Will having to register your guns stand up in court?

[exdeath]

There are already property rights in this country I don't know why guns would need special rights. Your property shouldn't be seized without very good reasoning. Of course if you break laws then you agree to waive those rights.

You don't see why guns are special and need special protection? The gun craze happening in politics right now is a perfect example. Government wants to"takes guns of the streets" and take your property even though its illegal. Guns, not your TVs and dishwashers. It should be illegal to take your property but they can justify by simply banning the items they want to confiscate and label possessors as dangerous felons.

Guns are explicit target for confiscation, and if I had to register them and not my washing machine, it makes it easier. Therefore requires explicit protection to forbid that database from ever being used to confiscate.

Really I'm not even for registration. Just offering a consession to make registration a valid bargaining chip for gun owners in exchange for no restrictions. Majority are opposed to registration due to future confiscation concerns. Another school shooting and oops that's it no more guns , hey look at this convenient database of every gun owner. Make it a constitutional amendment and federal law that explicitly forbids government from both confiscating guns and using the registration database for such ends, or harassment.

I'd consider registration if all previous gun bans were lifted back to and including NFA 1934 and had assurance that my registration info would meet be used against me. I dare be careful adding "unless I use it for something illegal" because an other wise good citizen with no ill intentions is easily turned felon at the flick of a pen on a new law. (Eg millions made instant felons if Feinstein gets her way).

 

[ivwshane]

Exactly how does (additional) gun registration help with any of the objectives you listed?

That was my first question/post in this thread. I do not believe it has been addressed, much less answered.

Fern

Good question. Simple registration by itself won't do anything. However, comprehensive registration like what was proposed above (similar to car registration and the various requirements for driving one), it would do a couple of things:
1) registering gives police a way to track guns that are legally sold but also to track places that don't follow the law (ie the shady gun shop) which should limit guns coming through that channel (I used the word "limit" and not "stop" for a reason). That would make the price of entry for an illegal firearm more expensive.

2) By requiring training you not only have a better controlled gun owner but also all the affects that go with it, such as a better understanding of gun safety. A smarter gun owner will lead to lower gun accidents. The effect is similar to that of a licensed driver versus an unlicensed driver, compare auto accident incidents to historical levels and you will see a drop and it is my belief that that is due to, in part, education.

3) By requiring weapon checks like we do smogg checks it will ensure gun owners are maintaining their weapons responsibly but more importantly it keeps a record of the guns history which ensures guns are sold on the private market properly (similar to the way a pink slip is used). This will also help to limit gun sales on the black market while insuring law abiding gun owners can buy/sell comfortably and legally.

4) By having a well trained gun populace we now have a better chance for a positive ourcome for "good" bystander interaction.

I'm sure there are other reasons that I forgot to mention.



It's a start and it's not perfect but it doesn't stop people from owning guns but it does make it harder to get them or find them.

 

[ivwshane]

You don't see why guns are special and need special protection? The gun craze happening in politics right now is a perfect example. Government wants to"takes guns of the streets" and take your property even though its illegal. Guns, not your TVs and dishwashers. It should be illegal to take your property but they can justify by simply banning the items they want to confiscate and label possessors as dangerous felons.

Guns are explicit target for confiscation, and if I had to register them and not my washing machine, it makes it easier. Therefore requires explicit protection to forbid that database from ever being used to confiscate.

Your argument is based on fear. No one is looking to take away your guns. The point of the proposal we came up with is so guns don't have to be banned (if there are to be limits on the type of guns to be banned then that's not something I can talk about as I have no knowledge on the subject and I would only add that any weapon to be banned would have to be for good, provable evidence as to why it should be banned).

I've never heard of guns being taken without a just cause. Do you have examples?

 

[exdeath]

Your argument is based on fear. No one is looking to take away your guns. The point of the proposal we came up with is so guns don't have to be banned (if there are to be limits on the type of guns to be banned then that's not something I can talk about as I have no knowledge on the subject and I would only add that any weapon to be banned would have to be for good, provable evidence as to why it should be banned).

I've never heard of guns being taken without a just cause. Do you have examples?

There are bills being introduced to congress right now, some eliminating grandfathering and passing down of existing items. That is confiscation.

Is it not a justified fear for my property rights when politicians push these kinds of gun bans every time a tragedy happens? Knowing half the population thinks I dont need them and supporting politicians who promise to take them? Knowing that I would have multiple felony counts instantly if it makes it to the presidents desk all because I have pieces of plastic with more than 10 numbered holes drilled in them.

PS dry fingers + capacitive touch screen + auto correct =

 

[HumblePie]

ivwshane,

When I asked earlier, "What guns are you trying to control?" maybe I wasn't asking it simply enough.

how about...

"How does any form gun control against law-abiding citizens stop crimes?"

Answer me this question instead then.

 

[Incorruptible]

ivwshane,

When I asked earlier, "What guns are you trying to control?" maybe I wasn't asking it simply enough.

how about...

"How does any form gun control against law-abiding citizens stop crimes?"

Answer me this question instead then.

It doesn't but dont expect him to provide you with an answer on that. They want to take away guns so people cant fight back and there dependent on the government.

 

[HumblePie]

It doesn't but dont expect him to provide you with an answer on that. They want to take away guns so people cant fight back and there dependent on the government.

SHHHH!!!

I was trying to get him to answer the first question with something like, "Well I want to control the guns that are in the hands of criminals and people that commit mass shootings."

At which I would have brought the second question up. At which, was hoping for an equally ridiculous answer that made zero logical sense so I could point out that law abiding citizens don't commit mass shootings, but instead law-abiding citizens with guns actually prevent and stop mass shooting/crimes. At which point I could show that by enacting gun control on law abiding citizens, one is actually promoting crimes and mass shootings.

 

[ivwshane]

ivwshane,

When I asked earlier, "What guns are you trying to control?" maybe I wasn't asking it simply enough.

how about...

"How does any form gun control against law-abiding citizens stop crimes?"

Answer me this question instead then.

I answered already in a previous post. It's also quite dishonest of you to ask, "stop crimes", nothing, nothing will stop crimes from happening.

 

[HumblePie]

I answered already in a previous post. It's also quite dishonest of you to ask, "stop crimes", nothing, nothing will stop crimes from happening.

Then what is the purpose of any form of gun control?

 

[ivwshane]

Then what is the purpose of any form of gun control?

I answered that already as well.

 

[Zargon]

Your argument is based on fear. No one is looking to take away your guns. The point of the proposal we came up with is so guns don't have to be banned (if there are to be limits on the type of guns to be banned then that's not something I can talk about as I have no knowledge on the subject and I would only add that any weapon to be banned would have to be for good, provable evidence as to why it should be banned).

I've never heard of guns being taken without a just cause. Do you have examples?

bullshit.

illinois just tried to take guns out of hands, and impose fees on people for certain guns they already own.

there is no 'good' reason any gun should be banned. becaues the reason they shouldnt be is the second amendment. the 'assault weapons ban' tha tIllinois just tried to pass included semi-auto hand guns like glocks, and pump action shotguns

if you had a semi auto handgun that wasnt banned, you were going to forced to pay an annual fee to keep your 'high capactiy magazine' which is liberal gun grabber retard rhetoric for ' the magazine that came with the firearm', or else take a nuertered capacity magazine and turn in the one you have, FOR FREE(which wasnt free for you). and of course you had to buy the replacement magazines as well.

Good question. Simple registration by itself won't do anything. However, comprehensive registration like what was proposed above (similar to car registration and the various requirements for driving one), it would do a couple of things:
1) registering gives police a way to track guns that are legally sold but also to track places that don't follow the law (ie the shady gun shop) which should limit guns coming through that channel (I used the word "limit" and not "stop" for a reason). That would make the price of entry for an illegal firearm more expensive.

2) By requiring training you not only have a better controlled gun owner but also all the affects that go with it, such as a better understanding of gun safety. A smarter gun owner will lead to lower gun accidents. The effect is similar to that of a licensed driver versus an unlicensed driver, compare auto accident incidents to historical levels and you will see a drop and it is my belief that that is due to, in part, education.

3) By requiring weapon checks like we do smogg checks it will ensure gun owners are maintaining their weapons responsibly but more importantly it keeps a record of the guns history which ensures guns are sold on the private market properly (similar to the way a pink slip is used). This will also help to limit gun sales on the black market while insuring law abiding gun owners can buy/sell comfortably and legally.

4) By having a well trained gun populace we now have a better chance for a positive ourcome for "good" bystander interaction.

I'm sure there are other reasons that I forgot to mention.



It's a start and it's not perfect but it doesn't stop people from owning guns but it does make it harder to get them or find them.

You have to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to purchase a car and only drive it on private property

beyond that, maybe you dont understand how simple most firearms are.

1 - they already have to keep legers and inventory and the ATF can show up and audit this whenever they want. they dont because they dont have the time or money or people

2 -any place with CCW requires you to show up and take a test, and its usually the same qual required for police officers in that state. that sounds good enough doesnt it?

3 - you are introducing undue cost of ownership on gun owners and collectors. unless someone sends in a form, the state has no idea I bought that car on ebay. especially if I never register it. if I had one like it, I can just keep renewing that plate and no one has any better idea about it
-cost of legal gun ownership skyrockets, cost for criminals stays the same

4. the fire arm accident rate of CCW holders is actually the SAME as police officers, and CW owners are the least likely group of identifiable people in the US to commit a crime statistically, you can look up CCW stats on the FBI's web site.


all this registration/fee crap is, is a tool, to make owning a gun so much they can fiscally disarm us instead of actually destroying the second amendment

 

[HumblePie]

I answered that already as well.

No you haven't. So I'll ask again. What is the purpose of gun control?

 

[ivwshane]

bullshit.

illinois just tried to take guns out of hands, and impose fees on people for certain guns they already own.

there is no 'good' reason any gun should be banned. becaues the reason they shouldnt be is the second amendment. the 'assault weapons ban' tha tIllinois just tried to pass included semi-auto hand guns like glocks, and pump action shotguns

if you had a semi auto handgun that wasnt banned, you were going to forced to pay an annual fee to keep your 'high capactiy magazine' which is liberal gun grabber retard rhetoric for ' the magazine that came with the firearm', or else take a nuertered capacity magazine and turn in the one you have, FOR FREE(which wasnt free for you). and of course you had to buy the replacement magazines as well.



You have to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to purchase a car and only drive it on private property

beyond that, maybe you dont understand how simple most firearms are.

How many people only use a car for their property? You are taking a minority and applying it to everyone. It's a nonsense argument and completely misses the point.

1 - they already have to keep legers and inventory and the ATF can show up and audit this whenever they want. they dont because they dont have the time or money or people

You and I both know that book keeping around guns is minimal and it certainly isn't consistent across the land. A central or state body will make it easier to control, regulate, and enforce, all of which are currently lacking. My proposal would also remove the ability of the ATF to come to your door, instead you go to an office for check ups.

2 -any place with CCW requires you to show up and take a test, and its usually the same qual required for police officers in that state. that sounds good enough doesnt it?

So it's good enough for one group but not another? Whose not making sense now?

3 - you are introducing undue cost of ownership on gun owners and collectors. unless someone sends in a form, the state has no idea I bought that car on ebay. especially if I never register it. if I had one like it, I can just keep renewing that plate and no one has any better idea about it
-cost of legal gun ownership skyrockets, cost for criminals stays the same

False. The point of fun registration and the reason it has to be consistent is to limit the amount of guns on the black market. Requiring the seller of a gun to notify the proper body and requiring the buyer to register the gun lessons the likely hood of black market deals. For an analogy, think of what would happen if a carfax report was made available for all cars, do you think that the number of people sold, unknowingly, totalled or defective cars would go up or down?

Making guns less likely to appear on the black market is simple supply and demand, prices will rise.

4. the fire arm accident rate of CCW holders is actually the SAME as police officers, and CW owners are the least likely group of identifiable people in the US to commit a crime statistically, you can look up CCW stats on the FBI's web site.

Excellent! All the more reason to require everyone to go through training. Thanks for helping make that point!

all this registration/fee crap is, is a tool, to make owning a gun so much they can fiscally disarm us instead of actually destroying the second amendment

Fiscally disarm? That's a new one. I wonder if the same argument was made about auto laws and car insurance or helmet laws for motor cycles.



I forgot to respond to the first part of your post.


Did the law pass? No it didn't. That's because democracy works. Just because someone puts a bill forward doesn't mean it's going to happen and if it does pass then guess what? The people voted for it.

 

[exdeath]

Fiscally disarm? That's a new one. I wonder if the same argument was made about auto laws and car insurance or helmet laws for motor cycles.



I forgot to respond to the first part of your post.


Did the law pass? No it didn't. That's because democracy works. Just because some puts a bill forward doesn't mean it's going to happen and if it does pass then guess what? The people voted for it.

Democracy and majority rule is never an excuse to violate natural rights. Rights that every person has that are not granted to them or to be earned, but rights that they just have, period.

The one and only purpose of government is to PROTECT those rights, not remove them.

I say fuck the constitution, it's too few words and too hastily written, which leaves it open to interpretation and abuse. What you REALLY need to do to understand is read everything ELSE the pioneers of this nation wrote. The principles are more important than the piece of paper they were briefly summarized on.

 

[ivwshane]

Democracy and majority rule is never an excuse to violate natural rights.

I'm sorry but a gun is not a natural right. I'll put food, clothing, air, shelter, all above owning a gun as a natural right. It's a constitutional right and like the constitution it can be changed if a super majority of the people want it.

You think America is a utopia, it's not, its directed by people and sometimes those people are idiots and sometimes they are brilliant. You take the good and you take the bad and there you have the facts of life.

 

[exdeath]

I'm sorry but a gun is not a natural right. I'll put food, clothing, air, shelter, all above owning a gun as a natural right. It's a constitutional right and like the constitution it can be changed if a super majority of the people want it.

You think America is a utopia, it's not, its directed by people and sometimes those people are idiots and sometimes they are brilliant. You take the good and you take the bad and there you have the facts of life.

No, I don't. I make of my life what I will of it, with the only self imposed limit of not depriving another person of life, liberty, or property. The actual written laws be damned. A law that deprives of liberty rather than protects it is invalid and is merely the result of 51% of the people abusing their government to deprive the 49% of their rights.

I have a right to the pursuit of happiness, which includes the right to exchange the labor of my body for property. If that property happens to be land, money, video games, cars, TVs, or guns, it's irrelevant. It's mine, I engaged in mutually consented labor to earn the money, and I engaged in mutually consented buying/selling from another individual. I did not steal it or coerce it from or use it against another against their will, and that is ALL that matters.

Simultaneously I also have a right to self defense.

I also have a right to engage in free commerce, where the only limiting factor is my ability and willingness to pay the asking priced for goods and services.

That makes a gun a right in all three ways. Life (self defense), liberty (free enterprise), and tangible property (ownership of a material object).

If any of these extreme bans actually make it into law and prevent me from acquiring items on the free market, I will be taking machine shop classes and providing for myself out of spite. I'm just done worrying about it.

America is far from a utopia, it's filled with selfish low lifes with voting power who don't respect the rights of their fellow citizens. The founders were wary of these people having the power of the vote, but couldn't just deny certain people from voting without being hypocrites while supposedly forming a free nation. So instead that's why we have all these separation of powers and checks and balances, to keep emotional retards from controlling everything.

Even the most die hard self proclaimed patriotic American will celebrate 4th of July and blabber on about freedom and liberty and blah blah blah without truly understanding what it means. Not 5 minutes later that person will see something or someone else doing something they don't approve of like saggy pants or assault rifles or pink hair, and the very same person espousing freedom and liberty will belch out "there ought to be a law against that".

 

[exdeath]

I'm sorry but a gun is not a natural right. I'll put food, clothing, air, shelter, all above owning a gun as a natural right. It's a constitutional right and like the constitution it can be changed if a super majority of the people want it.

You think America is a utopia, it's not, its directed by people and sometimes those people are idiots and sometimes they are brilliant. You take the good and you take the bad and there you have the facts of life.

And that super majority can face resistance and bloodshed from time to time when they cross the line and attempt to enforce their tyranny. You want to ban people's personal property? You be the first to volunteer to knock on the door of the first house. Lets go. Well?

300,000,000

Good luck.

Don't expect the police to do it, they aren't suicidal.

Do you remember what happened last time the majority attempted to change the constitution to oppress the minority? Remember what happened when the oppressed had no political voice and said "fuck you" as a last resort because they were outnumbered by that majority?

Google 18th Amendment.

Is that what you really want to see?

 

[Abraxas]

I always loved the gun-nutter delusion that they were going to rise up with their guns and overthrow their government. Don't take their rifle because one day they are going to use it to kill American soldiers, who they love absolutely and support wholeheartedly. When the Guvment come they gonna show it whose boss when their AR-15 takes out the Reaper drone that would in the world of people more attached to reality would turn them into a smoking crater before they had any idea it was even there.

The whole idea of an armed rebellion against a modern government as powerful as the us is at the peak of the most ridiculous pro-gun arguments - with the US armed forces if they are with you no armed rebellion is necessary, if they are against you no armed rebellion is possible.

 

[xj0hnx]

I'm sorry but a gun is not a natural right. I'll put food, clothing, air, shelter, all above owning a gun as a natural right. It's a constitutional right and like the constitution it can be changed if a super majority of the people want it.

The right to defend yourself is most certainly a natural right, and a gun is the best way to do that.

You and I both know that book keeping around guns is minimal and it certainly isn't consistent across the land. A central or state body will make it easier to control, regulate, and enforce, all of which are currently lacking. My proposal would also remove the ability of the ATF to come to your door, instead you go to an office for check ups.

Bullshit it's minimal. Gun shops books are like their bibles, and there is LOT of paper work, and it is consistent across the land because it is federal law. Also there is no reason a law abiding citizen should have to "check in" wit the ATF like they are on probation for legally owning a firearm. There is also NO WAY this could work as there is nowhere near enough man power to do it. As it is they are taking 6-9 month turn around on Form 2/4's as it is, add all firearms to that? No fucking way.

I always loved the gun-nutter delusion that they were going to rise up with their guns and overthrow their government. Don't take their rifle because one day they are going to use it to kill American soldiers, who they love absolutely and support wholeheartedly. When the Guvment come they gonna show it whose boss when their AR-15 takes out the Reaper drone that would in the world of people more attached to reality would turn them into a smoking crater before they had any idea it was even there.

The whole idea of an armed rebellion against a modern government as powerful as the us is at the peak of the most ridiculous pro-gun arguments - with the US armed forces if they are with you no armed rebellion is necessary, if they are against you no armed rebellion is possible.

Oh look, another idiot that forgot that the US military is made up of civilian volunteers that aren't going to decimate their own country just because the government tells them to.

 

[Abraxas]

Oh look, another idiot that forgot that the US military is made up of civilian volunteers that aren't going to decimate their own country just because the government tells them to.

That was much my point. If things have reached the point where the majority of America is ready to rise up in armed rebellion, the military would already be with you and so your private collection of small arms would be redundant and irrelevant. If you aren't even going to read what you reply to, you might as well just go back to drooling on your crotch in the corner.

 

[highland145]

No you haven't. So I'll ask again. What is the purpose of gun control?

Let me help him. To control the populace.

 

[ivwshane]

No you haven't. So I'll ask again. What is the purpose of gun control?

Let me help him. To control the populace.

I'm not trying to control guns, so that's your first problem. I'm trying to limit either the amount of mass shootings or limit the amount of people killed from them, I'll also add that I'd love to lower the amount of gun accidents as well.

Because idiots can't read I have to repost whats already been posted.

 

[xj0hnx]

That was much my point. If things have reached the point where the majority of America is ready to rise up in armed rebellion, the military would already be with you and so your private collection of small arms would be redundant and irrelevant. If you aren't even going to read what you reply to, you might as well just go back to drooling on your crotch in the corner.

Except that's not true. The military, even if part, or most was with the people (which if they were, who would they be fighting against?) they can't be everywhere, and citizens would still need to be able to defend themselves.

 

[TerryMathews]

Let me help him. To control the populace.

This. Gun control was originally to keep guns away from blacks.

 

[Incorruptible]

This. Gun control was originally to keep guns away from blacks.

Excellent point, The kkk SUPPORTED GUN CONTROL SO BLACKS COULDN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES. Anyone who supports gun control is a racist