PDA

View Full Version : Kurt Hoffman on registration leads to confiscation


vantec08
02-20-2012, 5:00 PM
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/brady-campaign-awards-extra-credit-to-prove-registration-leads-to-confiscation



"To put it bluntly, it is absurd for any serious policymaker to oppose registration or other gun control proposals on the ground that they eventually will cause the end of private gun ownership in America. To the NRA's objection that registration will lead to confiscation, it is entirely rational to respond: No it won't because you won't let it!"

so . . . . . if not for us who "wont let it" you WOULD confiscate. How did I guess.

OleCuss
02-20-2012, 5:13 PM
I wish we could have a rational argument with some of these folk.

Is there any good evidence that "registration" reduces crime or otherwise improves public safety? If there isn't, then why does anyone want to have gun registration?

freonr22
02-20-2012, 5:23 PM
Is this a cousin of gene's in an alter universe ?

SilverTauron
02-20-2012, 5:33 PM
One thing I have noticed in my short time on this earth is a gradual unwillingness to call a lie a lie. Falsehoods coddled up to sound authentic represent a double helix of deception masquerading as fact, and there are few geneticists of deceit more dedicated than the disarmament lobby.

Facts of the matter are that registration not only leads confiscation, it is in fact confiscation that is future dated. For a government, firearm registration is a blank check which can be cashed at any point in the future in the form of direct seizures of weapons, as before firearms can be taken the authorities must first know where to find them.

I may be wrong, but I am confident in stating that no nation has ever disarmed & barred its citizens the use of firearms without use of a registration database in all of current recorded history.

Apocalypsenerd
02-20-2012, 5:56 PM
One thing I have noticed in my short time on this earth is a gradual unwillingness to call a lie a lie. Falsehoods coddled up to sound authentic represent a double helix of deception masquerading as fact, and there are few geneticists of deceit more dedicated than the disarmament lobby.



Good stuff right there.

Often in political discussions, there are two sides that honestly believe they are the correct holders of political theory. The level of dishonesty with the leaders of the anti-2A crowd is so overt and so calculated, one cannot help but wonder if they are truly evil.

vantec08
02-20-2012, 5:57 PM
Registration is a post dated check for confiscation. There is no other reason for it.

proclone1
02-20-2012, 6:40 PM
Doesn't get anymore plain-language than this: What they DON'T announce is that California is the ONLY state that gained points, from 80 to 81, while fourteen states passed enough gun-rights legislation to DROP a total of 33 points

Wow brady campaign, you actually publicly announce that states legislating in favor of [B]rights is a bad thing. YOU GUYS ARE IDIOTS!!!!

Kerplow
02-20-2012, 6:43 PM
"To put it bluntly, it is absurd for any serious policymaker to oppose registration or other gun control proposals on the ground that they eventually will cause the end of private gun ownership in America. To the NRA's objection that registration will lead to confiscation, it is entirely rational to respond: No it won't because you won't let it!"


Logical fallacy is logically fallacious. :shrug:

big jim
02-20-2012, 6:49 PM
I wish we could have a rational argument with some of these folk.

Is there any good evidence that "registration" reduces crime or otherwise improves public safety? If there isn't, then why does anyone want to have gun registration?

I think the why of registration is simple. It gives a feeling of power and control. "They" now know who has what or at least who to go to look at if/when they attempt to confiscate.

dieselpower
02-20-2012, 6:56 PM
gun laws and regulation do not deprive a citizen of their 2A...just look at California, New York, Chicago and New Jersey....none of their citizens have trouble with their firearm laws... oh wait...

QQQ
02-20-2012, 7:20 PM
I guess the author of the article didn't know what happened with registered SKS's here in California in the late '90's.

hoffmang
02-20-2012, 8:26 PM
Kurt is one of us (no relation as far as I'm aware but he's from the land of my ancestors...)

As such, I think folks my be misreading him.

-Gene

OleCuss
02-21-2012, 4:17 AM
I don't think our problem was with Kurt (at least mine wasn't) but with the quoted statement from Henigan. I guess I wasn't all that clear about that, however.

Tarn_Helm
02-21-2012, 5:43 AM
I wish we could have a rational argument with some of these folk.

Is there any good evidence that "registration" reduces crime or otherwise improves public safety? If there isn't, then why does anyone want to have gun registration?

You can never use reason to convince someone whose mind has been made up by emotion.
:cool:

OleCuss
02-21-2012, 5:52 AM
I don't think it is a matter of emotion. I think it is a set of basic assumptions.

There are people who truly believe that government must and can be trusted while individuals are stupid and must be controlled. This is usually accompanied by a form of elitism.

We can't have a rational discussion because our root assumptions have very little in common.

Tarn_Helm
02-21-2012, 5:58 AM
I don't think it is a matter of emotion. I think it is a set of basic assumptions.

There are people who truly believe that government must and can be trusted while individuals are stupid and must be controlled. This is usually accompanied by a form of elitism.

We can't have a rational discussion because our root assumptions have very little in common.

Yes, "a set of basic assumptions" based on emotion.

"There are people who truly believe..." beliefs based on emotion.

"a form of elitism" based on emotion.

"We can't have a rational discussion because our root assumptions have very little in common."

Right.

Rationales based on emotion can never be susceptible to insights which are not based on emotion.

Unwavering dogmatism is based on emotion.

A-J
02-21-2012, 7:19 AM
We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.)...



That there is a scary heap of steaming brown stuff.

Liberty1
02-21-2012, 9:50 AM
Registration is a post dated check for confiscation. There is no other reason for it.

and it IS a current liability for merely 'keep'ing arms by criminalizing possession where no other law applies. Registration, fees, carry licenses, mandated classes, HGSC, etcetera...do not improve safety statistically in any state but rather serve to deter exercise of self defense rights where outright prohibition is not an achievable goal while the Heller 5 sit.

morfeeis
02-21-2012, 12:57 PM
I wish we could have a rational argument with some of these folk.

Is there any good evidence that "registration" reduces crime or otherwise improves public safety? If there isn't, then why does anyone want to have gun registration?
Ask Canada how much it cost them to find out it didn't work for them.....

OleCuss
02-21-2012, 1:08 PM
Yes, "a set of basic assumptions" based on emotion.

"There are people who truly believe..." beliefs based on emotion.

"a form of elitism" based on emotion.

"We can't have a rational discussion because our root assumptions have very little in common."

Right.

Rationales based on emotion can never be susceptible to insights which are not based on emotion.

Unwavering dogmatism is based on emotion.

I think I give them more credit than you choose to give.

But I'm also old and have perhaps acquired sufficient dementia to where I can actually admire some of those with whom I have the most profound of disagreements.

OleCuss
02-21-2012, 1:09 PM
Ask Canada how much it cost them to find out it didn't work for them.....

A simply excellent example.