be a much more difficult task to readily confiscate the cars if you were clueless as to who owned them or where they were kept? By this logic...the honest citizens who comply with the law are victimized before those that refused to register. The legally registered owners are sitting ducks, while those who didn't comply are much less likley to face confiscation based on their noncompliance. Registration of guns is ridiculous because it assumes that criminals...who by the very definition of the word do not comply with the law, will register their weapons just as any other upstanding citizen. Such a concept makes absolutely no sense by any stretch of the imagination. Criminals break the law. Thus, the only ones affected by registration...or any other form of gun control....are those that choose to obey the law. The intent of curbing criminal behavior by making law-abiding citizens jump thru hoops to exercise their Constitutional rights is fatally flawed at its core.

To echo the sentiments of earlier posters...registration doesn't cut down on crime. Because of that, I feel as though its no one's business as to what I legally own as a law-abiding citizen. I am against registration simply becasue it serves no practical purpose other than making confiscation easier should the political winds someday blow in that direction. If it were a surefire way to eliminate violent crime, I MIGHT feel differently. As it stands now though, its been proven time and time again that strict gun control/registration has zero effect on lowering crime. Areas with typically high rates of gun violence are often the very same areas with the strictest gun control laws. You can write that off as coincidence, but it would be foolish to do so, IMO. As it stands now, I'm happy I live somewhere where registration would never be enacted at the local or state levels.

 

[Art Eatman]

The alleged purpose of gun control laws is to reduce or prevent violent crime via misuse of firearms.

Registration can in no way do this.

Enough.