Why Registration Is Bad

[jet57]

If your point is that a registeration would be completely useless because a mechanism already exists to recover fire arms than yes.

But your point seems to be that we need a registration you do what is already done very well without heavy interference from the government.

So again the only purpose for registration is for confiscation.

gibberish

 

[CLAX1911]

gibberish

that's what you call legitimate points you can't argue against.

 

[Dittohead not!]

why don't you tell us what libertarian ideal program will do this without harming our rights or creating a system that can easily be used to confiscate or ban guns. Post up, I want to see it

I have posted it. All I get back is a paranoid fantasy about the government coming to confiscate guns and hype about wanting to ban guns, along with arguments about how it will never work (whatever has been suggested.) If those arguments are correct, then we'll just have to live with a high rate of homicide and periodic mass shootings.

 

[jet57]

that's what you call legitimate points you can't argue against.

No, it a proper response to your paranoid nonsense.

 

[TurtleDude]

I have posted it. All I get back is a paranoid fantasy about the government coming to confiscate guns and hype about wanting to ban guns, along with arguments about how it will never work (whatever has been suggested.) If those arguments are correct, then we'll just have to live with a high rate of homicide and periodic mass shootings.

we don't have much of either in areas where people can legally own guns. most murders with guns take place in areas that have strict gun control. Most of the rare mass shootings take place in gun free zones

and I guess you ignore the hate filled nonsense we see from anti gun posters here and assume the politicians they support don't feel the same way they do

 

[TurtleDude]

Have major states (all run by the Dems) banned guns in the USA? yes, California, Illinois, NJ, NY, Maryland and Connecticut (all big states in terms of populations) have banned commonly owned-rarely misused guns

Have major political leaders and pundits called for gun bans or even confiscation? yes

the senior senators of California, NY, CT, NJ have as well as numerous left wing pundits or publications

 

[Dittohead not!]

we don't have much of either in areas where people can legally own guns. most murders with guns take place in areas that have strict gun control. Most of the rare mass shootings take place in gun free zones

and I guess you ignore the hate filled nonsense we see from anti gun posters here and assume the politicians they support don't feel the same way they do

We don't have a lot of shootings in areas not impoverished and/or run by gangs.

And states with stricter gun control laws don't have more murders. That's just nonsense.

Yes, I know there are extremists who would ban guns. They don't have the power to do so. The Second is far safer than either the fourth or the fifth, especially the fifth. If we're going to try to protect one of the first ten, I'd concentrate on the fifth. The Second is pretty safe.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Have major states (all run by the Dems) banned guns in the USA? yes, California, Illinois, NJ, NY, Maryland and Connecticut (all big states in terms of populations) have banned commonly owned-rarely misused guns

Have major political leaders and pundits called for gun bans or even confiscation? yes

the senior senators of California, NY, CT, NJ have as well as numerous left wing pundits or publications

and some guns are banned everywhere in the USA. That doesn't mean that guns in general are banned anywhere.
And the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about particular types of weapons

 

[TurtleDude]

We don't have a lot of shootings in areas not impoverished and/or run by gangs.

And states with stricter gun control laws don't have more murders. That's just nonsense.

Yes, I know there are extremists who would ban guns. They don't have the power to do so. The Second is far safer than either the fourth or the fifth, especially the fifth. If we're going to try to protect one of the first ten, I'd concentrate on the fifth. The Second is pretty safe.

you are either lying or ignorant. most gun murders take place in about 8 counties-most of which have strict gun control . The second was raped with the FDR administration. that rape was never remedied.

 

[TurtleDude]

and some guns are banned everywhere in the USA. That doesn't mean that guns in general are banned anywhere.
And the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about particular types of weapons

you seem to think that since the second amendment only says arms, that means the federal government has the power to ban some of them? in reality , the federal government has no proper power in this area. and if you think that those who want to ban guns almost never used in crime are going to stop with them, you are either naive or in support of this incrementalist creeping crud

 

[jaeger19]

I have posted it. All I get back is a paranoid fantasy about the government coming to confiscate guns and hype about wanting to ban guns, along with arguments about how it will never work (whatever has been suggested.) If those arguments are correct, then we'll just have to live with a high rate of homicide and periodic mass shootings.

Yep.. got it.. you don't want to have a rational discussion.

We have been giving multiple suggestion in how to improve things. From access to mental health.. to increase prosecutions of violent felons that try to get a firearm, to longer sentences for violent crime, to a simple check system place on the ID of prohibited people. to changes in school security.

YET.. you ignore all of that. You sir having proven yourself to be an ideologue on this issue. If universal background checks and registration doesn't work... then you falsely state that "we will just have to live with a high rate of homicide"..

BY the way.. even that tidbit is wrong because while gun ownership has gone up in this country..our homicide rate has gone down.

The number of murders rose 8.6 percent nationwide in 2016, according to the FBI’s newest round of crime statistics, released Monday. There were an estimated 17,250 murders1


last year, up from 15,883 in 2015. The murder rate also rose for a second straight year, but it’s still roughly where it was in 2008, far below the levels of the 1980s and early 1990s.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-u-s-murder-rate-is-up-but-still-far-below-its-1980-peak/

 

[CLAX1911]

No, it a proper response to your paranoid nonsense.

nothing I stated was paranoid.

Its factual. We don't need a federal registration to recover fire arms. The system we habe now works fine. Even from other states.

So the one purpose that you tauted doesn't need registration.

So what else would the purpose of registration be? I'm asking you, show some integrity and give a real answer.

 

[jet57]

nothing I stated was paranoid.

Its factual. We don't need a federal registration to recover fire arms. The system we habe now works fine. Even from other states.

So the one purpose that you tauted doesn't need registration.

So what else would the purpose of registration be? I'm asking you, show some integrity and give a real answer.

"Confiscation" equals paranoid.

"Show some integrity"? Because we disagree I have no integrity... You right-wingers always resort to ad-hom when you're stuck.

 

[roughdraft274]

The benefits of the good evidently do not outweigh the risks of the bad. The efficacy of a program where a small percentage of firearms are actually registered is also a reason not to put this information in the hands of the government.

Can you list and quantify the benefits you would attribute to registration?

Disagree. But you must also realize that the "bad" is extremely unlikely. The situation that the registry is used to track gun traffickers or straw purchases is insanely more likely than the government using the registry to go house to house and take all guns or to take even a type of gun.

Can we agree on that?

 

[Rucker61]

Disagree. But you must also realize that the "bad" is extremely unlikely. The situation that the registry is used to track gun traffickers or straw purchases is insanely more likely than the government using the registry to go house to house and take all guns or to take even a type of gun.

Can we agree on that?

You don't need registration to track straw purchasers or gun traffickers. A confiscation may not require house-to-house confiscations - merely declaring ownership of a firearm type to be a felony will force lawful owners to comply. That's not any more acceptable.

 

[roughdraft274]

You don't need registration to track straw purchasers or gun traffickers. A confiscation may not require house-to-house confiscations - merely declaring ownership of a firearm type to be a felony will force lawful owners to comply. That's not any more acceptable.

You don't need registration to confiscate guns.

But you're arguing something that wasn't my point.

It's possible to do it without the registry. But the registry would make it much much easier.

If the law was that no gun store/person could sell a gun without ensuring that the purchaser registered it (the same as when you register a car at a dealership) then essentially all new guns would be registered at POS. Very few if any gun stores would defy the law. This information would allow us to see who is purchasing insane amounts of guns. For instance, right now if I were to go to 12 different gun stores and buy 2 guns at each of them, file down the serial numbers and then hand them out to my friends that couldn't pass the back ground check, how would you catch me without a registry? Even if you could trace back a single gun that I purchased because I didn't file down the serial number well enough, how do you then figure out that I purchased 23 other guns? You can't as of right now. A registry would show you that I just purchased 24 guns and I am currently not in possession of any of them. Then you could arrest me for straw purchasing/selling guns to people that shouldn't have them etc.

So we aren't talking about whether it's impossible to do it without a registry, but the fact that a registry provides extremely useful information in some scenarios that would help to track down people doing bad ****. Agreed?

 

[Rucker61]

You don't need registration to confiscate guns.

But you're arguing something that wasn't my point.

It's possible to do it without the registry. But the registry would make it much much easier.

If the law was that no gun store/person could sell a gun without ensuring that the purchaser registered it (the same as when you register a car at a dealership) then essentially all new guns would be registered at POS. Very few if any gun stores would defy the law. This information would allow us to see who is purchasing insane amounts of guns. For instance, right now if I were to go to 12 different gun stores and buy 2 guns at each of them, file down the serial numbers and then hand them out to my friends that couldn't pass the back ground check, how would you catch me without a registry?

How would we catch you with a registry? By filing off the serial number you've just eliminated the link between firearm and registry. There is no law against buying "insane amounts of guns".

Even if you could trace back a single gun that I purchased because I didn't file down the serial number well enough, how do you then figure out that I purchased 23 other guns? You can't as of right now. A registry would show you that I just purchased 24 guns and I am currently not in possession of any of them.

No, the registry would not show that you are not in possession of any of them.

Then you could arrest me for straw purchasing/selling guns to people that shouldn't have them etc.

If you bought guns at a gun shop following the current process, sold them to prohibited persons, and the police found one of those firearms with or without a damaged serial number in the possession of a prohibited person, that firearm can be traced back to you now. The problem is that nothing is done about it.

https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-rel...urchase-violations-depends-on-state-laws.html

Even when successfully prosecuted, the punishment is insufficient:

"Jalita Jenera Johnson has been sentenced for lying when she bought a gun and 50-round drum magazine for her convicted felon boyfriend, Marcus Wheeler. Wheeler later used the gun and magazine to kill an Omaha, Nebraska, police officer while the officer was attempting to serve a warrant on Wheeler for his arrest. Jalita Jenera Johnson, 26, of Jonesboro, Georgia, has been sentenced to one year of probation, 40 hours of community service, and 180 days’ home confinement. Johnson was convicted on these charges on August 19, 2015, after she pleaded guilty."

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndga/p...uying-firearm-used-kill-omaha-nebraska-police

So we aren't talking about whether it's impossible to do it without a registry, but the fact that a registry provides extremely useful information in some scenarios that would help to track down people doing bad ****. Agreed?

Doesn't work so well in practice.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daniel...gistering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#27daf36b5a1b
Maryland spent millions on gun database that solved no crimes. - Baltimore Sun

As long as Democrats continue to push for both registration and gun bans the popular support for registration won't be there. Ask Connecticut and New York, both blue state, how well their registration efforts went.

 

[Dittohead not!]

you are either lying or ignorant. most gun murders take place in about 8 counties-most of which have strict gun control . The second was raped with the FDR administration. that rape was never remedied.

I said that states with strict gun controls don't necessarily have more murders than states without. California, for example, has 7.9 per 100,000 population, while neighboring Nevada, with its more lax gun controls, has more than double that.

You can look at the rest here.

But, we're getting off the subject. It issue is not where the line is drawn as to which weapons are OK and which are not, but how to keep all weapons out of the hands of people who I think we agree should not have them.

 

[Dittohead not!]

you seem to think that since the second amendment only says arms, that means the federal government has the power to ban some of them? in reality , the federal government has no proper power in this area. and if you think that those who want to ban guns almost never used in crime are going to stop with them, you are either naive or in support of this incrementalist creeping crud

please, we've had this conversation before. The Second Amendment is not absolute. The issue is where the line is drawn.

 

[Rucker61]

please, we've had this conversation before. The Second Amendment is not absolute. The issue is where the line is drawn.

Currently SCOTUS drew the line with the Second Amendment protects all "bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" or "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia", and extended those protections to the states via McDonald.

 

[Rucker61]

It issue is not where the line is drawn as to which weapons are OK and which are not, but how to keep all weapons out of the hands of people who I think we agree should not have them.

The only way to do so is:

Ban and confiscate all guns. This may require martial law.
Next, prohibit, find and confiscate any bit of machinery that can be used to manufacture firearms, like CNC machines, milling machines and 3D printers.
Lastly, try closing the porous 1000 mile border between the US and our lawless neighbor to the south. We can’t stop a flood of drugs and people crossing that border – what makes you think that we wouldn’t see illegal firearms coming through to meet the demand of criminals and citizens alike. How many more police will we need to protect the now unarmed public from the criminals who won’t have complied with a gun ban?

And that's just for guns. How do you keep all other lethal weapons out of the hands of those that we agree should not have them?

 

[vegas giants]

The only way to do so is:

Ban and confiscate all guns. This may require martial law.
Next, prohibit, find and confiscate any bit of machinery that can be used to manufacture firearms, like CNC machines, milling machines and 3D printers.
Lastly, try closing the porous 1000 mile border between the US and our lawless neighbor to the south. We can’t stop a flood of drugs and people crossing that border – what makes you think that we wouldn’t see illegal firearms coming through to meet the demand of criminals and citizens alike. How many more police will we need to protect the now unarmed public from the criminals who won’t have complied with a gun ban?

And that's just for guns. How do you keep all other lethal weapons out of the hands of those that we agree should not have them?

That is just nonsense and you know it

 

[vegas giants]

Currently SCOTUS drew the line with the Second Amendment protects all "bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" or "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia", and extended those protections to the states via McDonald.

Currently SCOTUS is wrong

 

[Dittohead not!]

Currently SCOTUS drew the line with the Second Amendment protects all "bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" or "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia", and extended those protections to the states via McDonald.

it also said:

The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents.

summary of Heller vs. DC

 

[Rucker61]

it also said:



summary of Heller vs. DC

Correct for the most part, although Heller doesn't address storage laws. Nothing in Heller, Miller, McDonald or Caetano allows the banning of firearms in common use for lawful purposes or having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html