- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 52,046
- Reaction score
- 34,013
- Location
- The Golden State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It does address prohibiting gun ownership by felons and the mentally retarded.
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
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?
In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; also argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible.[1][2] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[2] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις 'demonstration to the impossible', 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.
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?
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 ****.
but how to keep all weapons out of the hands of people who I think we agree should not have them
Well, for starters, if one of the guys I gave the gun to rats on me, you can check the registry and you have proof that I bought 23 other guns. You can't do that currently.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".
Because these cases are incredibly hard to prosecute. Generally they are pleaded down to very minor penalties. Currently you don't have to simply prove that they gave the gun to a felon. You have to prove that they did all of this with knowledge that the person is a felon and intended to do it from the start. That incredibly hard to prove. If you find out that my buddy who is a convicted felon has a gun that I purchased in possession, you have to prove that I bought that gun for him in order to convict me of a straw purchase. I could easily lie and say I bought it for me and he stole it or I bought it for me and gave it to him later on cause I didn't need it and I had no idea he was a felon that couldn't have a gun etc.No, the registry would not show that you are not in possession of any of them.
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
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.
how would you know with a registry? Like you said.. you filed down the serial numbers and handed them out to your friends.
So... unless you plan on having police officers go to people houses that have bought guns, and search those houses for the guns they bought... you aren't going to catch anyone. And think of how many searches you are going to have to do.. just based on the person having bought a firearm.. before you catch someone that did not register it or did but sold it with the serial number filed off.
Not at all. in your scenario. you just pointed out just how USELESS a registry would be. The serial number is gone... so how do you trace it back tot he guy that bought those guns?
Well, for starters, if one of the guys I gave the gun to rats on me, you can check the registry and you have proof that I bought 23 other guns. .
Or, you could check the gun purchases of all known associates of the criminal caught with a gun with a filed off serial number. If I'm his buddy and I just purchased 24 handguns just like the one he used, maybe you want to question me and ask to see those 24 guns
Because these cases are incredibly hard to prosecute. Generally they are pleaded down to very minor penalties. Currently you don't have to simply prove that they gave the gun to a felon.
I'm just saying that a registry that was well enforced would be incredibly useful for fighting crime.
You are free to do that now. But you will get caught eventually. One of your "buddies" will narc on you and you are busted. Now they have you on two separate crimes.
But you now have an additional charge....one that can carry a very long sentence.if they "narc" on me I am busted whether I had a registered firearm or not.
"Narcing" on me does not require registration..
Then why not instead add the years to the already existing law rather than create a new law?But you now have an additional charge....one that can carry a very long sentence.
Then why not instead add the years to the already existing law rather than create a new law?
If the fellow rats on him without registration.. you could do that anyway.
But you now have an additional charge....one that can carry a very long sentence.
Giving a firearm to a known felon is punishable by 10 years in jail. If that's not deterrent. that additional charge isn;t going to matter.
Just to point out.. Reductio as absurdum.. is used to EXPOSE a fallacy.
In other words.. Rucker61 exposed your fallacy that you can
Seriously.. how do you think you can keep all weapons out of the hands of people that you think should not have them.????
How would you prove that the guy he ratted on had purchased 24 guns under the current system? .
Purchasing 24 guns is not a crime. so why would you have to prove that the guy he ratted on had purchased 24 guns?
So now.. you have the word of a felon. and the world of a guy who isn;t a felon.. and you are now going to search the house based on that? And search all the other family and known associates?
How do you prove that the gun in question is actually the gun that was purchased? there is no serial number to identify it.
Heck.. just because a firearm is missing.. from the fellows collection means nothing. He could have sold it.. and the other person failed to register it. He could have sold it to someone else or had it stolen and failed to report it.. heck.. he might not even know it was stolen.
Purchasing 24 guns is not a crime. so why would you have to prove that the guy he ratted on had purchased 24 guns?
So now.. you have the word of a felon. and the world of a guy who isn;t a felon.. and you are now going to search the house based on that? And search all the other family and known associates?
How do you prove that the gun in question is actually the gun that was purchased? there is no serial number to identify it.
Heck.. just because a firearm is missing.. from the fellows collection means nothing. He could have sold it.. and the other person failed to register it. He could have sold it to someone else or had it stolen and failed to report it.. heck.. he might not even know it was stolen.
or what you're doing is denial. You can't tell me a legitimate purpose of registration."Confiscation" equals paranoid.
no it's because you make up nonsense that you have no integrity. Local serial numbers where did you come up with this crap?"Show some integrity"? Because we disagree I have no integrity...
And you resort to boo-hooing when you can't defend the nonsense that you're told to believe. It's like you're in a cult.You right-wingers always resort to ad-hom when you're stuck.
please, we've had this conversation before. The Second Amendment is not absolute. The issue is where the line is drawn.
It does address prohibiting gun ownership by felons and the mentally retarded.
wrong-mentally retarded is not the standard. adjudicated mentally incompetent is. that's a big difference
Mentally incompetent is a much better term, but the summary I quoted did say "mentally retarded." I think that's an outdated term anyway.
You couldn't sell it without it being registered to the new owner
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?