• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

National Firearm Registry

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The concept of a national firearm registry available to law enforcement has been broached before, but people seem to buck against the idea. Why is this, what is a coherent argument against having a national firearms registry?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,259
Reaction score
32,379
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The concept of a national firearm registry available to law enforcement has been broached before, but people seem to buck against the idea. Why is this, what is a coherent argument against having a national firearms registry?
What is a coherent argument for having a national firearms registry? Seems to me the burden would be on those wanting to establish it.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What is a coherent argument for having a national firearms registry? Seems to me the burden would be on those wanting to establish it.
~Ease of identification- A firearm registry would allow a firearm's identity and ownership information to be made available to law enforcement. This means questions with regards to the legality of owned firearms as well as giving law enforcement a way to check stolen firearms as well as setting up a system whereby pawn shops forward firearm information to law enforcement to check if a sold weapon is possible evidence or was imported.

~Keeping tabs on arms trafficking- A national registry can be used to check firearm serials to verify a weapon's country of origin and give more information to the ATF that would help stem the flow of illegal weapons.

~Ease of information flow- Information is a vital tool in law enforcement and the registry provides fast access to information regarding any and all registered firearms.

~Helping track domestic arms trade- Requiring private sales and trades to pass on registration information to the ATF to ensure criminals and potential domestic terrorists aren't stockpiling or acquiring weapons.

This system does not impede or stop any legal owners from following the law and it gives more tools to law enforcement to investigate and prosecute mis-use of firearms in the domestic sphere.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,056
Reaction score
73,396
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
(taken from the thread where this thread started)

1) the government does not have the power to do that-especially with guns no longer moving in interstate commerce. while I and most people who understand that CC deny that it properly was designed to facilitate gun control, one can make at least a semi honest argument that the federal government should have the power to regulate interstate firearms transactions-ie wholesalers selling across state lines to dealers. but certainly not retail shops selling in their own states and clearly there is no power to make me register a gun I have owned for years

2) since criminals are exempt from registration, why have a program that only applies to the people least likely to cause gun related problems

3) it facilitates future confiscations and has been used to facilitate confiscation in the past

4) it has little, if any, use in solving crimes. Hawaii has had gun registration for years and testimony I reviewed suggested that maybe a handful of crimes were solved with the help of a registry

5) government agents are not always honest and someone who has a lot of guns could be targeted for theft if the police misuse the information or allow it to get out

6) you already have a duty to report stolen firearms so when a firearm is stolen, its serial number should be on a national list. Sure, people fail to do that but honest people who have no other criminal activity often refuse to register firearms. Cincinnat passed an assault weapon ban in 1990 or so and required people to register such arms already owned. Less than 100 did (I had moved out of the city as a result) and I knew for a fact (having been counsel for two major gun stores) that thousands were owned by people within the city limits.

but most of all, why does the government need the information?
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,500
Reaction score
50,051
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
(taken from the thread where this thread started)

1) the government does not have the power to do that-especially with guns no longer moving in interstate commerce. while I and most people who understand that CC deny that it properly was designed to facilitate gun control, one can make at least a semi honest argument that the federal government should have the power to regulate interstate firearms transactions-ie wholesalers selling across state lines to dealers. but certainly not retail shops selling in their own states and clearly there is no power to make me register a gun I have owned for years

2) since criminals are exempt from registration, why have a program that only applies to the people least likely to cause gun related problems

3) it facilitates future confiscations and has been used to facilitate confiscation in the past

4) it has little, if any, use in solving crimes. Hawaii has had gun registration for years and testimony I reviewed suggested that maybe a handful of crimes were solved with the help of a registry

5) government agents are not always honest and someone who has a lot of guns could be targeted for theft if the police misuse the information or allow it to get out

6) you already have a duty to report stolen firearms so when a firearm is stolen, its serial number should be on a national list. Sure, people fail to do that but honest people who have no other criminal activity often refuse to register firearms. Cincinnat passed an assault weapon ban in 1990 or so and required people to register such arms already owned. Less than 100 did (I had moved out of the city as a result) and I knew for a fact (having been counsel for two major gun stores) that thousands were owned by people within the city limits.

but most of all, why does the government need the information?

Bravo, kudos, and other positive comments. I couldn't have put it any better than that.

1. No Constitutional authority.
2. Doesn't work for the intended purpose.
3. Can and probably will be abused.
4. None-ya damn business what I have. As an ex-cop I know damn few murders solved by tracing legal ownership of the weapon. Most are solved because people can't keep their mouths shut.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,056
Reaction score
73,396
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Bravo, kudos, and other positive comments. I couldn't have put it any better than that.

1. No Constitutional authority.
2. Doesn't work for the intended purpose.
3. Can and probably will be abused.
4. None-ya damn business what I have. As an ex-cop I know damn few murders solved by tracing legal ownership of the weapon. Most are solved because people can't keep their mouths shut.
people don't tend to leave guns that can be traced to them at crime scenes unless they are dead or wounded. I would suspect that 99% of the mopes out there pack guns that have no paper trail to them.

I have handled alot of criminal appeals involving firearms and you are right
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,216
Reaction score
30,803
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
~Ease of identification- A firearm registry would allow a firearm's identity and ownership information to be made available to law enforcement. This means questions with regards to the legality of owned firearms as well as giving law enforcement a way to check stolen firearms as well as setting up a system whereby pawn shops forward firearm information to law enforcement to check if a sold weapon is possible evidence or was imported.

~Keeping tabs on arms trafficking- A national registry can be used to check firearm serials to verify a weapon's country of origin and give more information to the ATF that would help stem the flow of illegal weapons.

~Ease of information flow- Information is a vital tool in law enforcement and the registry provides fast access to information regarding any and all registered firearms.

~Helping track domestic arms trade- Requiring private sales and trades to pass on registration information to the ATF to ensure criminals and potential domestic terrorists aren't stockpiling or acquiring weapons.

This system does not impede or stop any legal owners from following the law and it gives more tools to law enforcement to investigate and prosecute mis-use of firearms in the domestic sphere.
I look at your reasons...and I look at criminals...and I look at the illegal drug trade...


and I laugh and laugh and laugh...
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,056
Reaction score
73,396
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I look at your reasons...and I look at criminals...and I look at the illegal drug trade...


and I laugh and laugh and laugh...
what I laugh about is that those who push for it seem to pretend we don't know their real motivations even though sawah Bwady and the rest of those scum who run the ARC constantly tell their deluded minions that registration is a necessary step for confiscation to take place
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Why is this, what is a coherent argument against having a national firearms registry?
The people who advocate for a national firearms registry are the same people who advocate for civilian disarmament. Giving them the national firearms registry is not only one step closer to their goal, it's a step that gives them the means to effectively accomplish it. The only guns the government has any legitimate business tracking are the guns that it issues.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,056
Reaction score
73,396
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The people who advocate for a national firearms registry are the same people who advocate for civilian disarmament. Giving them the national firearms registry is not only one step closer to their goal, it's a step that gives them the means to effectively accomplish it. The only guns the government has any legitimate business tracking are the guns that it issues.
and given how many M16 rifles the US Government "loses" each year they cannot even do that well

but here is another reason why some of the ARC want registration.

they know that most people won't register the guns.

what happens then

if you are attacked by a criminal and you produce a weapon, you can be charged. In fact, I was told by a retired armed constable that criminals in Britain have turned in victims who have brandished firearms during home invasion burglaries.

if the cops come to your house and find a weapon you will be a convicted felon meaning you cannot legally ever own a gun again. Gun haters push to make as many people as possible disbarred from owning guns-they pushed through the retroactive Lautenberg Amendment (when that schmuck croaks I will celeberate) which meant soldiers, cops and gun dealers who plead out to slapping their kid or wife 20 years ago lost their jobs for "domestic violence" misdemeanors. These same scum want to ban anyone who has reported voluntarily depression or PTSD to be banned.

and most of all they want to create a bunch of BS laws knowing most won't obey them and then rape those who are caught disobeying their BS laws.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,259
Reaction score
32,379
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
what I laugh about is that those who push for it seem to pretend we don't know their real motivations even though sawah Bwady and the rest of those scum who run the ARC constantly tell their deluded minions that registration is a necessary step for confiscation to take place
Let's not try to bring conspiracy theories into this. There are plenty of factual, logical reasons to not have a national registry.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,056
Reaction score
73,396
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Let's not try to bring conspiracy theories into this. There are plenty of factual, logical reasons to not have a national registry.
so if I were to provide quotes of major anti gun scum saying that registration is a necessary step towards confiscation would that be a "conspiracy"

I have dealt with the scum for years including tearing Pete Shields a new one at Yale in 1979 and doing the same to sarah brady in Cincinnati city hall a decade later. All of those turds push registration for ease of confiscation.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
1) the government does not have the power to do that-especially with guns no longer moving in interstate commerce. while I and most people who understand that CC deny that it properly was designed to facilitate gun control, one can make at least a semi honest argument that the federal government should have the power to regulate interstate firearms transactions-ie wholesalers selling across state lines to dealers. but certainly not retail shops selling in their own states and clearly there is no power to make me register a gun I have owned for years
I feel it is in the interests of our nation to extend that power to the federal government.

2) since criminals are exempt from registration, why have a program that only applies to the people least likely to cause gun related problems
Because it makes it harder to acquire firearms anonymously and it helps combat illegal importation of firearms.

3) it facilitates future confiscations and has been used to facilitate confiscation in the past
How?

4) it has little, if any, use in solving crimes. Hawaii has had gun registration for years and testimony I reviewed suggested that maybe a handful of crimes were solved with the help of a registry
I dont see that Hawaii is a valid testing ground for a nation-wide network.

5) government agents are not always honest and someone who has a lot of guns could be targeted for theft if the police misuse the information or allow it to get out
That's why we have government oversight and controls to prevent this from happening.

6) you already have a duty to report stolen firearms so when a firearm is stolen, its serial number should be on a national list. Sure, people fail to do that but honest people who have no other criminal activity often refuse to register firearms. Cincinnat passed an assault weapon ban in 1990 or so and required people to register such arms already owned. Less than 100 did (I had moved out of the city as a result) and I knew for a fact (having been counsel for two major gun stores) that thousands were owned by people within the city limits.
Make it a requirement for CC permits, purchasing, trading, and exchanging of any firearms that their registration be checked against the database.

but most of all, why does the government need the information?
For reasons I have already outlined.

The people who advocate for a national firearms registry are the same people who advocate for civilian disarmament. Giving them the national firearms registry is not only one step closer to their goal, it's a step that gives them the means to effectively accomplish it. The only guns the government has any legitimate business tracking are the guns that it issues.
Maybe you should ask. I dont support civilian disarming, I support reasonable allowances for civilian firearm ownership but I dont support disarming civilians.

This kind of rhetoric I rather expected: mildly paranoid and entirely un-supported.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,056
Reaction score
73,396
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
complete BS Hoplite

tell me has the war on drugs made obtaining cocaine or weed all that tougher? NO, but it has wasted billions of dollars and ruined millions of lives

you can claim all you want that you are not in favor of bans but when those who want to ban guns desire certain tools to be in place and you support those tools you support the gun banners at least partially

it would be like someone saying "I dont support genocide but I support putting Jews and others in concentration camps so we can keep an eye on them.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
244,056
Reaction score
73,396
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Hawaii is an island which makes controlling firearms rather easy compared to the mainland. Plus Hawaii's history is not one of massive quantities of guns. In other words, if regsitration doesn't work in a closed land mass like Hawaii its sure not going to work in the mainland.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
complete BS Hoplite

tell me has the war on drugs made obtaining cocaine or weed all that tougher? NO, but it has wasted billions of dollars and ruined millions of lives

you can claim all you want that you are not in favor of bans but when those who want to ban guns desire certain tools to be in place and you support those tools you support the gun banners at least partially

it would be like someone saying "I dont support genocide but I support putting Jews and others in concentration camps so we can keep an eye on them.
We arent discussing the war on drugs. If you'd like to discuss it, you're free to start a new thread on the subject.

And if you cant control your temper, I'm not interested in continuing this discussion with you.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,500
Reaction score
50,051
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We arent discussing the war on drugs. If you'd like to discuss it, you're free to start a new thread on the subject.

And if you cant control your temper, I'm not interested in continuing this discussion with you.

I don't think any of us are particularly intrested in this discussion.

We oppose registration, for reasons we've defined. You dismiss our reasons with HandWavium, in a sense saying "But OTHER than it not working, being abused, being unConstitutional, and all that... you don't have any reasons!"

Hah.

Our opposition to any further infringements on 2A rights will continue. Vigorously.

/thread
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The concept of a national firearm registry available to law enforcement has been broached before, but people seem to buck against the idea. Why is this, what is a coherent argument against having a national firearms registry?

I will basically state what everyone else has been saying.

1.Its non of the government's damn business what fire arms nor is it their business how many firearms I own.

2. A firearm registry is nothing more than a database of who has what so the government can later use that list to confiscate weapons. In other words it will be used to facilitate the confiscation of firearms. That is the only reason for a firearm registry.

3. Its a constitutional right to keep and bear arms not a privilege from the government.

4.Criminals do not register firearms.

5.It does not prevent crime nor does it solve crime.(If it does then please cite the stories of a fire arm registry being used to solve and or stop crimes).

6.The potential for government abuse and theft.

7.It gets the 2nd amendment opponents one step closer to their goal of confiscation and total ban.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I can understand opposition to a national registry, but some people here are being a little absurd. While I am against many restrictions on gun control, the notion that anyone should be able to buy a gun without any record being kept of it is a little insane. The argument that most legal gun owners don't commit crimes is disingenuous since most people don't hijack planes either, that doesn't mean we should not demand photo id for people boarding planes just because most of them aren't going to hijack it.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I can understand opposition to a national registry, but some people here are being a little absurd. While I am against many restrictions on gun control, the notion that anyone should be able to buy a gun without any record being kept of it is a little insane.
Firearms is a constiional right in this country so it is insane to be asking that records be kept on something American citizens have a constitutional right to.


The argument that most legal gun owners don't commit crimes is disingenuous since most people don't hijack planes either,
How many crimes has firearm registration solved? How many crimes has firearm registration prevented? Surely if it did those things then there would be stories of firearm registrations preventing and solving crime.

that doesn't mean we should not demand photo id for people boarding planes just because most of them aren't going to hijack it.
Making someone show an ID at a airport is not going to prevent them from hijacking a plane nor do I think that's the intent of making someone show an ID to travel on plane.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,500
Reaction score
50,051
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I can understand opposition to a national registry, but some people here are being a little absurd. While I am against many restrictions on gun control, the notion that anyone should be able to buy a gun without any record being kept of it is a little insane. The argument that most legal gun owners don't commit crimes is disingenuous since most people don't hijack planes either, that doesn't mean we should not demand photo id for people boarding planes just because most of them aren't going to hijack it.
I'm against that too. Armed passengers will take care of hijackers. :mrgreen:
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
74,361
Reaction score
42,453
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
so if I were to provide quotes of major anti gun scum saying that registration is a necessary step towards confiscation would that be a "conspiracy"
Nope. I fear that you would be accurately portraying the attitude of some of the bigger anti-gun folk in this country. There mere existence shows why we must keep our guns.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
74,361
Reaction score
42,453
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I feel it is in the interests of our nation to extend that power to the federal government.
I feel it is in the interest of our nation to keep the power of the federal government limited to it's defined powers and goals while maintaining emphasis on the rights and liberties of the individual.

Because it makes it harder to acquire firearms anonymously and it helps combat illegal importation of firearms.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

How does it do anything you've just said? Just because you make the statement doesn't make it true. Prove it. Fact is, we have some huge boarders and smuggling into this country isn't hard. Furthermore, there can be theft of legally purchased (and registered if the fascists have their way) guns. Point is, there is well enough illegal guns out there to provide enough supply. All you need to do is know the right guy. And guess what? Most criminals intent on violent gun crime...they know the right guy.

Face it, you ain't gonna do **** other than infringe upon the proper rights and liberties of the individual.

I refuse to believe that any functioning human with brain intact would in honesty ask this question. You have a list of who has guns and what guns they have. Can you honestly not see how that would aid in confiscation?

I dont see that Hawaii is a valid testing ground for a nation-wide network.
So you reject the only real data there is and accept your made up fantasy world which you have no data, statistics, or proof for. Yet even in the absence of any of this, you will still call for government force against the rights and liberties of the individual. Wow.

That's why we have government oversight and controls to prevent this from happening.
Tell that to the oil oversight folk who were doing cocaine off hookers asses and taking bribes left and right from the oil companies.

Make it a requirement for CC permits, purchasing, trading, and exchanging of any firearms that their registration be checked against the database.
So basically, infringe against the 4th to practice the 2nd eh? That's real great.

For reasons I have already outlined.
And none in which you logically gave any reason why the 2nd and 4th amendment rights of the individual should be infringed upon.

Maybe you should ask. I dont support civilian disarming, I support reasonable allowances for civilian firearm ownership but I dont support disarming civilians.
I could claim I'm anti-gravity, but pro letting go of puppies from the top of a building. Doesn't change the reality of what I'm doing. These sorts of fascist attempts at the rights and liberties of the individual lead only one place....slavery.

This kind of rhetoric I rather expected: mildly paranoid and entirely un-supported.
If you're speaking of your own arguments, then yes.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
74,361
Reaction score
42,453
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
We arent discussing the war on drugs. If you'd like to discuss it, you're free to start a new thread on the subject.

And if you cant control your temper, I'm not interested in continuing this discussion with you.
So basically "No I cannot answer, and please do not show where other forms of regulation, registration, or restriction has had little effect on the actual access and usage of the device in question because I want to take guns away and would really like it if you quit giving REAL WORLD DATA on why that is infeasible and stupid". Got it.
 
Top Bottom