How to register all Guns....

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MrChicken

Senior member
Feb 18, 2000
844
0
0
Ok how about this one. "Take away the means to defend our freedoms and we wont have any."
As people attack the 2cd amendment, I can attack the 1st.

The news media is obviously influencing violence in our schools. Armed teens will see that shooting up the schools gets their name on TV, and they "get back" at those that hurt them and everybody will know.

Terrorists use the same method, without the media to propagate the "news" terrorism would be ineffectual. Take 100 hostages, and if knowbody knows you still dont get what you wanted.

We can move onto violence and the glamorizing of criminals on TV and the movies, in music, in art, etc..... Certainly without those influences america would be a safer place.

So clearly be repealing 1st amendment rights for the "greater good" would save lives, many lives.

If we can save just one life....

How long before we have made our country so safe that we have no rights.

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as long as it is safe... Bah!
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,490
20,042
146


<< Do you propose that we eliminate or append to the 2nd ammendment? >>





<< ?? we already restrict firearms to people that don't pass background checks. is that against the 2nd amendment? >>


We deny ex-cons of many civil liberties. One of those is the right to vote. Restricting the rights and liberties of someone who has not committed a crime, nor been convicted of a crime is another matter entirely.


<< are u even reading the full amendment? It only gives well regulated militias the right to own arms if your gonna go down that road. >>


It doesn't take much historical study to understand that the &quot;well regulated&quot; militia was simply every able bodied man who was bound by the law, thus &quot;regulated.&quot; The words &quot;regulated&quot; and &quot;organized&quot; have two distinct and separate meanings.

&quot;Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.&quot;
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution

At any rate, NO WHERE in the Bill of Rights, is the term &quot;the people&quot; used to mean anything other than individual private citizens. In fact, in the Tenth Amendment, the &quot;state&quot; and the &quot;people&quot; are refered to as two separate entities.

Your argumaent is an old and tired one, and is easily refuted by historical fact and simple logic.
 

Doboji

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
7,912
0
76


<< You're claiming that auto registration has had an impact on auto theft? Care to prove that? >>



Did I stutter somehow?

what I said:



<< Registering your car also makes sure it adheres to all safety regulations which saves millions of lives every years, it allows for the reporting of aggressive driving... and the reporting of millions of automobile assisted crime every year. So obviously the only purpose is not to collect taxes.... >>



Where did I claim anything about auto theft?

-Max
 

Doboji

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
7,912
0
76
AmusedOne:



<< Again, the simple act of a law abiding person owning a firearm IN NO WAY infringes upon your liberties. >>



True... however a law abidding citzen selling his weapon illegaly to a non-law abidding citzen does...

67GT:



<< But heaven forbid the word voucher appear anywhere. That's too conservative an idea to be taken seriously. >>



Lets not turn this into a Liberal vs Conservative policy effectiveness debate... I'm not backing down, I'm simply suggesting that we discuss the issue at hand... if you want to have a discussion about whether or not liberal policies have failed the DC area... then we can do that.... in another thread... same thing for school vouchers.... and I'd be happy to go toe to toe with you on these anytime.... IN ANOTHER THREAD.

-Max
 

Doboji

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
7,912
0
76
Mr. Chicken



<< Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as long as it is safe... Bah! >>



As I've said a million times throughout this thread... I am not proposing a ban of firearms... I may even be an advocate that more modern military equipment needs to be legalized... I am however advocating a efficient, shielded from the government method of registering guns to allow the illegal usage of guns to be traced...

Having said that...I reiterate my point... the balance of freedom from and freedom to... is very precarious and must be examined periodically in respect to every issue. If we simply eliminated ALL government regulation then everybody technically would be &quot;free&quot; to do whatever they want... however we all know that our freedoms would be quickly curtailed by those who hold the most power. This applies throughout our society... government regulation protects freedom... not in all cases... there are many occasions where the government oversteps their bounds... but overall government regulation of society to some degree is the protector of our freedom.

-Max
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,490
20,042
146


<< AmusedOne:



<< Again, the simple act of a law abiding person owning a firearm IN NO WAY infringes upon your liberties. >>



True... however a law abidding citzen selling his weapon illegaly to a non-law abidding citzen does...
>>



And it's already illegal to do so.

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,490
20,042
146


<<

<< You're claiming that auto registration has had an impact on auto theft? Care to prove that? >>



Did I stutter somehow?

what I said:



<< Registering your car also makes sure it adheres to all safety regulations which saves millions of lives every years, it allows for the reporting of aggressive driving... and the reporting of millions of automobile assisted crime every year. So obviously the only purpose is not to collect taxes.... >>



Where did I claim anything about auto theft?

-Max
>>



Max, I fail to see how any of that can apply to guns. Are criminals going to hang license plates on their guns? Car registration has done NOTHING to stop theft, OR the illegal use of cars. Guns are ALREADY tracable back to their last known legal owner. Registration will ONLY make it easier for the government to confiscate guns, as witnessed in California, England, Nazi Germany, and Australia.

And yes, the only purpose for car registration is to collect taxes. Everything else is just feel-good after thoughts. BTW, most states do NOT have annual safety inspections of cars.

No thanks. There is no way in hell I'm going to agree to a plan that has, without fail, led to the systematic confiscation of privately owned firearms.
 

Doboji

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
7,912
0
76
AmusedOne:

How do we always get into these conversations :) LOL...

You're argument... if I may simplify is.

1) Registration leads to confiscation 100% of the time, therefore we must not register guns.

2) Registration offers no benefits to society, therefore we must not register guns.

Related directly to that.... if I could come up with a way to gauruntee that registration is both beneficial and will not lead to confiscation then you would be pro registration?

-Max
 

Tauren

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2001
3,880
1
0
Doboji - I'm still waiting for you to show me a positive side to registration.

(if you did this last night, just tell me where in this thread it is. I was busy last night and didn't log back in until today)
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,490
20,042
146


<< AmusedOne:

How do we always get into these conversations :) LOL...

You're argument... if I may simplify is.

1) Registration leads to confiscation 100% of the time, therefore we must not register guns.

2) Registration offers no benefits to society, therefore we must not register guns.

Related directly to that.... if I could come up with a way to gauruntee that registration is both beneficial and will not lead to confiscation then you would be pro registration?

-Max
>>



Max, sure. But you can't do either, so it's moot now isn't it?
 

Doboji

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
7,912
0
76
well lets be constructive about this....

let's see if I can dig up some legitmate benefits of registration:

1) More likely return of firearms when stolen

2) Easier for law enforcement to trace firearms back to legal owners

3) Provides Law enforcement to track illegal gun user behavior
think about it... Illegal gun dealers are getting their guns from somewhere... perhaps we can find out where they're getting their guns, and who's behind the illegal sales.

These are some benefits... If you want to argue with these benefits feel free... but don't argue by telling me about confiscation.... that is an issue we will tackle shortly... first I want to see if we can establish some pros...

-Max
 

Tauren

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2001
3,880
1
0
1. It creates a database of LEGAL gun owners, which can be abused.
2. If a gun is stolen and used in a felony, it is not returned to the rightful owner, ever.
3. Criminals, who make up the persons committing crimes using guns, will NOT register theirs.
4. It is none of your f*cking business if I own guns. (I wouldn't ask you whether or not you have a vibrator in your bedroom)
 

Doboji

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
7,912
0
76
Ok tauren that was an utterly unconstructive answer...

Please argue against the benefits directly... I understand the cons... we'll be getting into those in depth later... I'm talking about the pros...

1) More likely return of firearms when stolen

2) Easier for law enforcement to trace firearms back to legal owners

3) Provides Law enforcement to track illegal gun user behavior
think about it... Illegal gun dealers are getting their guns from somewhere... perhaps we can find out where they're getting their guns, and who's behind the illegal sales.

To simplify... is 1 true... if not... why... is 2 true.... if not... why?... etc.

 

Tauren

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2001
3,880
1
0
1) More likely return of firearms when stolen
In the state of MI, we have to gett PERMISSION to obtain a firearm, so we are alreaady on record as an owner. If someone steals one of my guns, which is not likely to happen because I would blow his/her ass away, it is probably to commit a crime, in which case I would not get it back.



2) Easier for law enforcement to trace firearms back to legal owners
You have repeated yourself. 1 &amp; 2 are the same thing.



3) Provides Law enforcement to track illegal gun user behavior
WTF??? Criminals DO NOT have to register!!! Any illegal activity is being done by criminals, not law-abiding citizens such as myself.
 

Quaggoth

Senior member
Jun 23, 2000
800
0
0
1) More likely return of firearms when stolen

That may be a pro, doboji, but not worth it. All you need to do is prove that you owned them legally (receipts) and you can get them back from the Police after they have recovered them. If they are never recovered.. well, you won't get them back anyway.

EDIT
Did you register your stolen bicycle? No. But when you told the police that it was missing and they found it, they gave it back. Guns work the same way.
END EDIT

2) Easier for law enforcement to trace firearms back to legal owners

They don't need to be traced to legal owners 99.999% of the time. It's the illegaly owned guns that are mostly used for crime, not the ones legally owned by law abiding citizens.


3) Provides Law enforcement to track illegal gun user behavior

What, like firing into the air in city limits? If not, then this.. an &quot;Illegal Gun User&quot; will not register his gun.



I suppose If you can find a way to make all criminals register their guns, I would certainly be for that, but when I sell my gun, I am going to make DAMN SURE that I sell it legally and have a paper trail. When someone gets shot in 2 days I WANT to be able to prove that I sold it to someone.

I think most illegal guns are the products of theft. Either the gun store arranges a theft of a bunch of guns so he can sell them for a premium being &quot;untraceable&quot;, or just as simple as breaking and entering. either way, registration doesn't do anything. Except of course give the powers that be a way to know who has them and who doesn't, but you said you would rather not talk about that ATM.


 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56


Doboji,

I've been in parts of DC that you do hear the gentle sound of small arms fire @ night, am afraid you are actually living in an alternative universe. This is my last post to help you up your post counts:p

I imagine you were in my E.R during the kidnapping, ambulance theft &amp; rape a couple years ago too? How many illegally armed people have you helped arrest lately, I've got 4-5, and turned in a couple of found guns too, but I guess I'm just imagining the small arms fire @ night from unregistered guns;)
 

Doboji

Diamond Member
May 18, 2001
7,912
0
76
Pliable,

Thanx for errrr helping my post count... although I'm not too worried about it, I'll start Neffing like a madman once I get around 900 or so posts... but for now work is just THAT boring. :p

I have to say I'm a bit confused by your posts... what exactly are you saying?... that you've seen more violence and therefor are more qualified in the gun debate somehow?... I've seen my share of violence... and I've lost my fair share of friends to violence... but thats not really the point is it? The point is to try and prevent this violence... come up with creative and effective means to control this epidemic violence in our country. More people die here than in countries that are in war zones. Perhaps my idea fails because there isn't enough benefit in gun registration... I accept that possibility...

But there is more to be discussed here and really alot of it comes from your original post.



<< The people shooting mostly members of their own race aren't going to register their guns. >>



This sounds like black people?... this is a blanket statement... the target should be stopping gun violence... we shouldnt be focussing on a particular ethnic group... Black people are just as American as any white person... and we should all be as concerned about their deaths as we are about white people. (BUT WE'RE NOT AS A NATION)



<< How much or your hard earned cash are you willing to cough up? 50-60-75% of your check? >>


It's easy to look at this question from afar... but try looking at it up close... what if it was your spouse, or your children in your ER, then how much of your check would you be willing to give up?.. 100%, 110%?... It's not going to happen to you though huh?

People are greedy bastards only concerned about themselves... until they need someones help.. then they cry for help... if 60% of my check is needed to get this violence under control... then I'll pay it happily.... if they want 80% of my paycheck, and it'll get this violence under control... then I'll pay it...

-Max
 

JupiterJones

Senior member
Jun 14, 2001
642
0
0
It is my constitutional right and I am a law-abiding citizen

Actually, reread the founding papers of our Union. This is a God-given right. The constitution does not grant rights, they are inherant in every person. The Constitution recognizes some few important rights. Gun registration serves no purpose but as a vehicle to make confiscation possible. Criminals would not have to obey registration laws, due to the 5th amendment. Any firearm registration law would ONLY apply to people who can legally own firearms.

 

JupiterJones

Senior member
Jun 14, 2001
642
0
0


<< Do you propose that we eliminate or append to the 2nd ammendment?

?? we already restrict firearms to people that don't pass background checks. is that against the 2nd amendment? are u even reading the full amendment? It only gives well regulated militias the right to own arms if your gonna go down that road.
>>



Actually, you are wrong. The militia is &quot;all the people&quot;. The &quot;people&quot; in the 2nd Amendment are the same &quot;people&quot; in the rest of the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment particularly protects our right to keep and bear any arm that might be usable in a Militia. In the 1930's the supream court ruled that sawed-off shotguns could be banned because they serve no tactical purpose for a militia. The same could be said of arms that require a trailer hitch to transport, or a missile to deliver.

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
 

JupiterJones

Senior member
Jun 14, 2001
642
0
0
Read and learn from the last 2nd Amendment case to be argued before the Supreme Court.

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a &quot;shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length&quot; at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [p*179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. &quot;A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.&quot; And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out &quot;that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom,&quot; and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: &quot;Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty.&quot;

In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character, and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force.

&quot;The American Colonies In The 17th Century,&quot; Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII, affirms in reference to the early system of defense in New England --

In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to [p*180] cooperate in the work of defence.

The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.

A year later [1632] it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony [Massachusetts].

Also,

Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a &quot;good fixed musket,&quot; not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers.

The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784, provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the Train Band should &quot;contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of age, . . .&quot; Also,

That every noncommissioned officer and private soldier of the said militia not under the controul of parents, masters or guardians, and being of sufficient ability therefor in the judgment of the Selectmen of the town in which he shall dwell, shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm,

etc.

By an Act passed April 4, 1786, the New York Legislature directed:

That every able-bodied Male Person, being [p*181] a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are hereinafter excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. . . . That every Citizen so enrolled and notified shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; . . .