Why Registration Is Bad

[Dittohead not!]

Criminals aren't going to use registered guns. Considering that criminals get guns illegally they obviously aren't going to register them and they obviously will not comply with any mandatory registrations, so requiring guns to be registered will not help towards getting them out of the hands of criminals.


Good question.


No he didn't. That's what Clinton did, or tried to do, during his administration.


Trump is not going to confiscate weapons. He is for gun rights. If anything, he wants more people to be armed such as school teachers because as he points out, shooters target gun free zones such as schools because they know bullets won't be flying back at them. As for confiscating weapons, that's what Hillary would've done had she gotten in, she would've been worse than Bill, it would've been an absolute nightmare had she gotten in, thank the Lord she didn't.

I don't think you or I or anyone else can predict what Trump might do, or what Hillary might have done had she won. People seem to think she would have been like a third term for Obama, and that might be correct, but Obama didn't come to confiscate guns.

Only the lunatic fringe wants to "ban guns." There are few gun banners in the USA.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Effects of their hobby on others? All responsible gun owners practice their hobby safely so that it doesn't have any negative effect on others.

Yes, by definition, responsible gun owners are those who practice their hobby safely. Such responsible people should have not problem registering their guns. They should be in favor of it, in fact, as it would make it more likely that any gun stolen from them would be found and returned.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I find it amusing how 2nd amendment opponents can spew that line while at the same time calling for a ban on semiautomatic firearms under the guise of an assault weapons ban and praising the gun control laws of Australia and the UK.





When anti-2nd amendment trash are calling for bans on certain types of firearms the 2nd amendment advocates tend to believe them.

Not sure what that has to do with me, as I haven't called for a ban on assault weapons or any other sort.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Unless and until it is stolen.

And how would registration prevent theft? A thief is just as likely to steal a registered gun as they are an unregistered gun.

 

[DebateChallenge]

I don't think you or I or anyone else can predict what Trump might do, or what Hillary might have done had she won. People seem to think she would have been like a third term for Obama, and that might be correct, but Obama didn't come to confiscate guns.

No had Hillary won it would've been a third term for Hillary since she already had two terms when Bill was President, she was pulling his strings. Now just imagine what she would do had she won and she could be President without having to do it through a puppet such as Bill.

 

[Dittohead not!]

No had Hillary won it would've been a third term for Hillary since she already had two terms when Bill was President, she was pulling his strings. Now just imagine what she would do had she won and she could be President without having to do it through a puppet such as Bill.

Let's see. Clinton years, 1993 to 2001: Seems like that was a pretty good period in American history, much better than the following few years in which the US decided to invade Iraq and started an ill advised war.

 

[Dittohead not!]

And how would registration prevent theft? A thief is just as likely to steal a registered gun as they are an unregistered gun.

it wouldn't prevent theft. It would make it easier to identify the legitimate owner and determine that the gun was actually stolen. Registration would make law enforcement's job just a bit easier.

 

[DebateChallenge]

it wouldn't prevent theft. It would make it easier to identify the legitimate owner and determine that the gun was actually stolen. Registration would make law enforcement's job just a bit easier.

Law enforcement can just as easily trace the serial number back to the gun dealer who sold it and that way determine the owner.

 

[TurtleDude]

How do candidates supporting gun rights vote on gay rights? I don't know of any connection between gun rights and gay rights although supposedly there has been an increase in firearm ownership and training among gays following the Pulse Club Orlando shooting.

its a good question-being a consistent libertarian I oppose laws that criminalize the possession of firearms or laws that punish consensual sexual activity of competent adults or bars people from various public services due to their sexual orientation. Sadly, I have seen some of the most idiotic anti gun arguments come from gays who apparently are upset that the NRA opposed their chosen presidential candidate

 

[TurtleDude]

Let's see. Clinton years, 1993 to 2001: Seems like that was a pretty good period in American history, much better than the following few years in which the US decided to invade Iraq and started an ill advised war.

yeah Clinton was the epitome of Libertarian Ideals.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Law enforcement can just as easily trace the serial number back to the gun dealer who sold it and that way determine the owner.

Sure. They can research it here

The ATF’s Nonsensical Non-Searchable Gun Databases, Explained
The agency gets more than 1,000 requests for gun traces each day. But most local libraries have more advanced record-keeping systems.

 

[blarg]

This is why registration is bad. When you have to register the guns you own the government knows who has what and the government really has no business having that information. Registration leads to confiscation. Lets say they ban a certain type of gun, lets say they ban handguns, that way they will know whose got what handguns and they will be able to go around and confiscate them all. Lets say the ban all guns, same thing, they will know where to go and who to take the guns from, so that's why registration is bad.

dont vote for total gun bans start the civil war if they try it in the mean time registration sounds great and should be mandatory

how do you keep your militia well regulated if you dont know what every one has

 

[TurtleDude]

dont vote for total gun bans start the civil war if they try it in the mean time registration sounds great and should be mandatory

how do you keep your militia well regulated if you dont know what every one has

that's really stupid.

 

[blarg]

that's really stupid.

oh why?

 

[TurtleDude]

oh why?

because every group that wants to ban or confiscate guns supports registration. Now if people were required to have proper firearms for serving in the militia, that means we'd have the standard individual rifle that the infantry uses. But those are banned. SO your claim is just plain stupid

 

[blarg]

because every group that wants to ban or confiscate guns supports registration. Now if people were required to have proper firearms for serving in the militia, that means we'd have the standard individual rifle that the infantry uses. But those are banned. SO your claim is just plain stupid

so what registration makes it harder to move guns around secretly that the reason for it not your bogymen


any government that would try to illegally take away all firearms needs to be thought any way

and starting a cival war is a lot of trouble with no rearward

so registration seems like its safer for society your not defending us from tyrannical government your just helping criminals move guns around quietly

because your afraid

 

[Xelor]

It's far more likely that Lowe's runs out of PVC pipe. We know prohibitions have come and gone before. Ask Randy Weaver and David Korresh about the government sending folks to confiscate illegal arms.



How would the government even know who has these? If the US saw the same level of compliance that Australia saw, we'll still have 3-5 million banned guns out there. Given that they are used in mass shootings anywhere from zero to four times a year, how does this reduce the threat of mass shootings with "assault weapons"?

How would the government even know who has these? If the US saw the same level of compliance that Australia saw, we'll still have 3-5 million banned guns out there. Given that they are used in mass shootings anywhere from zero to four times a year, how does this reduce the threat of mass shootings with "assault weapons"?

It stands to reason that if there be a statistically significant and directly proportional correlation between population size and the incidence of gun deaths/injuries, or between the abundance of firearm in a given population, and the incidence of gun deaths/injuries (recognizing that specific populations can have a host of variables -- cultural, economic, political, etc. -- that may make different populations weak analogues for one another), then it's reasonable to expect that reducing the abundance of firearms in the U.S. by nearly 300 million units would result in a lower incidence of gun injuries/deaths.

How would the government even know who has these? If the US saw the same level of compliance that Australia saw, we'll still have 3-5 million banned guns out there. Given that they are used in mass shootings anywhere from zero to four times a year, how does this reduce the threat of mass shootings with "assault weapons"?

• My interest isn't in reducing the threat of mass shootings (or any other shooting type); it's in reducing their incidence.
  • Threat levels on the macro level, the probability of an event's occurrence within a society as a whole, for a given event are, in part, subjectively determined, which I why I would not and do not define "the" goal as that of reducing the noted threat level, as you put it; however, I'd be thrilled were any gun death/injury attenuation approach accompanied by a reduction in the risk that members of the society may suffer from such an occurrence. Reduced risk on a macro level, however, isn't my aim, but it'd surely be a welcomed-by-me outcome were it to occur.
  • Incidences are not at all subjectively measured; like the quantity of guns, one merely counts them. The outcome I seek is fewer shot-dead people and fewer gun-injured people in the U.S.
• I'm indifferent about what kinds of firearms are used to commit mass shootings or any other kind of shooting. I'm well aware that multiple people can be shot with, say, a revolver. I'm equally well aware that the shooter's odds of shooting a greater quantity of people, or fatally shooting any one or several people, is higher with some types of firearms than it is with others.
  • To the extent that any given shooter's odds (micro/event-specific level) of success are higher, concomitantly should one expect a higher incidence of shooting deaths/injuries during that specific event. Similarly, a reduction in a given shooter's odds of success portends a lower incidence of shooting deaths/injuries during that specific event.

 

[jamesrage]

Not sure what that has to do with me, as I haven't called for a ban on assault weapons or any other sort.

Usually the people who say "Fears of the government coming to get our guns are overblown, and serve only to motivate people to stock up." are 2nd amendment opponents who do call for bans on semiautomatic firearms under the guise of an assault weapons ban and praise Australian and UK gun control laws. People who try to pretend that somehow Obama didn't want to ban semiautomatic firearms under the guise of an assault weapons ban or enact any of the other gun control laws he supported before he become president are usually 2nd amendment opponents.

 

[PleasantValley]

The government has no right to confiscate assault rifles under the Second Amendment. If they do find a way, the Fifth dictates that owners have to be paid for them. The Deerfield law is likely not to pass constitutional muster.

But, your point is that registration leads to confiscation. Were the AR 15s that the city wants to confiscate registered? Were they the only firearms registered? If so, then you have a point. If not, then not.

YES, they WERE REGISTRERED.
My point is valid by your own definition.
The hard part is getting you to acknowledge this fact.

In Deerfield, IL, REGISTRATION led to CONFISCATION.
It is a fact.
Now, how honest are you with yourself to see this very real fact that it DID happen.

 

[PleasantValley]

The problem is when the drunken fools vote people just like them into office.

Even sadder, no one side has a monopoly on drunken fools.

 

[Serenity]

This is why registration is bad. When you have to register the guns you own the government knows who has what and the government really has no business having that information. Registration leads to confiscation. Lets say they ban a certain type of gun, lets say they ban handguns, that way they will know whose got what handguns and they will be able to go around and confiscate them all. Lets say the ban all guns, same thing, they will know where to go and who to take the guns from, so that's why registration is bad.

You believe "they" will ban all guns? Come knocking on your door one by one and take them all away? That's some serious paranoid fear mongering going on right there.

You don’t live in a tyranny and your President isn’t a totalitarian dictator. You know that. You do, right?

 

[Rucker61]

You believe "they" will ban all guns? Come knocking on your door one by one and take them all away? That's some serious paranoid fear mongering going on right there.

You don’t live in a tyranny and your President isn’t a totalitarian dictator. You know that. You do, right?

No, but I believe they want to ban some protected guns, and have passed laws allowing law enforcement to come knock on your door to take those away. If after that the law says you're a felon or other prohibited person for keeping a banned "assault weapon", then they can take to rest of your guns away.

You do remember that the original purpose of the NFA 1934 was to restrict ownership of handguns, right?

 

[Serenity]

No, but I believe they want to ban some protected guns, and have passed laws allowing law enforcement to come knock on your door to take those away. If after that the law says you're a felon or other prohibited person for keeping a banned "assault weapon", then they can take to rest of your guns away.

You do remember that the original purpose of the NFA 1934 was to restrict ownership of handguns, right?

Which has jack to do with what I actually addressed. The poster stated

Lets say the ban all guns, same thing. They will know where to go and who to take the guns from, so that's why registration is bad.

All guns.

That's what the poster stated and that's what I replied to. I made that pretty clear.

 

[Rucker61]

Which has jack to do with what I actually addressed. The poster stated



All guns.

That's what the poster stated and that's what I replied to. I made that pretty clear.

Let's say they ban some guns. Registration would be just as effective in confiscating those is it would be confiscating all guns. That's why I'm against registration period.

 

[vegas giants]

Let's say they ban some guns. Registration would be just as effective in confiscating those is it would be confiscating all guns. That's why I'm against registration period.

You as a person are currently registered with the government in a hundred ways and our government in the past has used that information to round up people and put them in camps. Yet you NEVER fight THAT registration