can someone tell me any objective benefit of gun registration?[W488, 1267]

[Federalist]

Nonsense. Attempting to demonize me with your vitriol is a poor substitute for debate.

Sorry, but if the shoe fits...

As I said, there is nothing in the constitution that MANDATES that the federal government restrict the people's ability to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms. Yet, you propose such restrictions.

You argue in favor of the government violating your neighbor's body and property.

I argue against policies that use the force of government to violate my neighbor's body and property.

That's the difference. That's the debate.

 

[Crimefree]

And the right to keep and bear arms is being exercised by the citizenry in all those states.

The meme that registration leads to confiscation and denial of second amendment rights is simply false as the right is being exercised.

The meme that the right is "excised" is not a requirement of the 2nd amendment and the claim that the right can still be exercised is totally fraudlent as the right can now only be exercised by a select group of people and is not universal to all as intended.

 

[Crimefree]

Registration always creates confiscation by its very definition. It also creates criminals from law-abiding people at the stoke of a pen and any of them found with an unregistered firearm will have that firearm CONFISCATED. All it needs is just one firearm to be confiscated from a once legal owner and it is unjustified confiscation and deprivation of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

There is absolutely no way registration can be justified because it has no other purpose than to make criminals out of people and a confiscation list.

 

[haymarket]

You can say it one million times but a tool that cannot preform its purpose is not a tool of that purpose. Repetition will not make it true.

You have not demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that this "tool" can accomplish what you claim it can. The evidence is that this "tool" is a failure in producing anything useful to police or citizens.

81% of the professionals trained in its use in Canada found it beneficial to the performance of their job to serve and protect the public. That is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it is indeed useful to police and citizens.

 

[haymarket]

Sorry, but if the shoe fits...

As I said, there is nothing in the constitution that MANDATES that the federal government restrict the people's ability to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms. Yet, you propose such restrictions.

You argue in favor of the government violating your neighbor's body and property.

I argue against policies that use the force of government to violate my neighbor's body and property.

That's the difference. That's the debate.

Actually that is the self imposed delusion you operate under painting yourself as some sort of great warrior saint and others who disagree with you as enemies to be demonized.

 

[haymarket]

The meme that the right is "excised" is not a requirement of the 2nd amendment and the claim that the right can still be exercised is totally fraudlent as the right can now only be exercised by a select group of people and is not universal to all as intended.

"Universal"!?!?!?!? Where do you get such nonsense from?

 

[BretJ]

81% of the professionals trained in its use in Canada found it beneficial to the performance of their job to serve and protect the public. That is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it is indeed useful to police and citizens.

Yet during the hearings regarding long gun registration, they (RCMP) could not provide an example of why or how it was useful. If it is useful, show how/why it is useful. As it stands, 81% of the officers which responded only tell us they think its useful because they think its useful or in other words, "just because". Without justification, it smacks of an appeal to authority. I imagine a good percentage of folks in the NSA and CIA believe collection of phone records and enhanced interrogation methods are useful as well.



Can the states which currently require registration give any quantifiable evidence of its usefullness? I would think it would be in their best interests to show it.

 

[haymarket]

Yet during the hearings regarding long gun registration, they (RCMP) could not provide an example of why or how it was useful. If it is useful, show how/why it is useful. As it stands, 81% of the officers which responded only tell us they think its useful because they think its useful or in other words, "just because". Without justification, it smacks of an appeal to authority. I imagine a good percentage of folks in the NSA and CIA believe collection of phone records and enhanced interrogation methods are useful as well.



Can the states which currently require registration give any quantifiable evidence of its usefullness? I would think it would be in their best interests to show it.

Are you claiming that each and every one of those 81% testified at those hearings and were unable to provide a reason why they thought it was useful to their job?

 

[Federalist]

Actually that is the self imposed delusion you operate under painting yourself as some sort of great warrior saint and others who disagree with you as enemies to be demonized.

Delusion? There is no delusion.

There is nothing in the constitution that MANDATES that the federal government restrict the people's ability to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms. That is a fact, not a delusion.

Despite the fact that it is not REQUIRED, you argue in favor of such restrictions. That is a fact, not a delusion.

I argue against such restriction. Again, a fact, not a delusion.

 

[BretJ]

Are you claiming that each and every one of those 81% testified at those hearings and were unable to provide a reason why they thought it was useful to their job?

Not saying they did or did not. Someone from the RCMP did take part in the hearings. If there were examples, then they did a pretty poor job of representing the 81% that thought it was useful and reflects poorly on their leadership. I would think that as contested as this subject was, someone would have made providing sufficient examples a high priority. On the flip side, perhaps they did make it a high priority but could not find any.........

 

[haymarket]

Delusion? There is no delusion.

There is nothing in the constitution that MANDATES that the federal government restrict the people's ability to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms. That is a fact, not a delusion.

Despite the fact that it is not REQUIRED, you argue in favor of such restrictions. That is a fact, not a delusion.

I argue against such restriction. Again, a fact, not a delusion.

Yes there is a delusion and it is you conning yourself into believing that it is only MANDATED directives that should be followed.

 

[haymarket]

Not saying they did or did not. Someone from the RCMP did take part in the hearings. If there were examples, then they did a pretty poor job of representing the 81% that thought it was useful and reflects poorly on their leadership. I would think that as contested as this subject was, someone would have made providing sufficient examples a high priority. On the flip side, perhaps they did make it a high priority but could not find any.........

Without reading the exact testimony I could not say if they did a good job or a poor job in the testimony. However, I also have a really hard time accepting that because one person testified and you are characterizing the testimony the way you are that it means that the 81% did not have good reasons why the survey was useful to them. I am not saying you are being intentionally dishonest but that conclusion that the 81% could find no actual reason for benefit is totally and completely unsupported by the facts.

 

[Federalist]

Yes there is a delusion and it is you conning yourself into believing that it is only MANDATED directives that should be followed.

If it's not mandatory to violate the right of my fellow Americans, then I would not argue in favor I doing so. I would not argue in favor of using government force to limit my neighbor's ability to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms.

It is not mandatory. We have a choice. You choose to argue against liberty. You are an enemy of liberty.

 

[haymarket]

If it's not mandatory to violate the right of my fellow Americans ..............

you can stop right there as that false premise dooms every letter you type after it.

 

[Kal'Stang]

To provide a tool for law enforcement to serve and protect the public. This has been stated over and over and over and over.

Simply saying this does not make it an actual tool worthy enough of passing SCOTUS muster. You have to do better than that.

 

[Federalist]

you can stop right there as that false premise dooms every letter you type after it.

False premise?

Are you claiming that the constitution contains any mandate, any mandate at all, that REQUIRES the violation of the body or property of the American people?

 

[TurtleDude]

Simply saying this does not make it an actual tool worthy enough of passing SCOTUS muster. You have to do better than that.

what canadian toads of the government croak in support of governmental policies that are designed to harass peaceful gun ownership matters not to anyone who counts: what is important is that there is ZERO evidence that gun registration in the USA is anything other than a tool of harassment of lawful gun owners.

 

[BretJ]

Without reading the exact testimony I could not say if they did a good job or a poor job in the testimony. However, I also have a really hard time accepting that because one person testified and you are characterizing the testimony the way you are that it means that the 81% did not have good reasons why the survey was useful to them. I am not saying you are being intentionally dishonest but that conclusion that the 81% could find no actual reason for benefit is totally and completely unsupported by the facts.

Then they simply need to supply the facts. They should be able to provide some supporting evidence to validate their approval. Otherwise it is "because I said it does". Not terribly compelling nor should it be grounds for any kind of bill/law or regulation. You would think if they had any kind of compelling evidence, the Canadian gun prohibitionists would be waving it from the mountain tops and all over the news media. It seems all they can muster is, "81% think its beneficial". Again, it is an appeal to authority if taken on face value.

 

[blackjack50]

And the right to keep and bear arms is being exercised by the citizenry in all those states.

All but one has used their list for confiscation purposes. 6/7 or 86% of them. Not exactly good stats for you.

The meme that registration leads to confiscation and denial of second amendment rights is simply false as the right is being exercised.

We seem to be stuck in a loop. Fortunately I have dealt with you enough to know your tactics. I assume you are admitting you have no counter to my argument "registration is a tool for confiscation." Hence your repeated insistence on misquoting me...a horrendously dishonest move on your part.

So. Tell me. Will you continue to misrepresent and create a Strawman about what I said? Or would you like to continue this discussion in an honest manner in which you reply to my statement "registration is a tool of confiscation."

 

[haymarket]

Simply saying this does not make it an actual tool worthy enough of passing SCOTUS muster. You have to do better than that.

You ask for proof and I provide it.
Then you reject the proof as it contradicts your own personal belief system as your mind is long ago made up and beyond convincing. .
You ask why I have not provided proof.
I remind you of what I have provided and why you reject what was before you.

In all honesty - in all frankness - in all directness op and to be as blunt as possible - there is no evidence you would ever accept to change your mind.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You ask for proof and I provide it.
Then you reject the proof as it contradicts your own personal belief system as your mind is long ago made up and beyond convincing. .
You ask why I have not provided proof.
I remind you of what I have provided and why you reject what was before you.

In all honesty - in all frankness - in all directness op and to be as blunt as possible - there is no evidence you would ever accept to change your mind.

You haven't provided a shred of evidence. You say you provided it...where is it?

 

[haymarket]

All but one has used their list for confiscation purposes. 6/7 or 86% of them. Not exactly good stats for you.



We seem to be stuck in a loop. Fortunately I have dealt with you enough to know your tactics. I assume you are admitting you have no counter to my argument "registration is a tool for confiscation." Hence your repeated insistence on misquoting me...a horrendously dishonest move on your part.

So. Tell me. Will you continue to misrepresent and create a Strawman about what I said? Or would you like to continue this discussion in an honest manner in which you reply to my statement "registration is a tool of confiscation."

Just the opposite. The things confiscated were ILLEGAL. And their removal in no way shape or form has prevented the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms in those states.

You leave out the most important part of the meme - you see I really do not care about the ridiculous and silly and inane mantra that registration is a tool for confiscation as it is meaningless unless it leads to a denial of ones right to keep and bear arms. Unless you can do that - you and the servants of the gun lobby have nothing except a hollow slogan that you hope strikes fear like a bogeyman in the citizenry but is easy to see through and discover its only a harmless baby wearing a fright mask.

 

[haymarket]

You haven't provided a shred of evidence. You say you provided it...where is it?

The evidence is is the very states that you and others try to scare us with the dreaded bogeyman of registration leading to the even worse nightmare of confiscation. You see in all those states - despite a small number of people losing illegal items - the right to keep and bear arms is exercised by the citizenry.

 

[haymarket]

False premise?

Are you claiming that the constitution contains any mandate, any mandate at all, that REQUIRES the violation of the body or property of the American people?

It has been explained to you over and over again - the false premise is you insisting that this inane MANDATORY is the standard.

 

[haymarket]

Then they simply need to supply the facts. They should be able to provide some supporting evidence to validate their approval. Otherwise it is "because I said it does". Not terribly compelling nor should it be grounds for any kind of bill/law or regulation. You would think if they had any kind of compelling evidence, the Canadian gun prohibitionists would be waving it from the mountain tops and all over the news media. It seems all they can muster is, "81% think its beneficial". Again, it is an appeal to authority if taken on face value.

Perhaps you should ask them if you do not have what you want to have from them?