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

[LaMidRighter]

I can think of a few cases in which a permit to purchase certain kinds of weapons would be in the interest of a free society. We would not want to make it too easy for the nuts and sociopaths to acquire weapons of mass destruction like a fully automatic machine gun or a Bradley tank or a missile launcher and such. But weapons useful for pleasure, aesthetic enjoyment, hunting, self defense, etc.--nope. I can't think of a single reason such should be registered.

Full auto isn't all it's hyped up to be, rideup on the weapons greatly hinders accuracy, especially in assault rifles. The really accurate stuff is usually vehicle mounted systems which are prohibitively expensive to begin with, or mounted machine guns which hinder the mobility of your average nutcase.

Where they are beneficial is an operation where you have to immobilize a squad to flank them, it's suppression fire. They are also good for clearing operations in close quarters when you have multiples because it gets them out of a tactical position. They are also a hell of a fun way to waste hundreds to thousands of dollars of ammo at the range in a very short time period.:lol:

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Humerus? Lol

Like this?

 

[haymarket]

we get it-you are unwilling to even take an educated guess because its a lose lose situation

and its evasive. There is no possible answer other than the fact that the founders did not want the federal government interfering with the natural right of free citizens to be arms.

I really DO NOT see what the point is of speculating what was in the minds of some people 230 years ago who did not use the word you want interpreted in the first place.

I wonder why you think its significant?

 

[haymarket]

Can you please quote the second amendment? Because I think you will find you are ridiculous wrong on that part.

This is just sad.

I will do even better. I will bet you any amount of money that the Second Amendment does not use the word INFRINGEMENTS.

 

[Zyphlin]

Can you please quote the second amendment? Because I think you will find you are ridiculous wrong on that part.

This is just sad.

Apparently we're just imagining this part?

" the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Or perhaps they meant that the right wouldn't be In Fringe...like, somehow the founders knew a television show called Fringe would exist a few centuries later and they wanted people to keep and bear arms in it.

Because that's about the only explanation for how someone can say the notion of infringement isn't present in the second amendment when it clearly states that said right "shall not be infringed"

 

[Zyphlin]

I will do even better. I will bet you any amount of money that the Second Amendment does not use the word INFRINGEMENTS.

So if I understand this inane argument correctly...

The because they said that the right shall not be infringed, instead of stating that hte right shall not suffer infringements....that's your justification?

So your whole argument is tied up over the fact they used the verb instead of the noun the verb references?

Please...explain to me how someone can enact an "infringement" in such a way that it doesn't infringe upon something? Considering that infringement is simply an act of infringing.

The second amendment clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. By the very basic definition of the word and remedial understanding of language, that suggests that infringements to that right can not be done.

That's like proclaiming your love for your wife will never end....and then turning around and saying you're ending your love for her, and justifying it because you claimed it would never end, not that it would never have an ending.

Actually, an even better example...

The First amendment claims that congress can't make a law abridging the freedom of speech.

But using Haymarket Logic....Congress could absolutely make laws abridging words. Becuase the Constitution doesn't specifically say anything about "Words". It just says "Speech". Let's ignore that words are the vehicle in which speech occurs, it doesn't specifically say "words" and so we get to play dumb and remove constitutional protection.

So it can't make a law abridging the freedom of speech. But congress could absolutely make a law stating that the only words we are allowed to say about a president are positive ones, because the constitution doesn't specifically use the word "word".

Words are the method in which speech occurs. Infringements are the method in which infringing occurs.

 

[TurtleDude]

I really DO NOT see what the point is of speculating what was in the minds of some people 230 years ago who did not use the word you want interpreted in the first place.

I wonder why you think its significant?

That is just plain silly. Constitutional scholars spend their lifetime trying to figure out the intent of the founders.

we get it-you are unwilling to admit that the founders DID NOT INTEND the federal government to have the power to interfere with our right to keep and bear arms

 

[TurtleDude]

I will do even better. I will bet you any amount of money that the Second Amendment does not use the word INFRINGEMENTS.

your argument is idiotic. shall not be infringed means to HONEST people that the government shall not engage in infringements.

 

[TurtleDude]

So if I understand this inane argument correctly...

The because they said that the right shall not be infringed, instead of stating that hte right shall not suffer infringements....that's your justification?

So your whole argument is tied up over the fact they used the verb instead of the noun the verb references?

Please...explain to me how someone can enact an "infringement" in such a way that it doesn't infringe upon something? Considering that infringement is simply an act of infringing.

The second amendment clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. By the very basic definition of the word and remedial understanding of language, that suggests that infringements to that right can not be done.

That's like proclaiming your love for your wife will never end....and then turning around and saying you're ending your love for her, and justifying it because you claimed it would never end, not that it would never have an ending.

its amazing isn't it. In the 40 years I have been dealing with the gun banning left, I have never seen such an inane and specious argument. The only thing that comes close are those clowns who claim the SECOND AMENDMENT gave the federal government the power to "well regulate" the Militia and with it all arms. it shows how desperate the gun banners are to get around the plain meaning of the 2A-plain meaning that nukes all of their desired schemes to harass gun owners.

 

[Zyphlin]

its amazing isn't it. In the 40 years I have been dealing with the gun banning left, I have never seen such an inane and specious argument. The only thing that comes close are those clowns who claim the SECOND AMENDMENT gave the federal government the power to "well regulate" the Militia and with it all arms. it shows how desperate the gun banners are to get around the plain meaning of the 2A-plain meaning that nukes all of their desired schemes to harass gun owners.

Hell, I disagere with that argument but I can at least see a logical way in which someone could come to that conclussion.

I can't for the life of me figure out any form of logic, reason, common sense, political understanding, or anything else that would lead someone to believe that "infringements" to the 2nd amendment can occur becuase it said that those rights shall not be "infringed" rather than "shall not be subject to infringements".

 

[TurtleDude]

Hell, I disagere with that argument but I can at least see a logical way in which someone could come to that conclussion.

I can't for the life of me figure out any form of logic, reason, common sense, political understanding, or anything else that would lead someone to believe that "infringements" to the 2nd amendment can occur becuase it said that those rights shall not be "infringed" rather than "shall not be subject to infringements".

because he wants his party to be able to ban guns and he wants to claim that his party does not violate the 2A

its the same crap as the enjoyment theory of the 2A that he floats-if you own one gun you will be able to enjoy your rights in perpetuity no matter what the government does in the future. That is such a fundamental misunderstanding of the BoR (which impose restrictions on what the government can do irrespective of its impact on differently situated individuals) it permanently disqualifies people who make this argument from ever being taken seriously in any con law discussion.

think about it-if you attended one church service, made one speech or read one book, the government could prevent you from any repeat activity and not violate your rights

 

[blackjack50]

I will do even better. I will bet you any amount of money that the Second Amendment does not use the word INFRINGEMENTS.

That is really the point you want to argue? That it doesn't use the word "infringements" despite it using the words "shall not be infringed." You do understand that your argument is now completely discredited because you have engaged in dishonest debate and now nobody in their right mind would listen to that argument?



What about shall? And not? And be?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Full auto isn't all it's hyped up to be, rideup on the weapons greatly hinders accuracy, especially in assault rifles. The really accurate stuff is usually vehicle mounted systems which are prohibitively expensive to begin with, or mounted machine guns which hinder the mobility of your average nutcase.

Where they are beneficial is an operation where you have to immobilize a squad to flank them, it's suppression fire. They are also good for clearing operations in close quarters when you have multiples because it gets them out of a tactical position. They are also a hell of a fun way to waste hundreds to thousands of dollars of ammo at the range in a very short time period.:lol:

I know that, and yeah, generally it would be just as harmless as that. But still, there is potential for certain weapons to create a great deal of havoc within seconds before anybody would have time to react. It is purely for my own self interests that I don't want my crazy neighbor, who gets stupid drunk on Saturday nights, to have a Sherman tank or a machine gun or a grenade launcher in the back yard when he might decide some target practice would be fun.

So regulation of certain weapons of mass destruction I do see as being in the interest of the general welfare.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I know that, and yeah, generally it would be just as harmless as that. But still, there is potential for certain weapons to create a great deal of havoc within seconds before anybody would have time to react. It is purely for my own self interests that I don't want my crazy neighbor, who gets stupid drunk on Saturday nights, to have a Sherman tank or a machine gun in the back yard when he might decide some target practice would be fun.

So regulation of certain weapons of mass destruction I do see as being in the interest of the general welfare.

I would be okay with a simple automatic weapons license and a very restrictive armed vehicle/explosive ordnance license. The real "sell" on full auto was the gangland violence of prohibition, thing about those weapons wasn't any specific lethality, but, as you described a "shock and awe" statement meant to jar people. Those Tommy guns would use an entire drum to hit the target once or twice, but, I do understand your concerns about a complete idiot or whack job just random firing one of those weapons, I would actually prefer they have that instead of a standard fire weapon like a revolver or semi-auto if I am armed because I will have more margin of error to line them up versus ducking for cover avoid a lucky shot. Either way though, I think the current system is horribly flawed and would rather a more intelligent and fair policy.

 

[TurtleDude]

I would be okay with a simple automatic weapons license and a very restrictive armed vehicle/explosive ordnance license. The real "sell" on full auto was the gangland violence of prohibition, thing about those weapons wasn't any specific lethality, but, as you described a "shock and awe" statement meant to jar people. Those Tommy guns would use an entire drum to hit the target once or twice, but, I do understand your concerns about a complete idiot or whack job just random firing one of those weapons, I would actually prefer they have that instead of a standard fire weapon like a revolver or semi-auto if I am armed because I will have more margin of error to line them up versus ducking for cover avoid a lucky shot. Either way though, I think the current system is horribly flawed and would rather a more intelligent and fair policy.

its like the idiots in California who banned balisongs or the moronic federal switchblade laws. btw anyone with say 2 minutes practice can open a spyderco folder faster than a switchblade or a butterfly knife

it was panty wetting old men scared of tough youths who had sinister looking knives

 

[LaMidRighter]

its like the idiots in California who banned balisongs or the moronic federal switchblade laws. btw anyone with say 2 minutes practice can open a spyderco folder faster than a switchblade or a butterfly knife

it was panty wetting old men scared of tough youths who had sinister looking knives

Nevermind the fact that switchblades are the most likely to fail because the springs aren't all that great and the joints are weak. It's easy to go after knives and brass knuckles though because they've been deemed "thug weapons", to be honest, an older person could benefit from brass knuckles to compensate for the natural depletion of strength and mobility, and knives are just as useful as they are dangerous but perception rules the day in weapon prohibition laws. I'm still looking into my states conceal laws to see if a collapsible baton is legal, and IIRC the ballistic knife is banned by federal law.

 

[Helix]

Moderator's Warning:

From this point forward, even light attacks on other posters will result in a thread ban at the very least. Do not talk about other posters. Address the OP only.

 

[blackjack50]

Nevermind the fact that switchblades are the most likely to fail because the springs aren't all that great and the joints are weak. It's easy to go after knives and brass knuckles though because they've been deemed "thug weapons", to be honest, an older person could benefit from brass knuckles to compensate for the natural depletion of strength and mobility, and knives are just as useful as they are dangerous but perception rules the day in weapon prohibition laws. I'm still looking into my states conceal laws to see if a collapsible baton is legal, and IIRC the ballistic knife is banned by federal law.

Sad that a collapsible stick is banned. God forbid you decide to bludgeon an attacker...you know...rather than shoot them. Lol.

My state has a complete ban on brass knuckles. What a joke.

 

[Federalist]

I really DO NOT see what the point is of speculating what was in the minds of some people 230 years ago who did not use the word you want interpreted in the first place.

You don't think there is any point in trying to know what exactly those who ratified the constitution thought they were agree to?

 

[haymarket]

That is just plain silly. Constitutional scholars spend their lifetime trying to figure out the intent of the founders.

we get it-you are unwilling to admit that the founders DID NOT INTEND the federal government to have the power to interfere with our right to keep and bear arms

What people opt to do with their time is their own decision.

 

[haymarket]

That is really the point you want to argue? That it doesn't use the word "infringements" despite it using the words "shall not be infringed." You do understand that your argument is now completely discredited because you have engaged in dishonest debate and now nobody in their right mind would listen to that argument?



What about shall? And not? And be?

You seem angry that the Second Amendment does not have the words you want it to have? Why is that?

Your problem is with the authors and those who ratified it. Not with me.

 

[haymarket]

You don't think there is any point in trying to know what exactly those who ratified the constitution thought they were agree to?

I don't think there is any way to find a definitive answer that will end all debate. So there is no point.

 

[blackjack50]

You seem angry that the Second Amendment does not have the words you want it to have? Why is that?

Your problem is with the authors and those who ratified it. Not with me.

No. I would say the words : "shall not be infringed" are pretty damn concrete. I'm not the one trying to argue that infringements are ok when something says, "shall not be infringed."

 

[haymarket]

No. I would say the words : "shall not be infringed" are pretty damn concrete. I'm not the one trying to argue that infringements are ok when something says, "shall not be infringed."

I agree its pretty damn concrete. Sadly you just smashed the concrete and added in some different material fundamentally changing it to something else altogether.

 

[TurtleDude]

What people opt to do with their time is their own decision.

it should be the same with what sort of firearms they want to own