Protesters Burn Gun Registration Forms

[her209]

Why do you have to register to exercise your rights?

Yes I know people register to vote, but that is to make sure people vote in the county they live.

Its more than that.

How about we make gays register? Maybe make all the jews register? Maybe make all the muslims or catholics register?

How about blacks? If you have no problem with making gun owners register, can we make all the black people register? If a black person has not registered, then they go to jail. Is that ok with you?

Um people do have to register. How do you think the government determines who is a legal resident and who isn't - who is allowed to work and who isn't - who allowed to vote and who isn't? Oh, people also have to register when they get married and divorce. Shocker!

 

[thraashman]

The purpose of car registrations is to tax the car for road maintenance and verify mandatory insurance requirements. Car ownership is a priveledge. You can't tax a right like gun ownership so this reason for registration is out the window.

The purpose of voter registration is to assign primaries and voter locations. You don't assign guns to locations, so thats not the reason for gun registration.

Knowing thousands of people own guns and what type of gun is worthless information, unless you plan to take those guns away. There is no reason other than confiscation. The confiscation could be legal in the case of taking guns from recently convicted felon or illegal, taking guns from law abiding citizens for the reason of "security". Ultimately it is all about taking them away.

I feel that gun registration should be required but that access to that registration comes only with a court order. For example if a person is a suspect in a crime it can be accessed for forensic purposes or if a gun is found in relation to a crime that it can be traced. Sure a person often wouldn't use a legally registered gun in a crime, but it's not impossible. I feel that could protect the rights of a gun owner while also making guns not anonymous for criminal use purposes.

The question is then do you, does anyone who is against this support voter ID laws? Because that's actually requiring ID when a person tries to exercise their right, which would be the same as if an officer were allowed to stop you and require you provide ID if you were seen legally carrying a gun.

 

[Knowing]

lol, like say, registering a car, big old car confiscations happening by the mean old gubmint every day, right?....

As someone who's reported a car stolen only to find that it was towed off of private property for not having current registration... yes, confiscations are happening.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

you fail at life.

awww shucks, that's gonna sting some. point is, you legally have to register a vehicle. And this talk of gun grabbing is just panic speak from the parrots at fox news.
It's never going to happen and while I am nowhere near pro-gun, I am logical enough to surmise that we cannot, nor should not confiscate legally owned firearms. However, I do believe you should have to register them.

 

[MagickMan]

awww shucks, that's gonna sting some. point is, you legally have to register a vehicle. And this talk of gun grabbing is just panic speak from the parrots at fox news.

History doesn't jive with your opinion. Involuntary registration precedes confiscation nearly every single time. What happened in 1938 Germany? Yeah, that's right. How about something more recent, like Venezuela?

Fact is, you can't run an effective totalitarian regime if you leave the citizenry armed, they'll likely shoot you the first real chance they get. :hmm:

 

[smackababy]

History doesn't jive with your opinion. Involuntary registration precedes confiscation nearly every single time. What happened in 1938 Germany? Yeah, that's right. How about something more recent, like Venezuela?

Fact is, you can't run an effective totalitarian regime if you leave the citizenry armed, they'll likely shoot you the first real chance they get. :hmm:

Thank god someone brought up Germany before me!

Can someone list some examples of where forced registering "just to know" about something hasn't ended up badly? I'm sure some Jewish people were okay with registering as Jews in Germany as well.

 

[fleshconsumed]

awww shucks, that's gonna sting some. point is, you legally have to register a vehicle. And this talk of gun grabbing is just panic speak from the parrots at fox news.
It's never going to happen and while I am nowhere near pro-gun, I am logical enough to surmise that we cannot, nor should not confiscate legally owned firearms. However, I do believe you should have to register them.

The flawed car analogy has been debunked already. Read the thread again. No, you do not have to legally register your vehicle. You only have to register it if you plan to drive it on public roads. If all you want to do is to race it on a private track, then no, you do not have to register your vehicle. Same with guns, you shouldn't have to register them unless you're planning to conceal carry. And if you are as logical as you claim to be you would realize that the only reason for gun registration is knowing who owns them for future confiscations if it comes to that. Various legislators have stated that confiscation is an option. After registration all you have to do is to change the definition of "legally owned firearms" and just pull up a list of who owns what. Sorry, but the registration is ripe for abuse.

 

[smackababy]

Sorry, but the registration is ripe for abuse.

And even if we believe it won't be abused, registration serves no purpose. It does not make gun violence decrease. It doesn't make guns safer. It doesn't limit crimes with guns.

Why exactly do we need gun registration again? The only possible good thing that can come from it is reducing the amount of guns not returned to owners who lose or have them stolen.

 

[Texashiker]

Um people do have to register. How do you think the government determines who is a legal resident and who isn't - who is allowed to work and who isn't - who allowed to vote and who isn't? Oh, people also have to register when they get married and divorce. Shocker!

We are not talking about people in general, the law is targeting a certain demographic.

 

[Thebobo]

Loving all the terrible analogies...

So um, what does requiring gun registration have to do with infringing upon your supposed holy enshrined right to carry a gun?

Holy enshrined right. So god wills it?

 

[thraashman]

What happened in 1938 Germany? Yeah, that's right.

Wait, so you're using a 1938 German law that significantly DECREASED the restrictions on guns as evidence of your point? I think you misread something.

 

[smackababy]

Wait, so you're using a 1938 German law that significantly DECREASED the restrictions on guns as evidence of your point? I think you misread something.

Decreased gun restrictions for who exactly? Jews were prohibited unthe the 1938 law from owning an dangerous weapons, including guns. And guess which group, after being banned from ownership of weapons ended up being holocausted?

 

[WackyDan]

I feel that gun registration should be required but that access to that registration comes only with a court order. For example if a person is a suspect in a crime it can be accessed for forensic purposes or if a gun is found in relation to a crime that it can be traced. Sure a person often wouldn't use a legally registered gun in a crime, but it's not impossible. I feel that could protect the rights of a gun owner while also making guns not anonymous for criminal use purposes.

The question is then do you, does anyone who is against this support voter ID laws? Because that's actually requiring ID when a person tries to exercise their right, which would be the same as if an officer were allowed to stop you and require you provide ID if you were seen legally carrying a gun.

I'm anti registration of firearms because history has proven time and time again that any list will be misused by the same gov't originally charged with protecting it. Gun registration is one of the key goals of gun control groups as that to them is the way they get at our firearms. Up until the NC legislature passed a bill this past year preventing it, Brady Campaign people would file freedom of information requests of each county for the list of all concealed carry permit holders. NC does not register firearms, so there are multiple gun control groups out there now compiling and maintaining a database with my name and last known address in it that marks me as a gun owner. Feels great.

I am for voter ID. Requiring ID does not prevent one from exercising a right... But does protect the system from voter fraud. I am required to undergo a background check and submit very personal and private data with the purchase of a firearm aren't I?

 

[MagickMan]

Wait, so you're using a 1938 German law that significantly DECREASED the restrictions on guns as evidence of your point? I think you misread something.

No, it required REGISTRATION, which subsequently led to confiscation. Which was obviously my point. :\

 

[thraashman]

I'm anti registration of firearms because history has proven time and time again that any list will be misused by the same gov't originally charged with protecting it. Gun registration is one of the key goals of gun control groups as that to them is the way they get at our firearms. Up until the NC legislature passed a bill this past year preventing it, Brady Campaign people would file freedom of information requests of each county for the list of all concealed carry permit holders. NC does not register firearms, so there are multiple gun control groups out there now compiling and maintaining a database with my name and last known address in it that marks me as a gun owner. Feels great.

I am for voter ID. Requiring ID does not prevent one from exercising a right... But does protect the system from voter fraud. I am required to undergo a background check and submit very personal and private data with the purchase of a firearm aren't I?

And you're required to register to vote. Requiring anyone carrying a gun to be stopped and IDed by a police officer just helps guarantee that the gun is legal and the possessor is allowed to own a gun.

Anyone who is for voter id but is not for police being able to legally stop and require ID be shown by someone carrying a gun is a hypocrite.

For reference, I am not for either.

 

[sunzt]

Tracing guns to owners is a common method for police use to help solve crimes... gun related crimes. It doesn't always lead directly to the criminal, but very often provides clues as to who the criminal is, their associates/contacts, and location.

 

[MagickMan]

And you're required to register to vote. Requiring anyone carrying a gun to be stopped and IDed by a police officer just helps guarantee that the gun is legal and the possessor is allowed to own a gun.

Anyone who is for voter id but is not for police being able to legally stop and require ID be shown by someone carrying a gun is a hypocrite.

For reference, I am not for either.

You apparently aren't understanding the difference between a firearm carry permit (which allows you to lawfully carry a gun in public) and firearm registration which requires you to detail what guns you have, where they're kept, and why you need them. :\

"Here is a list of my firearms, they're in a safe, in my home, at this address, and I need them for self-defense and defense against tyranny."

3 years later the political climate changes...

*BOOM!* [front door gets kicked in] "We're here for the weapons on this list! Turn them over now!"

 

[smackababy]

You apparently aren't understanding the difference between a firearm carry permit (which allows you to lawfully carry a gun in public) and firearm registration which requires you to detail what guns you have, where they're kept, and why you need them. :\

"Here is a list of my firearms, they're in a safe, in my home, at this address, and I need them for self-defense and defense against tyranny."

3 years later the political climate changes...

*BOOM!* [front door gets kicked in] "We're here for the weapons on this list! Turn them over now!"

"I sold them at a gun show."

 

[WackyDan]

And you're required to register to vote. Requiring anyone carrying a gun to be stopped and IDed by a police officer just helps guarantee that the gun is legal and the possessor is allowed to own a gun.

Anyone who is for voter id but is not for police being able to legally stop and require ID be shown by someone carrying a gun is a hypocrite.

For reference, I am not for either.

Fine... I'm a hypocrite ( your opinion ).

If I legally own a firearm as prescribed by law, why do I need to register it?

If you are against voter ID, does that mean you are against voter registration as well?

Who is the hypocrite?

Let me put this another way to you and see if you get the rub...

When I am pulled over, that officer (if this happens in NC anyway) runs my plate before he even gets out of his car. I am flagged by the system as a CCW holder and he is justified in asking if I am currently carrying or have a firearm in the vehicle at that time. If he does not ask, then because he is approaching me on official police business I have to declare that I have a firearm on or about my person. I then have to present my license as usual for the traffic infraction, as well my CCW permit if currently carrying and turn my firearm over to him/her if they make the request. All for the right of being a gun owner.

So no, I'm not a hypocrite at all for wanting voter ID in place.

 

[Zaap]

Tracing guns to owners is a common method for police use to help solve crimes... gun related crimes. It doesn't always lead directly to the criminal, but very often provides clues as to who the criminal is, their associates/contacts, and location.

A great point.

I think it'd be an interesting idea to have a national ballistics database kept from the time of a weapon's manufacture. Sort of like a fingerprint database.

I'm personally not totally against logical registration, so long as its not ever abused by busibodies, and the information requires a court order to view.

Basically its been proven criminals don't like weapons that are traceable, and guns actually leave a lot of traceable evidence. Criminals go to great effort to ditch guns they know can be traced. I'm all for any tech that makes tracing a weapon that much more of a guarantee... its ironic that its the busibody gun grabbers that are biggest roadblock to this, because overcoming everyone's distrust of their crazy agendas is the biggest problem.

 

[rommelrommel]

A great point.

I think it'd be an interesting idea to have a national ballistics database kept from the time of a weapon's manufacture. Sort of like a fingerprint database.

I'm personally not totally against logical registration, so long as its not ever abused by busibodies, and the information requires a court order to view.

Basically its been proven criminals don't like weapons that are traceable, and guns actually leave a lot of traceable evidence. Criminals go to great effort to ditch guns they know can be traced. I'm all for any tech that makes tracing a weapon that much more of a guarantee... its ironic that its the busibody gun grabbers that are biggest roadblock to this, because overcoming everyone's distrust of their crazy agendas is the biggest problem.

You watch too much CSI.

There's no practical ballistics matching system in existance. Barrels are not THAT unique, and even if they were bullets are rarely recovered in a state that they can be analysed.

 

[Zaap]

You watch too much CSI.

There's no practical ballistics matching system in existance. Barrels are not THAT unique, and even if they were bullets are rarely recovered in a state that they can be analysed.

Actually guns are unique enough that authorities can often tell when the same one is used in multiple crimes.

You're the one who needs to get to reality if you think criminals don't often seek out untraceable weapons to commit crimes with. And that they dont ditch weapons that they suspect are traceable.

PURPOSEFULLY making sure every single gun owned by law abiding citizens is as unique and as traceable as possible, is absolutely a goal that's desirable and obtainable.

Like I say, its the gun-grabbing nuts that are the biggest obstacle to this, because in their anti-gun insanity, no one trusts them with the information that'd be available, and with good cause. Rather than a deterrent to crime, anti gun nuts would likely try and abuse improved gun-tracking technology to further their own stupid agendas against the law abiding.

 

[smackababy]

The problem is, one, the bullet would have to be in the condition to be identifiable. Second, the more bullets fired from the gun after the bullet they recovered and before their "test bullet" means less of a chance of it being a perfect match.

Now, we have the problem of every new gun being test fired, their bullet recovered, uploaded into the database, that record being associated with some identified for the gun (serial number), and then that serial number being associated with the wholesaler, who then must transfer that association the gun buyer. Not only does this not address the estimated 350 million guns in America already, it doesn't address any type of barrel changes or removing / altering the identifiable markings. I could easily alter the barrel to mark the bullet different than what is in the database. Is a 50% possible match enough for a conviction? Certainly not in America.

Now, how maintains this database? Who has access to it? And at what point can they just freely look up who happens to own a gun associated with any serial number.

Might as well have a national gun database.

A non traceable gun would be one without a serial number or a stolen one. If you committed a crime, wiped it down of fingerprints and DNA, and ditched it, it would not link back to you in any way if found by the police.

 

[Zaap]

You're right its not a perfect "solves everything" solution, but it could be a decent tool for law enforcement among the others they have.

Also, a criminal using guns to commit murder knows not to use the same gun over and over to commit multiple crimes. The technology absolutely does exist for authorities to be able to tell the same gun (therefore likely the same criminal) is being used, thereby linking seemingly unrelated crimes together. I say do whatever is technically possible to make this even more likely, so that committing crimes with the same gun becomes an increasing guarantee of getting caught.

I like tech that only lets a weapons legit owner fire a weapon as well. Again, not for every gun, but for when it makes sense, why not?

 

[sunzt]

A non traceable gun would be one without a serial number or a stolen one. If you committed a crime, wiped it down of fingerprints and DNA, and ditched it, it would not link back to you in any way if found by the police.

If a stolen one had the serial number on it then it can lead investigators to the gun owner who may be able to provide information on the criminal that stole the gun. Even if the owner doesn't know the thief it can provide a link to an area where a criminal is familiar with or to another association that would help investigators. Sometimes it takes just a missing link to advance a case.

Most criminals don't have the thought or time to really clean and cleanse a gun. They typically just toss them away while trying to get away.