PDA

View Full Version : Question: What's so bad about registration?


Pages : [1] 2

RMP91
07-18-2012, 9:15 AM
Before the :TFH:'s come in saying that it will lead to confiscation, there's more than 200 MILLION firearms (and counting) in private ownership in the United States, I don't think the government would have the resources (or manpower) to go around taking away every single one of them.

Honestly though, what's so bad about it? I think of it as an insurance policy on my guns (in a sense), insurance against being implicated in a crime if my guns were stolen and used for violent offenses.

Not a troll, just don't see what's the big deal with signing a few extra papers than usual and paying a tiny bit more.

It beats not being allowed to have them at all.

We do it for our cars all the time, but I don't hear people complaining about them so much. What would make guns any different?

Dark Paladin
07-18-2012, 9:22 AM
To me its a simple matter of privacy. Why would anyone need to know what I own? If we allowed this type of registration, what's next? TVs and DVD players? All your electronic devices? Every kitchen knife you own?

King_John_I
07-18-2012, 9:24 AM
Its not what I should have to pay to register something I have already owned for years. Because they will make you pay!!!! Tax, tax, Fee, Tax, Fee, Fee, Tax = BS for gun owners

RMP91
07-18-2012, 9:24 AM
To me its a simple matter of privacy. Why would anyone need to know what I own? If we allowed this type of registration, what's next? TVs and DVD players? All your electronic devices? Every kitchen knife you own?

Valid point, but IIRC, firearms records are known only to FFLs and LEOs, it isn't exactly public knowledge. I can't just walk into City Hall and demand to see the registration papers for all the guns that Joe Shmoe owns.

RMP91
07-18-2012, 9:26 AM
Its not what I should have to pay to register something I have already owned for years. Because they will make you pay!!!! Tax, tax, Fee, Tax, Fee, Fee, Tax = BS for gun owners

It's a one time fee though, if I remember correctly, it may have changed though...

frankm
07-18-2012, 9:27 AM
aw geez.

RMP91
07-18-2012, 9:29 AM
aw geez.

It's an honest question, not trying to troll here.

Barring a cataclysmic invasion by a foreign entity, I just don't see what the big deal is.

Dark Paladin
07-18-2012, 9:31 AM
Valid point, but IIRC, firearms records are known only to FFLs and LEOs, it isn't exactly public knowledge. I can't just walk into City Hall and demand to see the registration papers for all the guns that Joe Shmoe owns.

You're missing the point. If such records exist then it is always at risk of being divulged, whether through political means or malicious infiltration. We always read about banks and credit agencies having customer data stolen, and let's not forget the Bush administration outing Valerie Plame as a CIA NOC. . . why would this be any different?

MindBuilder
07-18-2012, 9:31 AM
When the UK banned handguns they claimed that all but a couple dozen were accounted for in the confiscation. Probably even in the US, the vast majority of registered guns would be handed in without the need for much labor by the government. Lets try to minimize that temptation for the gun grabbers for as long as we can.

And what good does registration do anyway? Gangs will still have easy access. Homicidal spouses will just kill with their registered guns or by other means. So it wouldn't likely do much good. It just adds a large processing expense to gun transactions and encourages confiscation.

robcoe
07-18-2012, 9:32 AM
Ever heard the phrase "give them an inch, they will take a mile". Even if on it's own registration wouldn't be a problem(and I think it is), it won't end there. It will be used as a spring board for any number of other things("oh, maintaining the database costs money, so now we are adding a $150 registration fee to every gun purchase")

Sometimes you simply have to fight every single battle, if only to keep the momentum from shifting away from you.

Also, you don't have to register your car simply for owning it, you have to register it to drive it on public roads. I own an old IH scout that hasn't been registered since the last owner bought it in 1965, they just used it on their ranch, not on the roads.

ptoguy2002
07-18-2012, 9:33 AM
Because it sucks, and you shouldn't have to do it.
You don't have a right to own a car, you do have a right to own a gun.
It is one more obstacle. If they put enough obstacles in front of people, less and less people will do it. Put enough obstacles, no body will do it.
Every year or two, California passes a new anti gun law. Enough is enough.
No more.
Not one inch.
Gov doesn't need to know what guns I own.
And registration will do NOTHING to prevent any crime, it will only lead to problems for normal people.
It doesn't work.
/rant

MP301
07-18-2012, 9:33 AM
Comparing a privledge like Driving a car to 2A? :troll:

Read your history and look at Germany, England and Australia to start with on gun confiscation...How it occurred for example.

Then add what happens when someone gets a reatraining order of just about any kind.

Renaissance Redneck
07-18-2012, 9:42 AM
One major difference between car registration and gun registration is that owning a car is a privelege, owning a gun is a right. Second, when you own and operate a car, you directly consume resources that have a cost to the public (road building and maintenance, law enforcement, etc.); you are paying registration to help pay for those costs. There are few direct costs to the public when another citizen owns a firearm, therefore the general public is out nothing if you operate a gun, but they are out something if you operate a car.

Since government wants you to register to exercise a fundamental right under the Second Amendment, how would you feel if government required you to register, and pay a fee, to exercise those rights guaranteed by the First (or the Fourth, or the Fifth, etc.) Amendments?

Imagine a registration fee for political speech, a fee to practice the religion of your choice, a fee in order to enjoy freedom from self-incrimination, a fee before you can avoid unlawful search and seizure??? I don't think so.

Sutcliffe
07-18-2012, 9:42 AM
Maybe we should register you if you want to speak freely in public, register to go to church, register to require the state needs a warrant to detain you or search your property, etc. etc.

YubaRiver
07-18-2012, 9:44 AM
How many of you are giving up your rights easily.

Don't you know the bill of rights?

Ninth:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You have a right to own a car!

Renaissance Redneck
07-18-2012, 9:49 AM
You have a right to own a car!

But you don't have the right to use the car. Ownership MAY be a right, but USE is a privilege; the privilege to drive a car can be revoked or restricted, even without the user having committed a crime. Try again.

Don't you know the bill of rights?

^^^Back at ya.

vantec08
07-18-2012, 9:51 AM
Before the :TFH:'s come in saying that it will lead to confiscation, there's more than 200 MILLION firearms (and counting) in private ownership in the United States, I don't think the government would have the resources (or manpower) to go around taking away every single one of them.

Honestly though, what's so bad about it? I think of it as an insurance policy on my guns (in a sense), insurance against being implicated in a crime if my guns were stolen and used for violent offenses.

Not a troll, just don't see what's the big deal with signing a few extra papers than usual and paying a tiny bit more.

It beats not being allowed to have them at all.

We do it for our cars all the time, but I don't hear people complaining about them so much. What would make guns any different?



What's so bad about registering computers? printing presses? pencils?

gunsmith
07-18-2012, 9:52 AM
Before the :TFH:'s come in saying that it will lead to confiscation, there's more than 200 MILLION firearms (and counting) in private ownership in the United States, I don't think the government would have the resources (or manpower) to go around taking away every single one of them.A cop in AZ was recently arrested for rape, using his badge and gun to subdue his victims & its far, far from the first time. Another cop in NYC just got arrested for selling guns he stole to support his drug habit. A serious study of facts reveal that cops commit more crime then LTC holders. Governments really do kill more people then any other entity in human history. If you want drug addicts and criminals and genocidal maniacs to know you have a gun - register them.

Honestly though, what's so bad about it? See above I think of it as an insurance policy on my guns (in a sense), insurance against being implicated in a crime if my guns were stolen and used for violent offenses. CSI much? You're more likely to be implicated because you registered then the opposite.

Not a troll, just don't see what's the big deal with signing a few extra papers than usual and paying a tiny bit more. not a troll, but more then willing to trade imaginary security for real liberty

It beats not being allowed to have them at all. inalienable rights endowed by our Creator, a govt can create all kinds of road blocks-the right to keep and bear will always be there

We do it for our cars all the time, but I don't hear people complaining about them so much. What would make guns any different? REALLY!!! there are five cars on the ranch I live on, we use them to move stuff around-they are not registered at all. If we are gonna treat cars like guns then I demand national reciprocity! I can drive in CA on my Nevada license, I cant carry in CA even though I have a license to carry....car ownership is not a right, in recent history totalitarian states registered typwriters and copy machines, journalist had to have a license. What you're asking for is a license to write a letter to the editor, a license to own a book, a license to own a TV, a license to own a newspaper. Just because you're to lazy to do the heavy lifting involved in research/history/philosophy of liberty and the origins of human rights-do not expect anyone with a desire for freedom to agree with you.

howbobert
07-18-2012, 9:54 AM
Because I don't trust the Government and how they would use that list. Even though they may think that they know what I have, they don't need to know everything.

guns4life
07-18-2012, 9:57 AM
:banghead:

nukechaser
07-18-2012, 9:58 AM
Before the :TFH:'s come in saying that it will lead to confiscation, there's more than 200 MILLION firearms (and counting) in private ownership in the United States, I don't think the government would have the resources (or manpower) to go around taking away every single one of them.

Honestly though, what's so bad about it? I think of it as an insurance policy on my guns (in a sense), insurance against being implicated in a crime if my guns were stolen and used for violent offenses.

Not a troll, just don't see what's the big deal with signing a few extra papers than usual and paying a tiny bit more.

It beats not being allowed to have them at all.

We do it for our cars all the time, but I don't hear people complaining about them so much. What would make guns any different?

It would be very simple to set up collection points and they wouldn't need a lot of manpower. They won't go door to door, they'll let you bring your guns to them.

How? The same way the IRS will try to enforce Obamacare. They'll seize any tax return you might have coming, or put some sort of hold on your banking account until you comply. Unless you only get paid in cash and never have any form of tax return with a refund, you'll probably cough 'em up pretty quick when you and your family start going hungry or you can't pay your bills.

There is no benefit to you to let the government know what you have. However, the government would have great leverage over you if they knew what you have and if they want to take it away.

SID45
07-18-2012, 10:01 AM
Are you kidding me? History repeats itself that's why....

gunsmith
07-18-2012, 10:05 AM
just don't see what's the big deal with signing a few extra papers than usual and paying a tiny bit more

I know a guy who had money during the dot com bubble, he sold his options and bought some rural property, paid his prop tax yrs in advance, bought a bunch of guns and is now flat broke - he owns his place outright so he has no need to worry about anything, he is now flat broke, any extra penny goes to feed the kids .... why do you want this guy to scramble to find extra money? why do you want to send armed govt agents to take his property to pay extra fees and fines on stuff he bought 20 yrs ago?
Why do you want severe govt abuse? Why are you so willing to subject poor rural people oppression and poverty? Why do you hate people and freedom? Australians registered their guns, and they got confiscated same with English gun owners - I know you're in total denial about this but it doesn't make it any less true. Take off your rose colored glasses because you're treading the path of genocide.

OleCuss
07-18-2012, 10:07 AM
Let's ask a somewhat different question?

Just why would the government need to register our firearms? What essential function of government does that serve?

It's not up to us to justify our freedom. It is up to the government to demonstrate an over-riding and essential need to be collecting and maintaining information on what goods/products I own.

BlindRacer
07-18-2012, 10:08 AM
Registration, historically has lead to confiscation. Jews in Europe, the UK, Australia, etc, etc, etc. It may not start with, "All guns are banned, we'll be coming door to door next week." It'll start with specific guns, or specific types of guns. Maybe the SKS for instance :TFH:, then maybe they'll outlaw the use of a made up category like 'Assault Weapons' :TFH:, then ban specific calibers like the 50 bmg :TFH:, and maybe limit mag size :TFH:, then comes banning more broad categories like simi-autos, then bolt actions, then muzzle loaders, then etc, etc, etc.

Registration doesn't do any good. It only leads to bad. Had the Jews not been disarmed prior to the Holocaust, how may things have been different?

Only Dictators and Totalitarian Governments want to disarm the people whom they have control over.

μολὼν λαβέ
Molon labe
Come and take them
It is a classical expression of defiance reportedly spoken by King Leonidas I in response to the Persian army's demand that the Spartans surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae. -WIKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molon_labe)

littlejake
07-18-2012, 10:18 AM
For anyone who thinks there are so many guns, they could never go get them all -- they only have to go after a fraction of those who might refuse to voluntarily turn theirs in. Then many of the remaining people would comply rather than have their doors broken down. There were a lot a private arms in Australia. Just ask an Aussie if it could happen here.

MindBuilder
07-18-2012, 10:21 AM
Owning and driving a car is a right not a privelege, regardless of what the courts say. It's one of the most important freedoms people have. Government can not *rightfully* take away the right to drive without good cause. They may be justified in regulating the right to drive if there is a clear need for driver training or physical qualifications for the safetey of others on the road, just like there are certain restrictions on freedom of speech and other rights. But guns very rarely create enough danger of accident to others to be worth worrying about. Registration and licensing is ineffective against intentional misuse. Road taxes may also be legitimate.

There is also less cause to oppose car registration and licensing becaue there is little significant risk of wholesale confiscation of cars, and even if there was, lack of registration wouldn't help you hide your car under your jacket as you go down the street.

Whiskey_Sauer
07-18-2012, 10:33 AM
Before the :TFH:'s come in saying that it will lead to confiscation, there's more than 200 MILLION firearms (and counting) in private ownership in the United States, I don't think the government would have the resources (or manpower) to go around taking away every single one of them.

There's something you really need to watch:

TkS2BRoCd2I

To quote the gentleman (starting at 1:11):

"No one really thought that they would take their rabbit guns, and their duck guns. They just couldn't fathom. It was an impossibility."

Repeat this to yourself every day if you have to.

Stonewalker
07-18-2012, 10:35 AM
Two things:
(1) Just what does registration accomplish? Is it supposed to reduce crime? Prevent violence? Make crimes easier to solve? Is it effective at doing these things? A resounding NO, because of one simple fact - bad guys steal guns and then use them in crimes. Registration is a bet against you that the government is making, just in case you decide to go commit a crime with a registered gun. It's insulting and anti-freedom.

(2) One thing that stuck with me was when I learned that pre-Nazi Germany created the firearms registration, then less than two decades later, an entirely new (Nazi) government used that registration to confiscate guns from the people it wanted to murder. Our government today is not guaranteed to stick around - one or two regime changes towards commy-bastards, and we might end up facing a confiscation.

RMP91
07-18-2012, 10:36 AM
Look, I understand and respect all of your views on this.

But I just don't see how registering a gun = getting confiscated (and even if that were true, there's no way they'd get away with it without AT THE VERY LEAST a Compensation Clause in which the government has to pay you $1 million for EVERY gun taken, don't think they can't afford that).

Yes, extreme versions of this has happened in Nazi Germany, Australia, the UK and (more recently) Venezuela. But remember that we, the United States of America have the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights, these are rights that cannot be taken away from you without Due Process of Law (or, if you for some reason choose to waive them).

So all these fantasies and doomsday scenarios in which the government comes door to door taking your guns by force is completely outlandish in a place like America. Our military and police forces swore an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I do not believe for a moment that they will go back on their vows even if it meant putting food on the table for their families.

OleCuss
07-18-2012, 10:39 AM
But again, we shouldn't have to come up with a reason for our rights and privacy.

Government should have to demonstrate and overwhelming need to abridge those rights and/or privacy in order to serve an essential governmental function. (Except that in the case of the 2A I think they aren't even supposed to be able to abridge?)

vincewarde
07-18-2012, 10:40 AM
Just playing devils advocate here, so don't kill me :)

Back in the 1700s - to 1800s militia members (which basically included all able bodied males under 46 years of age) were required to bring their guns in for inspection once per year......

I think that a case could be made that state governments have the right to know who has firearms so that they could be called upon in an emergency. Of course, we could then argue that we need to have the very military weapons California works so hard to ban :)

curtisfong
07-18-2012, 10:41 AM
I don't have to register my knives.

The whole concept is stupid.

Bhobbs
07-18-2012, 10:42 AM
So all these fantasies and doomsday scenarios in which the government comes door to door taking your guns by force is completely outlandish in a place like America. Our military and police forces swore an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I do not believe for a moment that they will go back on their vows even if it meant putting food on the table for their families.

It happened in New Orleans after Katrina. Happened then, whats to keep it from happening again?

RMP91
07-18-2012, 10:42 AM
I don't have to register my knives.

The whole concept is stupid.

You could argue that there's a helluva lot more knives per person than there are guns (and I'm looking just at my kitchen drawer :43: )

OleCuss
07-18-2012, 10:43 AM
.
.
.
Our military and police forces swore an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I do not believe for a moment that they will go back on their vows even if it meant putting food on the table for their families.

I think it was Richards who was twice arrested for having legal firearms?

How often do we read threads on someone trying to get their lawful firearms back from the government?

How many people have been arrested for complying with FOPA and making the mistake of making (or not making) a connecting flight in New York?

Remember that Obama swore to uphold the Constitution? The list of times that he has violated it is not all that short. Still not going to resign or be impeached.

Do not count on the goodwill of governmental employees. They generally do what they are told rather than what the Constitution demands.

Dark Paladin
07-18-2012, 10:44 AM
Look, I understand and respect all of your views on this.

But I just don't see how registering a gun = getting confiscated (and even if that were true, there's no way they'd get away with it without AT THE VERY LEAST a Compensation Clause in which the government has to pay you $1 million for EVERY gun taken, don't think they can't afford that).

Umm. . . did you totally miss the aftermath of when RAW registration went into place here in CA, and the grace period for registering expired?

Yes, extreme versions of this has happened in Nazi Germany, Australia, the UK and (more recently) Venezuela. But remember that we, the United States of America have the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights, these are rights that cannot be taken away from you without Due Process of Law (or, if you for some reason choose to waive them).

Then explain the implementation of extraordinary renditions and other actions authorized by the Patriot Act. If our duly elected government can enact the Patriot Act and ObamaCare, then I wouldn't put it past them to do more evil.

So all these fantasies and doomsday scenarios in which the government comes door to door taking your guns by force is completely outlandish in a place like America. Our military and police forces swore an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I do not believe for a moment that they will go back on their vows even if it meant putting food on the table for their families.

It was not all that long ago when one of our own CalGunners was violated by the LAPD Gun Unit. It is not as outlandish as you think.

RMP91
07-18-2012, 10:45 AM
Katrina. Happened then, whats to keep it from happening again?

Vilgilance. Voting for the right man/woman (Granted, almost all politicians suck, but that's beside the point).

If worst comes to worst, find a place in the woods to stash them for a while :43: and use the "boating accident" excuse!

robcoe
07-18-2012, 10:46 AM
Look, I understand and respect all of your views on this.

But I just don't see how registering a gun = getting confiscated (and even if that were true, there's no way they'd get away with it without AT THE VERY LEAST a Compensation Clause in which the government has to pay you $1 million for EVERY gun taken, don't think they can't afford that).

Yes, extreme versions of this has happened in Nazi Germany, Australia, the UK and (more recently) Venezuela. But remember that we, the United States of America have the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights, these are rights that cannot be taken away from you without Due Process of Law (or, if you for some reason choose to waive them).

So all these fantasies and doomsday scenarios in which the government comes door to door taking your guns by force is completely outlandish in a place like America. Our military and police forces swore an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I do not believe for a moment that they will go back on their vows even if it meant putting food on the table for their families.

It has happened before, in America, after hurricane Katrena the police confiscated every weapon they could find. In general cops don't actually give the slightest **** about your rights.

And the bigger question is, what would registration accomplish for the money involved? Criminals don't register their guns, they steal them. All registration does is point to you if someone else uses the gun they stole in a crime.

Dark Paladin
07-18-2012, 10:47 AM
Vilgilance. Voting for the right man/woman (Granted, almost all politicians suck, but that's beside the point).

Moot point. Because as you already admitted, almost all politicians suck. This is a no-win scenario.

If worst comes to worst, find a place in the woods to stash them for a while :43: and use the "boating accident" excuse!

Then why register them in the first place?

OleCuss
07-18-2012, 10:48 AM
Just playing devils advocate here, so don't kill me :)

Back in the 1700s - to 1800s militia members (which basically included all able bodied males under 46 years of age) were required to bring their guns in for inspection once per year......

I think that a case could be made that state governments have the right to know who has firearms so that they could be called upon in an emergency. Of course, we could then argue that we need to have the very military weapons California works so hard to ban :)

The militia of that time is generally outlawed.

Personally, I'm in favor of every community being encouraged to have its own militia and have them train (in the ways that are currently illegal). Then make firearms ownership contingent on meaningful participation in that militia (it doesn't take all that much to be meaningful).

But right now such a militia is illegal (although assumed as essential by the Constitution) so the procedures implemented by the militiae are no longer relevant and the right to ownership and usage can no longer be tied to such militiae.

daveinwoodland
07-18-2012, 10:50 AM
Haven't you ever seen Red Dawn? Seriously though as has been mentioned already registration will only impact those who legally obtain and own firearms. If the whole purpose of registration is to keep track of "legal" weapons what help is that overall?

Proving that you didn't commit a crime? Not sure that would ever happen.

RMP91
07-18-2012, 10:53 AM
It has happened before, in America, after hurricane Katrina the police confiscated every weapon they could find. In general cops don't actually give the slightest **** about your rights.



Not the cops I know, I come from a Law Enforcement/Military family.

Each member of my family (who, except for my mother and myself is either LEO or AD Military) owns at least 5 guns (I personally own 7, that number will be going up as time and money allows), they all took their oaths and they meant it, even today.

And it's not just my family that are pro-gun officers, you'll find that many police officers are pro-gun. Anti-gun cops are pretty damn rare IMO, I've actually never met one in person.

curtisfong
07-18-2012, 10:54 AM
Anti-gun cops are pretty damn rare IMO, I've actually never met one in person.

LAPD. SFPD. LASD. the list is a long one.

wheels
07-18-2012, 10:54 AM
Look, I understand and respect all of your views on this.

But I just don't see how registering a gun = getting confiscated (and even if that were true, there's no way they'd get away with it without AT THE VERY LEAST a Compensation Clause in which the government has to pay you $1 million for EVERY gun taken, don't think they can't afford that).

Yes, extreme versions of this has happened in Nazi Germany, Australia, the UK and (more recently) Venezuela. But remember that we, the United States of America have the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights, these are rights that cannot be taken away from you without Due Process of Law (or, if you for some reason choose to waive them).

So all these fantasies and doomsday scenarios in which the government comes door to door taking your guns by force is completely outlandish in a place like America. Our military and police forces swore an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I do not believe for a moment that they will go back on their vows even if it meant putting food on the table for their families.

You got some pretty well thought out responses, are you sure you read and understand what was provided?

RMP91
07-18-2012, 10:58 AM
Haven't you ever seen Red Dawn? Seriously though as has been mentioned already registration will only impact those who legally obtain and own firearms. If the whole purpose of registration is to keep track of "legal" weapons what help is that overall?

Proving that you didn't commit a crime? Not sure that would ever happen.

That was a good movie... But anyway,

say one of my guns is stolen and is used in a crime all the way in South Carolina.

I would report the gun as stolen/missing the moment I find out it's not where I left it, that pretty much clears my name right there.

Whiskey_Sauer
07-18-2012, 10:58 AM
Yes, extreme versions of this has happened in Nazi Germany, Australia, the UK and (more recently) Venezuela. But remember that we, the United States of America have the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights, these are rights that cannot be taken away from you without Due Process of Law (or, if you for some reason choose to waive them).

The UK is a liberal western democracy, with a long common law tradition that recognizes private property rights (from where we derive our own common law property rights), not some totalitarian regime or backwater banana republic.

The UK also had a long tradition, stretching hundreds of years, which recognized the right to firearms ownership, in a bill of rights, and in its common law. All of that was wiped away by a series of Parliamentary acts.

The UK firearms ban (and Australian ban) is not ancient history.

Did you watch the video posted above? Every person interviewed in that video would never have believed it to be possible. They believe it now.

wheels
07-18-2012, 11:02 AM
Not the cops I know, I come from a Law Enforcement/Military family.

Each member of my family (who, except for my mother and myself is either LEO or AD Military) owns at least 5 guns (I personally own 7, that number will be going up as time and money allows), they all took their oaths and they meant it, even today.

And it's not just my family that are pro-gun officers, you'll find that many police officers are pro-gun. Anti-gun cops are pretty damn rare IMO, I've actually never met one in person.

How do these LEO members of your family square their oath and enforcing CA BS firearm laws. In my opinion you can't do both.

huntercf
07-18-2012, 11:06 AM
Didn't registration lead to confiscation during Katrina? Registration only leads to confiscation, this is where CA is headed. Also, don't forget that SKS owners had to register their guns and then they were taken without compensation. As far as compensation it would be real easy for the nazis (uh I mean politicians) to say that since certain guns are no longer allowed to own, then they are worthless and they don't have to give you a dime. I will be ok with registration when you have to register to exercise all your other rights (as state above), not really but just making a point as has been pointed out above.
Of course you do have to register to vote but at no charge, why not a charge to register to vote, there are significant costs involved much more than gun ownership...because it's a RIGHT.

RMP91
07-18-2012, 11:07 AM
How do these LEO members of your family square their oath and enforcing CA BS firearm laws. In my opinion you can't do both.

They do not agree with the laws either, but they have a job to do enforcing those laws. So, technically they can do both, and as far as the law goes, there's nothing saying that you as a citizen cannot own guns. Just not certain ones.

An infringement on 2A? Yes, definitely. But remember that this is California we're talking about, it's been like this for almost 20 years now.

YubaRiver
07-18-2012, 11:08 AM
But you don't have the right to use the car. Ownership MAY be a right, but USE is a privilege; the privilege to drive a car can be revoked or restricted, even without the user having committed a crime. Try again.



^^^Back at ya.

"Because it sucks, and you shouldn't have to do it.
You don't have a right to own a car, you do have a right to own a gun."

I was responding to this. However just because you call driving a privilege
doesn't make it so. Just like the 2A arguments, there is a 9A one too.
Not much of a redneck if you favor more gubmint control of how you travel.

SB61
07-18-2012, 11:11 AM
Look, I understand and respect all of your views on this.

But I just don't see how registering a gun = getting confiscated (and even if that were true, there's no way they'd get away with it without AT THE VERY LEAST a Compensation Clause in which the government has to pay you $1 million for EVERY gun taken, don't think they can't afford that).

Yes, extreme versions of this has happened in Nazi Germany, Australia, the UK and (more recently) Venezuela. But remember that we, the United States of America have the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights, these are rights that cannot be taken away from you without Due Process of Law (or, if you for some reason choose to waive them).

So all these fantasies and doomsday scenarios in which the government comes door to door taking your guns by force is completely outlandish in a place like America. Our military and police forces swore an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I do not believe for a moment that they will go back on their vows even if it meant putting food on the table for their families.



So your saying you trust the government..........WOW and with their track record of screwing up everything.

RMP91
07-18-2012, 11:13 AM
So your saying you trust the government..........WOW and with their track record of screwing up everything.

Well, I trust those who enforce the laws on the behalf of the government (Military, Law Enforcement) if that answers your question.

I hate the politics just as much as everyone else, but that's no reason to go after those who have to enforce them.

Legasat
07-18-2012, 11:13 AM
Before the :TFH:'s come in saying that it will lead to confiscation, there's more than 200 MILLION firearms (and counting) in private ownership in the United States, I don't think the government would have the resources (or manpower) to go around taking away every single one of them.


To me, that is the wrong question. A better question is: What is the only reason they would need to know who has a gun?

They keep track of cars so they can charge taxes on them every year. We only pay taxes once on a gun. If that is all they really wanted to do, they could put a sur-tax on top of any gun purchase. A quick background check would make sure guns get sold to those that can legally own them.

There is only one reason I can think of they would want to keep track of guns...to know where they are when they come for them. THAT is my objection.

JackRydden224
07-18-2012, 11:14 AM
It's the principle of being forced to register a property that you own, not so much of just the act of registering guns. What we don't want is precedence set for the next thing we have to register with the government, may it be our computers, bicycles and whatnot. The government has no right to know what I bought.

This is similar to why we are angry that CA banned foie gras. We are more angry that the government thinks it can tell us what to eat as opposed to the actual material being banned.

POLICESTATE
07-18-2012, 11:15 AM
Not totally right on that, the UK is a constitutional monarchy. All power derives from the monarch and is delegated to the ministers, so in effect your elected representatives run the country but they do so in the monarch's name.

You can read up on it if you like. Also look up "royal prerogative"

BTW, transcends beyond the UK, all the commonwealth countries still have that weird British royal BS crap going on.

Some figure head.



The UK is a liberal western democracy, with a long common law tradition that recognizes private property rights (from where we derive our own common law property rights), not some totalitarian regime or backwater banana republic.

The UK also had a long tradition, stretching hundreds of years, which recognized the right to firearms ownership, in a bill of rights, and in its common law. All of that was wiped away by a series of Parliamentary acts.

The UK firearms ban (and Australian ban) is not ancient history.

Did you watch the video posted above? Every person interviewed in that video would never have believed it to be possible. They believe it now.

berto
07-18-2012, 11:16 AM
Feel free to send me a registration list of your firearms and an appropriate registration fee. No big deal right? And I'm certainly more trustworthy than the govt.

You've offered nothing in the way of registration being a good idea. It would acomplish nothing good and offers only bad consequences no matter how outlandish they might seem. You sound like an anti attempting to pass useless legislation for the sake of appearing to do something.

RMP91
07-18-2012, 11:18 AM
Feel free to send me a registration list of your firearms and an appropriate registration fee. No big deal right? And I'm certainly more trustworthy than the govt.

You've offered nothing in the way of registration being a good idea. It would acomplish nothing good and offers only bad consequences no matter how outlandish they might seem. You sound like an anti attempting to pass useless legislation for the sake of appearing to do something.

I never said registration was a good thing. Not once did I ever speak in favor of registration. I was merely asking why we go all :TFH: the moment the word "registration" is brought up?

Whiskey_Sauer
07-18-2012, 11:20 AM
I was merely asking why we go all :TFH: the moment the word "registration" is brought up?

Question: what enabled enforcement of the UK firearms bans?

Bhobbs
07-18-2012, 11:22 AM
Vilgilance. Voting for the right man/woman (Granted, almost all politicians suck, but that's beside the point).

If worst comes to worst, find a place in the woods to stash them for a while :43: and use the "boating accident" excuse!

You said it wouldn't happen in America but it already has. That's my point. Nothing is sacred and those oaths are meaningless. I bed a majority would follow orders to seize weapons just to keep their job and paycheck at the end of the day.

YubaRiver
07-18-2012, 11:22 AM
Sure you did. You suggested ways in which it would be useful, IE a good
thing.

You can report a gun stolen or lost without it being registered by the way.

POLICESTATE
07-18-2012, 11:24 AM
I don't have the energy to debate today, so I'm just going to agree. **** it. Register everything. You are absolutely right in that it will be an insurance policy in a sense. Actually could be expanded to become one in fact. Let the government deal with this BS, there is just too much to distract the common man these days in this country.

Let's make a governmental department to monitor the excesses of government for us so we can focus on our own thing.

We also need to register tools of every conceivable sort. Everything has a serial number, not too hard to put a barcode version on things either. RFID in tools is a real possibility now, and probably pretty close to feasible.

Hammers, saws, forks, vacuum cleaners, multitools, feather dusters, computers, phones, brooms, everything should be registered, it will pretty much end theft of those items since they will all be registered.

We have the technology, all we need to do is just employ it. Make a law. The Affordable Tool Act. US government registers every piece of property you own that fits the tool definition, now that I think of it clothing is a tool in a sense so might as well register those too. And since this will reduce theft and misuse of those items it will be a big win win for everybody!

Let's stop flirting with the benign totalitarian state takes care of everything concept and just do it and get it over with.




Before the :TFH:'s come in saying that it will lead to confiscation, there's more than 200 MILLION firearms (and counting) in private ownership in the United States, I don't think the government would have the resources (or manpower) to go around taking away every single one of them.

Honestly though, what's so bad about it? I think of it as an insurance policy on my guns (in a sense), insurance against being implicated in a crime if my guns were stolen and used for violent offenses.

Not a troll, just don't see what's the big deal with signing a few extra papers than usual and paying a tiny bit more.

It beats not being allowed to have them at all.

We do it for our cars all the time, but I don't hear people complaining about them so much. What would make guns any different?

Dreaded Claymore
07-18-2012, 11:26 AM
By itself, there's pretty much nothing bad about registration, in my opinion. I have very little aversion to the idea of paying a tiny additional amount and filing some papers with the government.

However, I have a huge problem with confiscation of weapons.

I would not yet go so far as to argue that registration will inevitably lead to confiscation. However, I submit that confiscation is pretty much impossible unless registration has first been accomplished.

Therefore, by preventing the government from registering guns, we can ensure that confiscation is impossible. I think this is reason enough to oppose registration by all means available to us.

Question: what enabled enforcement of the UK firearms bans?

This. Seriously.

eaglemike
07-18-2012, 11:26 AM
Before the :TFH:'s come in saying that it will lead to confiscation, there's more than 200 MILLION firearms (and counting) in private ownership in the United States, I don't think the government would have the resources (or manpower) to go around taking away every single one of them.

Honestly though, what's so bad about it? I think of it as an insurance policy on my guns (in a sense), insurance against being implicated in a crime if my guns were stolen and used for violent offenses.

Not a troll, just don't see what's the big deal with signing a few extra papers than usual and paying a tiny bit more.

It beats not being allowed to have them at all.

We do it for our cars all the time, but I don't hear people complaining about them so much. What would make guns any different?
Are you able to prove that registration does what you seem to think it does? Actual proof, please.......

Can you tell me how much registration has helped solve or limit crime?

How much has registration cost?

Where has registration proved effective?

Honest questions for you. :)

berto
07-18-2012, 11:29 AM
I never said registration was a good thing. Not once did I ever speak in favor of registration. I was merely asking why we go all :TFH: the moment the word "registration" is brought up?

So, you sending me your list and some money or not? What's so bad about doing it? You can keep you guns and I'll have a list in case you ever need to prove anything.

m03
07-18-2012, 11:29 AM
Money, personnel, and office space would have to be dedicated into creating an entity that will be responsible for tracking every transaction. Contractors would be hired to produce custom software that would need to tie into (or replace) existing systems across the country. Private party transfers in the other free states would end and this would force every legal sale/trade/gift to go through an FFL (including intra-familial transfers). This would create a burden on those living in remote areas.

You'd obviously need to report any address changes, name changes, etc. to this office so that they can successfully keep track of where your arms are stored.

Considering the resources that such an entity would consume vs. what it accomplishes, the only way it would be worthwhile is if the end-goal was to eventually disarm the populace.

I think of it as an insurance policy on my guns (in a sense), insurance against being implicated in a crime if my guns were stolen and used for violent offenses.

If that's the optimal benefit to registration, I'm not sure that creating an office that would consume millions of dollars in tax-payer funds every year would be worthwhile. In other words, report them stolen and move on. We shouldn't be required to have insurance against laziness.

POLICESTATE
07-18-2012, 11:31 AM
Here, this is from another thread, kind of dovetails nicely into this:

Here is how it gets accomplished.

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.
Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions and one person to do time studies.
Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people, one to do the studies and one to write the reports.
Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created two positions, a time keeper and a payroll officer, then hired two people.
Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?"
So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, an Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.
Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year, and we are $918,000 over budget. We must cut back." So they laid off the night watchman.
NOW slowly, let that sink in.
Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter.
Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY..... during the Carter Administration? Anybody? Anything? No? Didn't think so!
Bottom line: We've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency...the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember!
Ready?? It was very simple . . . and, at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.
The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977 TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.
Hey, pretty efficient, huh???
AND, NOW, IT'S 2011 -- 34 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES, AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE! THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?"
A little over 34 years ago, 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports. Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports. Ah, yes -- the good old Federal bureaucracy!!
NOW, WE HAVE TURNED THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY OVER TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?

Hello!! Anybody Home?


Money, personnel, and office space would have to be dedicated into creating an entity that will be responsible for tracking every transaction. Private party transfers in the other free states would end and this would force every legal sale/trade/gift to go through an FFL (including intra-familial transfers). This would create a burden on those living in remote areas.

You'd obviously need to report any address changes, name changes, etc. to this office so that they can successfully keep track of where your arms are stored.

Considering the resources that such an entity would consume vs. what it accomplishes, the only way it would be worthwhile is if the end-goal was to eventually disarm the populace.



If that's the optimal benefit to registration, I'm not sure that creating an office that would consume millions of dollars in tax-payer funds every year would be worthwhile. In other words, report them stolen and move on. We shouldn't be required to have insurance against laziness.

decepticon6551
07-18-2012, 11:33 AM
So all these fantasies and doomsday scenarios in which the government comes door to door taking your guns by force is completely outlandish in a place like America. Our military and police forces swore an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I do not believe for a moment that they will go back on their vows even if it meant putting food on the table for their families.

New Orleans doomsday scenario was in 2005. Government went door to door, taking their guns by force.

-taU9d26wT4

Wernher von Browning
07-18-2012, 11:34 AM
What's so bad about registering computers? printing presses? pencils?

Books?

http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2012/a-new-form-of-drm-a-legal-and-pragmatic-solution-for-protection-of-e-books/

The solution proposed is to create ebooks (in ePub or even PDF) with a watermark randomly placed throughout the book (visible and invisible). The watermark would contain the personal information of the customer who purchased the ebook and a warning not to resell, or distribute the book in any way. The user who purchases such a book will agree to terms and conditions (i.e. a “clickwrap”) that prohibit copying and distribution, as well as a statement that the consumer’s personal information will be prominently displayed on the book as a deterrent from distributing or copying in violation of the agreement.

The point of making a watermark that shows the user’s personal information is to create a disincentive for the user to pass the book along to unknown third parties, deputizing the user to act as a gatekeeper, protecting the book from wrongful distribution. If a file-sharing service or ebook reseller removed the watermark, it could be a violation of the DMCA Section 1201.


Read that carefully. It means that you would have to present ID to buy a book, so that you can be registered as its owner.

That means somewhere there will be a list of the books you own.

Tell me what you read, I will tell you what you do, what you think, what you believe, how you vote.

But, hey, what harm can that do? It's, like, insurance for your books! :rolleyes:

And recall that thanks to the Patriot Act (thank you, GWB...) the Feds can go to a library and order them to divulge who has been reading certain books.

Renaissance Redneck
07-18-2012, 11:34 AM
But right now such a militia is illegal (although assumed as essential by the Constitution) so the procedures implemented by the militiae are no longer relevant and the right to ownership and usage can no longer be tied to such militiae.

You couldn't be more wrong. The Second Amendment secures the rights of "the people" to own firearms, not the militia. The language is clear. The people's right to bear arms is intended to "regulate", or keep under control, the militia. The Second A. was designed to allow individuals to protect themselves, specifically against a militia run amok. In the 2A, "the people" and "the militia" are two different things.

You don't have to listen to me. The Supreme Court has already confirmed that the individual, "the people", have the right to keep arms. It is an individual right, not a right of the militia. You are wrong.

johnthomas
07-18-2012, 11:45 AM
Let's ask a somewhat different question?

Just why would the government need to register our firearms? What essential function of government does that serve?

It's not up to us to justify our freedom. It is up to the government to demonstrate an over-riding and essential need to be collecting and maintaining information on what goods/products I own.

Great post. Part of the registration fee for cars goes to maintain roads, or supposed to, part goes to maintain the system to function and most of it just goes into the general fund.
Gun registration fees goes to maintain the system of registration. They want to keep track of the legal gun owners so that when all of our freedoms are suppressed, we cannot rise up and take them back. Germany, China, Russia, N. Korea. You can control many unarmed people with one gun. Many armed people with guns is another story. I have the right to freedom of speech, no fee, why should we pay a fee for any of our rights? OP, I am not saying you are a Brady supporter, or mean any disrespect, it fact your thread educates people on our rights and thoughts, but...........It really is a Brady question.

ojisan
07-18-2012, 11:51 AM
Einstein refused to register his guns.

RaiderNation
07-18-2012, 11:53 AM
Because it sucks, and you shouldn't have to do it.
You don't have a right to own a car, you do have a right to own a gun.
It is one more obstacle. If they put enough obstacles in front of people, less and less people will do it. Put enough obstacles, no body will do it.
Every year or two, California passes a new anti gun law. Enough is enough.
No more.
Not one inch.
Gov doesn't need to know what guns I own.
And registration will do NOTHING to prevent any crime, it will only lead to problems for normal people.
It doesn't work.
/rant

+1000000 ptoguy2002. Enough Is Enough.

Mute
07-18-2012, 11:54 AM
Who says they have to confiscate? They can just as easily put the burden on you to turn it in. If not, let's fine you, then garnish your wages.

Maybe some of you forgot about the whole SKS fiasco here in CA when some gunowners were told that their rifles could be late registered for the AWB (because these fools who made and enforce the law weren't sure themselves what was or wasn't AWs to begin with) and then later told, sorry we were wrong turn in your registered rifles.

There have been more than enough historical examples of registration and eventual confiscation to not trust the government nor giving them the benefit of the doubt. Give them gun registration today, next thing you know they'll ask for it for ammo and God k OSS what else.

Sounds paranoid? Not based on history. You want to compromise, it's a free country. I will fight any registration attempt if it's within my power to do so.

curtisfong
07-18-2012, 11:56 AM
One more time:

You do *absolutely* have the right to own a car. You can do this w/o any sort of registration whatsoever. You register it because driving it on public roads is a privilege.

m03
07-18-2012, 11:56 AM
Einstein refused to register his guns.

Cite?

Whiskey_Sauer
07-18-2012, 11:57 AM
Who says they have to confiscate? They can just as easily put the burden on you to turn it in. If not, let's fine you, then garnish your wages.

Exactly. Gun confiscation isn't going to come in a door-to-door sweep by SWAT teams. They'll make you turn them in yourself.

johnthomas
07-18-2012, 12:06 PM
Exactly. Gun confiscation isn't going to come in a door-to-door sweep by SWAT teams. They'll make you turn them in yourself.

Or, run the price of gas so high it can't be paid for, set up a guns for gas program at every gas station, lol.

NotEnufGarage
07-18-2012, 12:08 PM
Exactly. Gun confiscation isn't going to come in a door-to-door sweep by SWAT teams. They'll make you turn them in yourself.

...and then if you don't, the door to door sweeps will begin.


I'm sure the Jews in 1930's Germany didn't think much would come of the initial firearms registration requirements.... nor the Brits in England.. nor the Australians...


If the government doesn't know about it, they can't come get it. It's that simple.

greybeard
07-18-2012, 12:20 PM
That was a good movie... But anyway,

say one of my guns is stolen and is used in a crime all the way in South Carolina.

I would report the gun as stolen/missing the moment it's not where I left it, that pretty much clears my name right there.
You can do that without it being registered. In fact that might decide you did not report it fast enough. That bill is floating a round SAc this year again.

Khanan
07-18-2012, 12:35 PM
I don't think the government would have the resources (or manpower) to go around taking away every single one of them.


All the more reason to raise taxes so that they do have the resources.

Are you OK with registering to take a walk? Are you OK with registering your baseball bats and hockey sticks? Are you OK with registering your underwear just in case someone smothers a stranger with them?

At what point does government for government's sake become too much?

Rattlehead
07-18-2012, 12:58 PM
Before the :TFH:'s come in saying that it will lead to confiscation, there's more than 200 MILLION firearms (and counting) in private ownership in the United States, I don't think the government would have the resources (or manpower) to go around taking away every single one of them.

Honestly though, what's so bad about it? I think of it as an insurance policy on my guns (in a sense), insurance against being implicated in a crime if my guns were stolen and used for violent offenses.

Not a troll, just don't see what's the big deal with signing a few extra papers than usual and paying a tiny bit more.

It beats not being allowed to have them at all.

We do it for our cars all the time, but I don't hear people complaining about them so much. What would make guns any different?

After all the rules and regulations that are on the books already, why would we need one more?

It beats not being allowed to have them at all.

I can see all the optimistic people on Calguns ten years from now saying that trying to get over/justify a plethora of other new laws.

Connor P Price
07-18-2012, 1:10 PM
Before the :TFH:'s come in saying that it will lead to confiscation, there's more than 200 MILLION firearms (and counting) in private ownership in the United States, I don't think the government would have the resources (or manpower) to go around taking away every single one of them.

Honestly though, what's so bad about it? I think of it as an insurance policy on my guns (in a sense), insurance against being implicated in a crime if my guns were stolen and used for violent offenses.

Not a troll, just don't see what's the big deal with signing a few extra papers than usual and paying a tiny bit more.

It beats not being allowed to have them at all.

We do it for our cars all the time, but I don't hear people complaining about them so much. What would make guns any different?

Registration does not protect you from being implicated in a crime you didn't commit. Reporting your gun stolen is what takes care of that. If your gun was not registered you wouldn't have been implicated in the first place. So in fact registration causes the problem you seem to think it solves.

In reality the only benefit to registration is that you may get your firearm back after having it stolen if it is recovered. That's actually a pretty nice benefit, however it must be weighed against the drawbacks.

Realistically, all out confiscation is incredibly unlikely post Heller/McDonald. It was a more legitimate concern when there was still a chance that the supreme court would adopt the "Collective Right" view of the 2A. Although the possibility still exists if things get progressively worse over a couple decades. More concerning is incremental small scale confiscation of certain arms from certain people. If all firearms are registered it becomes easier to ban and confiscate a certain class of rifles for example. It would also be easier to create a new category of prohibited persons and confiscate their firearms.

A more immediate concern is the cost incurred by individuals who really shouldn't have to be paying registration fees in order to exercise a fundamental right. This its especially concerning when you note that anti-gun groups and politicians have stated that they want gun ownership to be expensive because it keeps guns out off the hands of poor criminals. They don't care that it also keeps guns out of the hands of poor law abiding citizens who have an acute need to defend themselves because of where they tend to live. Don't think for a minute that they won't incrementally raise fees thereby making ownership more difficult to afford.

Another concern is privacy. Although it has already been mentioned in this thread that currently access to registration lists is reserved for law enforcement, bear in mind that all it takes is one bad court decision to make that public record.

Since registration isn't used in solving crimes in any meaningful way and its only tangible benefit is returning firearms that may have been stolen, is that really worth all of the drawbacks? Not to me. If nothing else it's a colossal waste of money and resources.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk 2

OleCuss
07-18-2012, 1:25 PM
You couldn't be more wrong. The Second Amendment secures the rights of "the people" to own firearms, not the militia. The language is clear. The people's right to bear arms is intended to "regulate", or keep under control, the militia. The Second A. was designed to allow individuals to protect themselves, specifically against a militia run amok. In the 2A, "the people" and "the militia" are two different things.

You don't have to listen to me. The Supreme Court has already confirmed that the individual, "the people", have the right to keep arms. It is an individual right, not a right of the militia. You are wrong.

Hmm. . . I'm not entirely sure what you are disagreeing with.

But I will disagree with the idea that the 2A was designed to allow individuals protect themselves from a militia run amok - or so that they could regulate the militia. Actually, from what I've been able to learn of the relevant history, this particular idea is pretty unsustainable.

The militia at the time was (as best I could tell) all able-bodied men from age 16-60. Ownership of firearms was generally expected, as was participation in the militia.

I know that people now separate ownership of the firearm from participation in the militia. I don't see that as historically supported (and I am certainly in the minority on this forum by holding this position).

But I've made it pretty darned clear that since the militia referenced in the 2A has been gutted, the RKBA has clearly been divorced from participation in the militia and is now appropriately viewed as an individual right.

Start up the old idea of a community militia with local control and training in law enforcement, military tactics, and related - and one might be able to once again link firearm ownership to militia service.

I say "might" because the jurisprudence now appropriately views the right as individual. This is, IMHO, a more expansive right than I think those who drafted the Constitution intended. The fact that the only reasonable interpretation of the 2A under modern circumstances is of an individual RKBA and the SCOTUS has stated this, it is not clear to me that there is a logical way to ever again link the RKBA to militia service.

This suits me because I prefer the individual right.

Renaissance Redneck
07-18-2012, 1:35 PM
Hmm. . . I'm not entirely sure what you are disagreeing with.

This suits me because I prefer the individual right.

I'm disagreeing that the framers meant the 2A to apply to the militia. If so, they would have said "the militia's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"; but they say "the people". Read the 2A again. Said another way: "We need to regulate the militia. To do so, the individual has the right to keep and bear arms." The militia and the people are mentioned many times in the Constitution. In no case are they considered synonymous; they are separate and distinct entities.

The Supreme Court has said that I'm right. The 2A does not give nor protect the rights of the militia, only the people.

EDIT: I'm not trying to bust your b@11s simply for the sake of it. The anti's have used your militia argument to prop up their assertion that the individual has no right to arms, only arms protected are those in the context of a militia. They further use the National Guard as an example of the modern incarnation of the 18th Century militia, and assert that the guns should be only there, and not in the hands of the citizens. I'm trying for us gun owners not to use their arguments, that's all. I'm saying that the 2A was drafted partially to prevent mob rule, that is that the armed citizen is a counter to an armed militia that may seek to subjugate them to their own wishes.

dfletcher
07-18-2012, 1:37 PM
Look, I understand and respect all of your views on this.

But I just don't see how registering a gun = getting confiscated (and even if that were true, there's no way they'd get away with it without AT THE VERY LEAST a Compensation Clause in which the government has to pay you $1 million for EVERY gun taken, don't think they can't afford that).

Yes, extreme versions of this has happened in Nazi Germany, Australia, the UK and (more recently) Venezuela. But remember that we, the United States of America have the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights, these are rights that cannot be taken away from you without Due Process of Law (or, if you for some reason choose to waive them).

So all these fantasies and doomsday scenarios in which the government comes door to door taking your guns by force is completely outlandish in a place like America. Our military and police forces swore an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I do not believe for a moment that they will go back on their vows even if it meant putting food on the table for their families.

A different approach ....

Don't you believe in the 1st Amendment? If a newspaper wanted to print a list of gunowners and their street address would you deny a newpaper their 1st Amendment rights? More importantly, do you think a court would decide for or against the publication? Newspapers have printed CCW lists, why can they not print a list of residences with guns? Are you OK with friends & neighbors and bad guys knowing you have guns?

I was LE in the Air Force and have a fair number of LE friends. In a heartbeat they will do as told by their higher ups and if instructed to enter your home and confiscate that's exactly what they'll do. Some may hold their noses, they may not like having to do it but they'll do it. Soldiers and LE follow orders even when it means killing someone, they're not going to be disobedient for you to keep your guns. And it doesn't take a Katrina event, just look up what the IL State Police and Chicago PD did regarding IL gun owners with expired FOID cards.

Thus far the 2nd Amendment allows you to possess (not own, but possess) a single handgun in your home for defense. Everything else is subject to future court cases.

So far as confiscation or illegal "taking" is concerned, that could be an issue. But I would dispense with it by providing a "turn in with compensation" grace period. Turn in your gun within 90 days and get a certain amount of $$$. After that they are illegal and you get nothing, I think that could pass legal muster.

Would confiscation ever happen? I don't know. I never thought I'd live to see the day where a person is legally required to buy healthcare or pay a tax or that two guys could get married (not that there's anything wrong with that) ....

Rather than "why should this not be allowed?" the better question is "what legitimate government purpose is served by allowing registration?". If the answer is not known it ought not be allowed.

CEDaytonaRydr
07-18-2012, 1:41 PM
Honestly though, what's so bad about it?

Please provide me with the following information:

Your Name:
Your Address:
Your Social Security number:
Your Mother's Maiden Name:
All of your Pets' names:
Name of your bank:
Name of your employer:

If you don't respond, I'll assume you got the message; I don't want anyone knowing what I've got and where I've got it stored. That's when people start giving my personal information to their buddies and my guns get stolen.

Some people view the Government as this giant, infallible machine that is beyond refute. I see it as a collection of the most inept employess who are incapable of getting jobs anywhere else, and therefore decided to work for the Government (where they cannot be fired for their lethargy). It's an issue of "perspective", I guess you could say.

SpunkyJivl
07-18-2012, 1:51 PM
Registration, historically has lead to confiscation. Jews in Europe, the UK, Australia, etc, etc, etc. It may not start with, "All guns are banned, we'll be coming door to door next week." It'll start with specific guns, or specific types of guns. Maybe the SKS for instance :TFH:, then maybe they'll outlaw the use of a made up category like 'Assault Weapons' :TFH:, then ban specific calibers like the 50 bmg :TFH:, and maybe limit mag size :TFH:, then comes banning more broad categories like simi-autos, then bolt actions, then muzzle loaders, then etc, etc, etc.

Registration doesn't do any good. It only leads to bad. Had the Jews not been disarmed prior to the Holocaust, how may things have been different?

Only Dictators and Totalitarian Governments want to disarm the people whom they have control over.


You forgot 'Conversion Kits'. :TFH:

This, hands-down, is the best answer.

OleCuss
07-18-2012, 2:11 PM
I'm disagreeing that the framers meant the 2A to apply to the militia. If so, they would have said "the militia's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"; but they say "the people". Read the 2A again. Said another way: "We need to regulate the militia. To do so, the individual has the right to keep and bear arms." The militia and the people are mentioned many times in the Constitution. In no case are they considered synonymous; they are separate and distinct entities.

The Supreme Court has said that I'm right. The 2A does not give nor protect the rights of the militia, only the people.

EDIT: I'm not trying to bust your b@11s simply for the sake of it. The anti's have used your militia argument to prop up their assertion that the individual has no right to arms, only arms protected are those in the context of a militia. They further use the National Guard as an example of the modern incarnation of the 18th Century militia, and assert that the guns should be only there, and not in the hands of the citizens. I'm trying for us gun owners not to use their arguments, that's all. I'm saying that the 2A was drafted partially to prevent mob rule, that is that the armed citizen is a counter to an armed militia that may seek to subjugate them to their own wishes.

Of course they meant it to apply to the militia! Otherwise why mention the militia in the amendment?

The problem is that so many of both the pros and the antis confuse the militia as it was understood then with the militia as it is understood now.

The beauty of it is that the antis are the ones who killed off any semblance of the militia as it was understood back then and thus effectively left the SCOTUS no choice but to find the RKBA as an individual right.

I even go much further than most on this forum will go. My interpretation of the original right means that the individual was expected to own military grade weaponry in defense of their community and (should they choose to respond) in defense of their state. The implication is that we, too, should be able to have military-grade weaponry - things like fully automatic weaponry, mines, artillery, fighter aircraft, etc. as long as it is well-regulated.

Look, I really don't claim to be a historian, but it is interesting to have read a little of the history. Have gone to Concord and studied a bit of what happened there and in the broader area. Have known a guy who was still in a historical unit which still elected their officers (actually two, from the same unit who did not get along).

It gives you a different perspective.

So I'll maintain my position as to the original intent even though others choose not to agree (or maybe to understand).

Those who think that the militia of the time of the drafting was really a creature of the state are nuts. Those who think that there was no link between firearm ownership and militia service are likewise wrong (but not as nutty).

To claim that my argument is one in favor of the idea that the RKBA is a state right would be just flat wrong.

CessnaDriver
07-18-2012, 2:13 PM
Hey, not like we live in an era of hackers who could learn what your gun collection is and target you for robbery.
Oh wait, we do live in a hacker era.

SilverTauron
07-18-2012, 2:20 PM
Before the :TFH:'s come in saying that it will lead to confiscation, there's more than 200 MILLION firearms (and counting) in private ownership in the United States, I don't think the government would have the resources (or manpower) to go around taking away every single one of them.

Looking strictly at the historical record of the past 20 years, no first world nation has disarmed its civilians in the manner suggested in your post and by others. Britain did not go door-to-door to seize civil arms, and neither did Australia.

Rather, both nations gradually tightened the laws on gun possession until it became too expensive and bureaucratically burdensome to own one.Before the UK banned handguns outright, one had to sign on an official government register every time a patron used a shooting range with a pistol, and self defense with a firearm was not only socially declasse but in fact illegal by law. Under those kinds of restrictive laws most logical people would rather not even bother owning a firearm, and people who did own guns beforehand didn't see the point in owning them anymore.Politics aside, what would be the point? Target shooting requires filing an income tax statement's worth of papers, and self defense use of a firearm will get you a longer sentence than the felon would for attacking you.

Thus, once The Ban came down the governments of the UK and Australia didn't need to go door to door. The few holdouts who legally owned firearms in such an openly hostile atmosphere simply handed them over.Looking at things historically,no stable government has ever passed a general Gun Ban out of the clear blue. Rather that's the end of a decades long process of government gradually changing political acceptance of gun control via slow introduction of laws.

In the 1890s, British citizens didn't need a permit to own and carry guns.The politicians of the day encouraged responsible gun ownership. By 1997, nearly every weapon was banned for ownership by British subjects. What changed? The citizens went from liking guns, to accepting minor government restrictions on guns, to government expanding the established restrictions, to citizens wondering why the restrictions weren't strong enough, to the final endgame of the subjects outright demanding that the government disarm the nation. This process starts with innocent regulations like permits, registration, and the like.




Honestly though, what's so bad about it? I think of it as an insurance policy on my guns (in a sense), insurance against being implicated in a crime if my guns were stolen and used for violent offenses.

Not a troll, just don't see what's the big deal with signing a few extra papers than usual and paying a tiny bit more.

While its true a gun registry may be useful in resolving that the owner didn't commit a crime,the risk to the citizen by a crook is minute compared to the much more drastic ,common and damaging consequences of plain old government corruption. Much like with any other government agency, a gun registration database has a large potential for abuse by corrupt members of Uncle Sugar.

In my college research on gun laws, I discovered an account back in the 1990s of Australian gun owners suffering multiple targeted burglaries where crooks would hit a home, defeat the safes, and clean out the gun collections of citizens.Then once time elapsed and the citizens rebuilt their gun collections they'd get hit again. The police were stumped, until their internal affairs discovered a cop in the Firearms Division HQ was selling Australian Gun Registry data to organized crooks under the table. With the detailed information on gun safes, combinations, registered firearms, ammunition, names of the owners, dates of purchase and home addresses the Aussie theft ring had everything they needed to clean out the citizenry at will, which is exactly what they did. Note that armed self defense in that country is frowned upon by The Government.

The risk of a cop trusted with that info going Rampart represents a true danger to public safety, much more than citizens owning unregistered guns.



It beats not being allowed to have them at all.

We do it for our cars all the time, but I don't hear people complaining about them so much. What would make guns any different?

With cars, the comparison is not precisely the same. One can own and purchase any car they like in America, and not register it at all. If one plans to drive it on public roads then we come to the matter of registration and the requirements thereof. A better analogy would be a situation where anyone can own and purchase any kind of firearm they have the money for, full auto, SBR, what have you, but if one intends on shooting it at a public shooting range then it would need to be registered. That's not the type of registration systems used with regard to firearms, where one cannot buy one legally without documenting purchase and ownership with The State. In California, one can buy a Chevy Corvette, park it in their living room, and never title or register it. You cannot do the same with a handgun without registering it.

Root66
07-18-2012, 2:31 PM
Before the :TFH:'s come in saying that it will lead to confiscation, there's more than 200 MILLION firearms (and counting) in private ownership in the United States, I don't think the government would have the resources (or manpower) to go around taking away every single one of them.

Can you say naive?

Suvorov
07-18-2012, 2:31 PM
So all these fantasies and doomsday scenarios in which the government comes door to door taking your guns by force is completely outlandish in a place like America. Our military and police forces swore an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I do not believe for a moment that they will go back on their vows even if it meant putting food on the table for their families.

How old are you? :confused:

As a veteran and having a LEO background as well, I can tell you that while there are many who take their oaths seriously, there are many others than don't and will do whatever it takes to keep that pay check coming. I don't want to give the later group any more advantage than they already have.

There was a time I was naive and thought that the .gov and its elected and appointed agents all wore a white hat. Experience and a wardrobe full of T-shirts had taught me otherwise. ;)

Yemff
07-18-2012, 2:37 PM
It beats not being allowed to have them at all.


The problem is that every single piece of legislation restricting anything with firearms is just adding to the list of bs that we already have to deal with. You think politicians are going to stop going after guns if there were a national registry? It'll be one thing after another until its such a pain or so expensive no one will want to own guns. And honestly if they government strait outlawed guns, most everybody would just turn theirs in, how many people do you think would actually die before giving up their gun rights? It sucks, but its the truth.

The thing that bugs me about gun laws, or any laws is that there are already 5 billion laws before it. It's not like one law is taken away to add another, and after 100 years there are going to be so many god damn laws every ordinary good citizen is going to be treated like a criminal, remember, ignorance of a law is not an excuse. So at lease for me that's why I don't support any new laws or taxes, they all sound fine and dandy in the moment, but the general public forgets about everything in 6 months and then some a** in Washington is already making a new law or a new tax for the same reason as the one before.

Until this country collectively says enough is enough, and we all stop paying our taxes, or stop surrendering our rights little by little were pretty much fu****! Unfortunately, people with the mindset like the one you expressed above are the majority, I mean whats the big deal with letting the government pry into our lives if were just giving up a little? The problem is a little at a time adds up to a whole lot, and the people who were pissed about the bs from the last 20 years will unfortunately forget all about why they were pissed, or will be dead. The end result is every generation gets just as screwed over as the last, but the starting point is not the same.

Whiskey_Sauer
07-18-2012, 2:40 PM
Looking strictly at the historical record of the past 20 years, no first world nation has disarmed its civilians in the manner suggested in your post and by others. Britain did not go door-to-door to seize civil arms, and neither did Australia.

Rather, both nations gradually tightened the laws on gun possession until it became too expensive and bureaucratically burdensome to own one.Before the UK banned handguns outright, one had to sign on an official government register every time a patron used a shooting range with a pistol, and self defense with a firearm was not only socially declasse but in fact illegal by law. Under those kinds of restrictive laws most logical people would rather not even bother owning a firearm, and people who did own guns beforehand didn't see the point in owning them anymore.Politics aside, what would be the point? Target shooting requires filing an income tax statement's worth of papers, and self defense use of a firearm will get you a longer sentence than the felon would for attacking you.

Thus, once The Ban came down the governments of the UK and Australia didn't need to go door to door. The few holdouts who legally owned firearms in such an openly hostile atmosphere simply handed them over.Looking at things historically,no stable government has ever passed a general Gun Ban out of the clear blue. Rather that's the end of a decades long process of government gradually changing political acceptance of gun control via slow introduction of laws.

In the 1890s, British citizens didn't need a permit to own and carry guns.The politicians of the day encouraged responsible gun ownership. By 1997, nearly every weapon was banned for ownership by British subjects. What changed? The citizens went from liking guns, to accepting minor government restrictions on guns, to government expanding the established restrictions, to citizens wondering why the restrictions weren't strong enough, to the final endgame of the subjects outright demanding that the government disarm the nation. This process starts with innocent regulations like permits, registration, and the like.

ST, thank you for saying this far more eloquently than I did.

The OP and other "it would never happen here" folks in this thread forget that the UK is not some totalitarian regime. It is a liberal democracy, with a long-established tradition of firearms ownership, previously recognized in law, and the rule of law which recognized private property rights. The point is, if it can happen in the UK and Australia, it can happen here, unless we stop it at the inception.

Renaissance Redneck
07-18-2012, 2:47 PM
Those who think that there was no link between firearm ownership and militia service are likewise wrong (but not as nutty).

To claim that my argument is one in favor of the idea that the RKBA is a state right would be just flat wrong.

Read the DC vs. Heller decision. The Supreme Court DID INDEED say that the people's right to bear arms was partially due to the need to regulate the militia. They went so far as to claim government might establish its own militia to subjugate the people, and therefore the people needed to bear arms to counter such a militia, or even a standing army.

I didn't say it; the Supreme Court did. I applaud many of your stands on the issue, but the Supreme Court certainly does agree with my reading of the 2A.

Bhobbs
07-18-2012, 2:56 PM
Before the :TFH:'s come in saying that it will lead to confiscation, there's more than 200 MILLION firearms (and counting) in private ownership in the United States, I don't think the government would have the resources (or manpower) to go around taking away every single one of them.


They wouldn't have to go door to door. After they know who has them, they just ban them. The vast majority would turn them in and the people who don't would get a friendly visit by the SWAT team in the middle of the night. That or they would be flagged so they can't register their cars or get a loan or any other way the government can compel you to turn them in.

Chosen_1
07-18-2012, 4:03 PM
Voluntary registration would be good. That way, the people who don't want to don't have to, and the people who are worried about theft, etc. could still do it. My college allows students to reg their bikes, laptops, and other expensive items with the campus police so that they can return them to you if they are stolen and recovered.

YMMV

12voltguy
07-18-2012, 4:06 PM
Voluntary registration would be good. That way, the people who don't want to don't have to, and the people who are worried about theft, etc. could still do it. My college allows students to reg their bikes, laptops, and other expensive items with the campus police so that they can return them to you if they show up.

YMMV

we already have that.....

curtisfong
07-18-2012, 4:09 PM
Read the DC vs. Heller decision. The Supreme Court DID INDEED say that the people's right to bear arms was partially due to the need to regulate the militia.

"A well regulated militia" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Chosen_1
07-18-2012, 4:20 PM
we already have that.....

Not Federally?? Is this a CA thread? we already will have mandatory registration for everything by 2014, I figured this was a national hypothetical.

Capybara
07-18-2012, 4:21 PM
Registration, historically has lead to confiscation. Jews in Europe, the UK, Australia, etc, etc, etc. It may not start with, "All guns are banned, we'll be coming door to door next week." It'll start with specific guns, or specific types of guns. Maybe the SKS for instance :TFH:, then maybe they'll outlaw the use of a made up category like 'Assault Weapons' :TFH:, then ban specific calibers like the 50 bmg :TFH:, and maybe limit mag size :TFH:, then comes banning more broad categories like simi-autos, then bolt actions, then muzzle loaders, then etc, etc, etc.

Registration doesn't do any good. It only leads to bad. Had the Jews not been disarmed prior to the Holocaust, how may things have been different?

Only Dictators and Totalitarian Governments want to disarm the people whom they have control over.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This!

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

Yemff
07-18-2012, 4:32 PM
Not Federally?? Is this a CA thread? we already will have mandatory registration for everything by 2014, I figured this was a national hypothetical.

No we don't, in 2014 we do not have to register guns we already own.

Grnjeep1
07-18-2012, 4:41 PM
Incredibly naive. Your the same type of person that was jumping up and down during the riots because they couldn't buy a gun right then and there. All because the waiting period was "common sense", and people like minded like you voted for "common sense" gun laws. You, and people who think like you are the reasons why gun laws suck so bad in this state, all because the laws we have now "make sense" in your minds.

Connor P Price
07-18-2012, 4:51 PM
No we don't, in 2014 we do not have to register guns we already own.

Don't let that fool you into believing that it isn't total registration. It just takes longer this way. After a couple generations very nearly all guns will have a paper trail because they all will have been transfered a time or two.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk 2

ojisan
07-18-2012, 5:02 PM
Cite?
From a book I read on his life.
The Nazis required all guns be registered.
Einstein did not register his guns and this was one of the reasons he was targeted for arrest very early in the anti-jewish actions.
He was also seen as a potentially very dangerous leader.
Einstein moved to the US before he could be captured.

Bruceisontarget
07-18-2012, 5:09 PM
A national or state registration of firearms would eventually lead to confiscation schemes. There is no way I would ever comply with such an order and you could conservatively say that millions of others would not comply either.
Could anyone imagine such an order being imposed on the people of Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Alabama, or any other Southern State. I think Washington DC would burn this time, not Atlanta.

wheels
07-18-2012, 5:14 PM
Somewhere there is a link to this thread, and the OP is celebrating what an epic troll with his buddies.

NotEnufGarage
07-18-2012, 5:21 PM
The favorite tactic of the nanny-staters is incrementalism. First registration, then restrictions on how and where they can be used, then licensing and associated fees then forfeiture then confiscation. It might take 20 or 30 years to accomplish it all, but it can't start until they get the camels nose under the tent flap.

NOT ONE INCH!

POLICESTATE
07-18-2012, 5:24 PM
Don't let that fool you into believing that it isn't total registration. It just takes longer this way. After a coupe generations very nearly all guns will have a paper trail because they all will have been transfered a time or two.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk 2

This guy gets it :thumbsup:

SilverTauron
07-18-2012, 6:38 PM
A national or state registration of firearms would eventually lead to confiscation schemes. There is no way I would ever comply with such an order and you could conservatively say that millions of others would not comply either.
Could anyone imagine such an order being imposed on the people of Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Alabama, or any other Southern State. I think Washington DC would burn this time, not Atlanta.

At this time you are quite correct. An outright ban would be an invitation to a second civil war.That's why the anti's move at the speed of molasses.They don't propose an outright ban on the spot any more than a guy dating a girl proposes anal sex at the lunch date. Both propositions will face resistance.

That's why the disarmament lobby runs its game like a teenager before prom night-just one more license, just one more regulation, another registration fee hike, another roster requirement there.Years later, when the only people who own guns are the politically connected and one old guy who's really particular about his lawn, the ban is dropped and no one opposes it for lack of being affected. This is why its crucial that we reach out to newbies;even if they don't run out and buy a gun right away, we deny the adversaries the ability to sell another law based on bunk.

oddball
07-18-2012, 6:46 PM
In all my years of surfing and participating in firearms forums, I have NEVER seen a question/ OP like this. Wow.

And you're a gun owner?

I can hear it now; only in CA. :rolleyes:

Capybara
07-18-2012, 6:50 PM
The government exists to serve the people. Somewhere along the line, it got turned around bass ackwards.

Don29palms
07-18-2012, 7:10 PM
To the OP
Don't you think your 2A PRIVILEGES have been infringed upon enough?

mag360
07-18-2012, 7:20 PM
Because it is useless rules like registration that dont reduce crime but waste money that we need to do away with.

SonoftheRepublic
07-18-2012, 10:23 PM
For a real Eye-Opener, Please watch this recent video and listen to soldier who tells his experience during Katrina gun confiscation . . .

Search: "troops-ordered-to-kill-americans-who-do-not-turn-in-guns"

listen at 9:26

gunsmith
07-19-2012, 12:40 AM
I never said registration was a good thing. Not once did I ever speak in favor of registration. I was merely asking why we go all :TFH: the moment the word "registration" is brought up?
you have gotten great answers, you simply ignore them.

Safety1st
07-19-2012, 1:29 AM
Look, I understand and respect all of your views on this.

Yes, extreme versions of this has happened in Nazi Germany, Australia, the UK and (more recently) Venezuela. But remember that we, the United States of America have the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights, these are rights that cannot be taken away from you without Due Process of Law (or, if you for some reason choose to waive them).

So all these fantasies and doomsday scenarios in which the government comes door to door taking your guns by force is completely outlandish in a place like America. Our military and police forces swore an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I do not believe for a moment that they will go back on their vows even if it meant putting food on the table for their families.

You're either incredibly naive, or completely ignorant of recent history and how nation states operate. When has a government had power and not exercised that power?

Have you heard of the NDAA (national defense authorization act), the Patriot Act, etc.? Do you realize they essentially invalidate the 4th and 5th, and 6th amendements?

What makes you think the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct?

I can't fathom how anyone in their right mind would welcome more taxation, more regulation, and more laws to complicate our already overburdened lives. Why don't you write the IRS while you're at it and tell them how you wouldn't mind the tax code being longer and more complicated.

GettoPhilosopher
07-19-2012, 1:59 AM
But you don't have the right to use the car. Ownership MAY be a right, but USE is a privilege; the privilege to drive a car can be revoked or restricted, even without the user having committed a crime. Try again.


Wrong again!

Ownership and use may be a right. Use on public roads is a privilege.

Let me say that again: Use on PUBLIC ROADS is a privilege. You don't need to register your car to drive it on your property.

anthonyca
07-19-2012, 2:30 AM
You only have to register your car to use it on a public road or trail on public land.

If there is no risk of confiscation, and it won't affect law abiding citizens, what's the point of registering guns?

Let's just say, for arguments sake, that registration can never be used for confiscation. The antis know that every little obstical they can put up to someone buying a gun in more likely to make them say forget thi and they are right. Just think of how many more.guns you.would own if it was like when my dad wa around and you could buy a gun at the hardware store, gasoline station,drug store, or a mail order catalog, no paper work and no questions asked, no waiting period. Now think of a first time gun buyer. The less first time gun buyers, the less gun owners and it shrnks exponentially.

Why do you think the media keeps publishing lists of LTC holders? Look at LCAV and other anti groups. Most of the largest a highest paying law firms in he country are members and donate time to these orginizations. Imagine you are an up and coming lawyer looking to get a partnership and your boss is on the board of LCAV and you could be.outed as owning "an arsenal" due tow searchable database.

There is just nothing good that come from registration and nothing good ever has.

451040
07-19-2012, 3:41 AM
Not a troll


:laugh:

kimber_ss
07-19-2012, 4:30 AM
Coerced registration is another way of lining up guns of all types for the chopping block. Once the location of private legal firearms are in the database, it is merely a task of logistics to dispose of and render them as a lump of iron in the furnace.

Then the resulting tyranny begins to make its mark on the citizenry of the state. "Anon"

The War Wagon
07-19-2012, 4:51 AM
Never saw Red Dawn, huh? :rolleyes:


3OaF-j8x5Vc


Of course, to pull off THAT scenario, you'd need 30-50 million ILLEGAL FOREIGN INVADERS from Mexico to make it happen, and America would NEVER stand still for such an invasion!!! http://www.smiley-faces.org/smiley-faces/smiley-face-whistle-2.gif

ccmc
07-19-2012, 5:58 AM
let's not forget the Bush administration outing Valerie Plame as a CIA NOC

Was Armitage a Bush appointee or was he a career State Dept employee? I get the point - the outing of the Pakistani doctor who helped with identifying OBL's location by the Obama administration is another good example of government handling of classified information, only this guy is paying a much higher price.

taloft
07-19-2012, 6:29 AM
Registration, historically has lead to confiscation. Jews in Europe, the UK, Australia, etc, etc, etc. It may not start with, "All guns are banned, we'll be coming door to door next week." It'll start with specific guns, or specific types of guns. Maybe the SKS for instance :TFH:, then maybe they'll outlaw the use of a made up category like 'Assault Weapons' :TFH:, then ban specific calibers like the 50 bmg :TFH:, and maybe limit mag size :TFH:, then comes banning more broad categories like simi-autos, then bolt actions, then muzzle loaders, then etc, etc, etc.

Registration doesn't do any good. It only leads to bad. Had the Jews not been disarmed prior to the Holocaust, how may things have been different?

Only Dictators and Totalitarian Governments want to disarm the people whom they have control over.

μολὼν λαβέ
Molon labe
Come and take them
It is a classical expression of defiance reportedly spoken by King Leonidas I in response to the Persian army's demand that the Spartans surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae. -WIKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molon_labe)We have a winner folks!! This right here is the problem with registration. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

scarville
07-19-2012, 6:51 AM
It's a one time fee though, if I remember correctly, it may have changed though...
Like the one time fee I pay to register my car?

Like the Income Tax was never going to exceed 1% and would only apply to millionaires?

I'm sorry, but to think that a government and fellow travelers will not take advantage of registration records to tax and control the thing being registered is incredibly naive.

There is a reason that, "Trust me, I'm from the government," is a joke amongst rational people.

db.40
07-19-2012, 7:21 AM
Anyone really interested in the original intent of 2A needs to read "the founders second amendment: origins of the right to bear arms". Then come back and tell everyone here if the founders would have approved of a registration.

I agree that we were meant to be able to carry and own military weaponry, but only that which a soldier or militiaman would regularly "bear." like rifles, shotguns, handguns, etc. this was meant both for an individual defense as well as the common defense. However, one couldn't stockpile cannons as they could not "keep" them in the homes, but rather in a town armory, to be used in the common defense, not against a home invader. Also, things like grenades probably wouldn't fall under the founders keep and bear as they would probably be seen as a "public nuissance.". The founders were very pro-gun but they also had common sense, like limiting just how much powder could be kept in a home. They certainly weren't ok with a registry of arms, in fact when gage tried to confiscate weapons it was estimated that every man over 18 in boston owned a firearm, and that's not including the concealed firearms many owned.

They were well aware of the risks that came with others knowing where to find their arms and how many there were which is why there was such an open approach to keeping and bearing arms. And for those who say it wouldn't happen today, they need only look at England, Australia, and even new Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina.

“The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle, hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer’s cottage, is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.” -George Orwell

Just Dave
07-19-2012, 8:45 AM
When you register your weapons the government now knows what you have and with a stroke of the pen the government can make what you have illegal... Expect a letter ordering you to turn it in.

Silverback
07-19-2012, 8:51 AM
I was merely asking why we go all :TFH: the moment the word "registration" is brought up?

Because Americans are a different breed! We are fiercely independent and hate anything shoved down our throats or up something else. :mad: We are not a bunch of pacifist who sit back and watch our rights being bastardized at the will of a bunch of Socialist control freaks. Most of them appear to be in Washington D.C. and California.

We hate anything that even looks like we are having to pay for our rights. Its like the thought of having to be hung with your own rope.

Legasat
07-19-2012, 11:52 AM
Maybe it's time to stop feeding the troll :wacko:

Sturnovik
07-19-2012, 12:03 PM
Because it sucks, and you shouldn't have to do it.
You don't have a right to own a car, you do have a right to own a gun.
It is one more obstacle. If they put enough obstacles in front of people, less and less people will do it. Put enough obstacles, no body will do it.
Every year or two, California passes a new anti gun law. Enough is enough.
No more.
Not one inch.
Gov doesn't need to know what guns I own.
And registration will do NOTHING to prevent any crime, it will only lead to problems for normal people.
It doesn't work.
/rant

+1, I honestly couldn't have said it better. Well said.

Root66
07-19-2012, 3:48 PM
"A well regulated militia" doesn't mean what you think it means.

I have my own ideas but what do you think it means?

dantodd
07-19-2012, 4:21 PM
Read the DC vs. Heller decision. The Supreme Court DID INDEED say that the people's right to bear arms was partially due to the need to regulate the militia. They went so far as to claim government might establish its own militia to subjugate the people, and therefore the people needed to bear arms to counter such a militia, or even a standing army.

I didn't say it; the Supreme Court did. I applaud many of your stands on the issue, but the Supreme Court certainly does agree with my reading of the 2A.

can you please post or cite the portion of the decision you are paraphrasing?

creekside
07-19-2012, 4:32 PM
Maybe it's time to stop feeding the troll :wacko:

More troll food:

http://jpfo.org/pdf02/genocide-chart.pdf

Yes, really. Gun control regulations make it easier to liquidate inconvenient populations. This is the real discussion that should be taking place at the UN's "arms" treaty -- why are genocidal paramilitaries and rogue governments allowed to purchase all the heavy ordinance they want, and the UN won't allow a peaceful village or desperate refugee to own a hunting rifle or self-defense shotgun?

RMP91
07-19-2012, 5:01 PM
Somewhere there is a link to this thread, and the OP is celebrating what an epic troll with his buddies.

Again, I'm not trolling in any sense of the word. I was merely curious as to why registration of anything (not just guns) was the equivalent of the sky falling or the world ending in the eyes of gun owners.

I understand and respect all your views, beliefs, and research. Some argue that history has made it clear that registration will only lead to trouble, others say that what happens in other countries around the world MAY happen here.

I acknowledge each and every opinion and belief. I respect all amendments in the Bill of Rights, not least of which the 2nd. My head, contrary to what some believe is not "stuck in the sand". My main point was that all those scenarios and horror stories about government takeovers and mass forced/violent confiscation is completely and utterly impossible in today's society (in my own opinion), as ****ed up as it may be right now.

I, like many of you, hope to see the day in which the 1986 machine gun registration cut off is abolished, the NFA repealed, and the GCA struck down. I hope to one day be able to Cash n' Carry all my favorite MGs, SBSes, SBRs, and DDs. It may not seem like it'll happen any time soon (not in California anyway), but the day is coming!

It was just that when I asked this question yesterday, I never truly understood what the big deal was with having to pay a small fee and signing a couple of papers, that's all.

POLICESTATE
07-19-2012, 5:18 PM
My main point was that all those scenarios and horror stories about government takeovers and mass forced/violent confiscation is completely and utterly impossible in today's society

And that is why it makes it possible.

It's much more possible now that it has been in the past.

CDFingers
07-20-2012, 7:10 AM
Whether registration is proper depends upon the meaning of "to infringe," which is yet to be defined.

Ostensibly, if guns are a check against a potentially tyrannical .gov, then telling that .gov where the guns are would be in my book "infringement."

CDFingers

donw
07-20-2012, 9:31 PM
IIRC didn't some legislator propose a YEARLY regestration fee on every gun you own?

basically, registration tells only the original purchaser and i don't know if registration of handguns has EVER led to the solution of a crime, has it?

i believe it's more about creating a vehicle of revenue for the state than anything else.

if you are guaranteed "Freedom of assembly" why do you need to get a permit to hold a parade? it seems like that's "Licensing or permitting" a right isn't it?

hvengel
07-21-2012, 9:39 AM
...I agree that we were meant to be able to carry and own military weaponry, but only that which a soldier or militiaman would regularly "bear." like rifles, shotguns, handguns, etc. this was meant both for an individual defense as well as the common defense. However, one couldn't stockpile cannons as they could not "keep" them in the homes, but rather in a town armory, to be used in the common defense, not against a home invader.

I call total BS. Many private individuals owned canon and other crew served weapons at the time of the founding. Most if not all of these individuals were "rich" (IE. higher income; business owners and professionals) and one of the reasons they owned the canon or other crew served weapons was so that they would have control over their "toys" when called up for militia service. This would result in them being made an officer or higher ranking non-com rather than a common solder. After all the other militia members would prefer to serve in a unit with more powerful weapons like canon so making the guy who owns the canon an officer is a prudent thing to do as this will encourage others to invest in these more expensive weapons.

In addition, private individuals owned war ships at the time. What evidence is there of this? The Constitution authorizes letters of marque and that presupposes that private ownership of war ships is a given. It is highly unlikely that the founders would have included this clause if they did not approve of the private ownership of war ships.

The founders were very pro-gun but they also had common sense, like limiting just how much powder could be kept in a home.

Where this was true it was a fire ordnance that allowed individuals to build a magazine for storing powder if they wanted to have more than they were allowed to store in their house. These laws only existed in larger cities like Boston and NY. Also keep in mind that fire fighting at that time was very primitive and it was common for fires to get out of control and burn down whole towns or large sections of cities (think the great Chicago fire or the fire that followed the 1906 SF earth quake). In addition the amount of powder that individuals were allowed to store in their house would be considered to be very large amounts by today's standards (we are not talking about limiting the amount stored to a few pounds of powder). These laws also regulated where in the house the powder could be stored - for example it would have to be stored a certain distance from the fireplace. These laws clearly had nothing to do with limiting the ownership of weapons.

byronwrites
07-21-2012, 9:51 AM
Every major genocide in the last one hundred years was preceeded by government mandated gun registration:

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

byronwrites
07-21-2012, 10:53 AM
And this is what happens when we relinquish our constitutional rights and register firearms:
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html

mbt
07-22-2012, 7:34 AM
Well, I trust those who enforce the laws on the behalf of the government (Military, Law Enforcement) if that answers your question.

I hate the politics just as much as everyone else, but that's no reason to go after those who have to enforce them.

R u a cop? I sure don't trust the enforcers who will beat citizens to a pulp if they don't submit to unreasonable search and seizure (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCe0zYqBQ3g).

mbt
07-22-2012, 7:43 AM
LAPD. SFPD. LASD. the list is a long one.

Exactly. I think the cop lover is a major troll. If you are a civilian and a cops asks you if you have a FA, and you say yes, I guarantee you'll be treated like a criminal 99% of the time. Cops are trained to treat civilians as threats and believe only they have a right to own guns. If you claim your Constitutional rights, be prepared for a beat down. Cops don't give a rats *** about enforcing Constitutional rights. That's why you hear police brutality and police corruption/drug selling/rape/harassment/abuse/murder/blue code of silence/Rampart/LAPD history/cop culture/etc etc etc.

Farrier-1
07-22-2012, 7:58 AM
Why don't you ask an Aussie how well the gun registration worked for them.

Once our arms are registered, might as well hand Em' over.

SID45
07-22-2012, 8:19 AM
They did that in the Philippines with MARCOS....Handed it over and he declared martial law after that. Its just to common.

johnjohn301
07-22-2012, 9:15 AM
Because I don't trust the Government and how they would use that list. Even though they may think that they know what I have, they don't need to know everything.

^ That one -
More than any other issue it comes down to the Government cannot be trusted with the information. Might be fine today, but tomorrow you don't know what it is going to bring. Once the Government has all that info, whatever promises were made about how that info will be used will go out the window.

If you have any doubt, search YouTube for Katrina gun confiscation videos. A list of who has what is all it takes.

I've long lost all confidence that the Government won't "do that" (fill in the blank) to us. They can, they have and they will, as long as they are allowed.

MontClaire
07-22-2012, 9:26 AM
Then you don't mind registering a kitchen knife, do you? It's only few papers. Hammer, saw, pliers, those dumbells in your garage, screw drivers. What's the big deal?

Don29palms
07-22-2012, 9:55 AM
Whether registration is proper depends upon the meaning of "to infringe," which is yet to be defined.

Ostensibly, if guns are a check against a potentially tyrannical .gov, then telling that .gov where the guns are would be in my book "infringement."

CDFingers

Any and all Gun Control of any sort is an infringement of the 2A. Nowhere in the 2A does it say EXCEPT FOR.

donw
07-22-2012, 11:27 AM
oh...another reason for accepting 'registration' and it's, probable, leading to confiscation, etc...is: "Oh...that would never happen here..."

yeah...right...

there's another thread here about Sen Diane Feinstein...keep in mind...this "Legislator" is on the public record saying: "If i could get away with it, i'd confiscate every gun out there." and..."I would tell them: turn them in Mr and Mrs America."

db.40
07-22-2012, 1:59 PM
I call total BS. Many private individuals owned canon and other crew served weapons at the time of the founding. Most if not all of these individuals were "rich" (IE. higher income; business owners and professionals) and one of the reasons they owned the canon or other crew served weapons was so that they would have control over their "toys" when called up for militia service. This would result in them being made an officer or higher ranking non-com rather than a common solder. After all the other militia members would prefer to serve in a unit with more powerful weapons like canon so making the guy who owns the canon an officer is a prudent thing to do as this will encourage others to invest in these more expensive weapons.


Do you have any reliable sources to show that individuals owned canons and kept them inside of their homes or that simply owning a canon gave one a hire rank?

Caribouriver
07-22-2012, 6:13 PM
In 1989, 14 women were murdered in Montreal. I was living there at the time. There was a huge public outcry for gun control an the liberal prime minister, Jean Chretian, signed into law the Canadian Lon Gun Gun Registry in 1996. It was supposed to cost $400K to set up and be self sustaining thereafter from fees. It wasn't. It cost Canadian taxpayers over $1B and most LEOS said it wasn't useful in combating crime because the criminals didn't register anything. Law enforcement wanted the money to spend more effectively. This past April, Steven Harper, the conservative prime minister had it repealed. Canada, with a population of 34M, was unable to make long gun registration work neither effectively nor efficiently. How can the United States, with a population of 313M, hope to fare any better?

gunsandrockets
07-22-2012, 6:53 PM
Before the :TFH:'s come in saying that it will lead to confiscation, there's more than 200 MILLION firearms (and counting) in private ownership in the United States, I don't think the government would have the resources (or manpower) to go around taking away every single one of them.

Honestly though, what's so bad about it? I think of it as an insurance policy on my guns (in a sense), insurance against being implicated in a crime if my guns were stolen and used for violent offenses.

Not a troll, just don't see what's the big deal with signing a few extra papers than usual and paying a tiny bit more.

It beats not being allowed to have them at all.

We do it for our cars all the time, but I don't hear people complaining about them so much. What would make guns any different?

You have fallen into a typical anti-gunner trap. Of course "registration" sounds harmless. That language is a deliberate tactic by the anti-gunners designed to deceive you, and lull you into a false sense of security. Because when they talk of 'registration', they talk of "strict registration", which means the NYC style Sullivan Law.

Do you want to live under the Sullivan Law? Think that it's harmless?

Kappy
07-22-2012, 10:00 PM
Sigh... I used to ask the same thing. It is a good question.

The police and the rest of the government won't collect most of them. We will turn them in like the government-fearing cattle we have become (and maybe always were).

Moto
07-22-2012, 10:09 PM
Every major genocide in the last one hundred years was preceeded by government mandated gun registration:

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

good post

Oneaudiopro
07-22-2012, 10:18 PM
Before the :TFH:'s come in saying that it will lead to confiscation, there's more than 200 MILLION firearms (and counting) in private ownership in the United States, I don't think the government would have the resources (or manpower) to go around taking away every single one of them.

Honestly though, what's so bad about it? I think of it as an insurance policy on my guns (in a sense), insurance against being implicated in a crime if my guns were stolen and used for violent offenses.

Not a troll, just don't see what's the big deal with signing a few extra papers than usual and paying a tiny bit more.

It beats not being allowed to have them at all.

We do it for our cars all the time, but I don't hear people complaining about them so much. What would make guns any different?
I think individuals like yourself should find a new hobby. Obviously firearm rights and the Constitution are not your thing. Try stamp collecting.

deadhawg
07-23-2012, 10:21 AM
It's a one time fee though, if I remember correctly, it may have changed though...

A small, one time fee. Right. Then they will increase the fee. And increase it again, until nobody can afford it. It's just another back door method of gun control.

As somebody else said, "give them an inch and they will take a mile".

And, what right does the government have to know what I own, whether it's my lawnmower or my guns? It's nowhere in the constitution.

Registration is wrong on many levels.

12voltguy
07-23-2012, 10:31 AM
A small, one time fee. Right. Then they will increase the fee. And increase it again, until nobody can afford it. It's just another back door method of gun control.

As somebody else said, "give them an inch and they will take a mile".

And, what right does the government have to know what I own, whether it's my lawnmower or my guns? It's nowhere in the constitution.

Registration is wrong on many levels.

recent example
I moved back to ca in 1997
found out I had to get a DOJ handgun saftey cert.
Was a 1 time fee good for life.
5 years later they scraped the lifetime & made it 5 year.........But I paid for a one time card, WTF????
I have a CCW now so I don't need that card every 5 years to purchase handguns, but there ya go
1 time fees:rolleyes:

Dragunov
07-23-2012, 12:15 PM
It's an honest question, not trying to troll here.

Barring a cataclysmic invasion by a foreign entity, I just don't see what the big deal is.Then YOU go ahead and tell Unkey Sam how many and what type of guns you possess. I trust my neighbor more than I do the .GOV, and my NEIGHBOR has no Idea what I have, nor am I going to tell him!

Jason_2111
07-23-2012, 12:20 PM
There have been dozens of well thought out and explained reasons iterated here on why NOT to have registration.

I have yet to see any for why we SHOULD have registration. If you are going to start a discussion of why or why not, you should come with an argument or reasons for the Pro (if that's your position).

If not, you're just trolling and/or looking for quotes from riled up gun-nuts to put in an article.

renardsubtil
07-23-2012, 12:34 PM
"Question: What's so bad about registration?"

The less the government knows about my private life the better.

The government is notoriously horrible at record keeping, so why should we be 1) taxed and 2) charged for paperwork that's going to be horribly tracked by the state? It's just empty $$ for them to blow on their stupid crap and over inflated budgets.


TL;DR. Paperwork is a waste of time and money and the less I have to share with the government, the better.

12voltguy
07-23-2012, 12:39 PM
There have been dozens of well thought out and explained reasons iterated here on why NOT to have registration.

I have yet to see any for why we SHOULD have registration. If you are going to start a discussion of why or why not, you should come with an argument or reasons for the Pro (if that's your position).

If not, you're just trolling and/or looking for quotes from riled up gun-nuts to put in an article.

Bingo;)

jsragman
07-23-2012, 12:44 PM
Nothing is good about registration. All guns are NOT accounted for. What about an inheritance, private sale or estate sale?

surfNshoot
07-23-2012, 12:53 PM
I don't think the OP is a troll at all. I've wanted to ask this same question for a long time and I see the same lame answers that I always hear. When are people going to stop living in fear of what the government might do if they have my information on my guns. I could honestly give a rats rear that they know what guns I own nor should any law abiding citizen. The second amendment that was backed by the courts says I get to keep my guns for now. Start looking at the REAL problems that exist by not registering weapons. Guess what?? I DON'T WANT CRAZY PEOPLE TO OWN GUNS!!! Now will registering make it impossible? NO but it will make it harder. If the gun is registered to me. I am now responsible for that gun. Seams like no one wants responsibility. We all sit around and talk about how responsible gun owners we are by pointing them in a safe direction and keeping our fingers off the trigger but it is time to take it to the next level. Flame me and call me a troll all you want its just my opinion. Most of these answers I see are what make us gun owners look like idiots to the rest of the world.

bohoki
07-23-2012, 1:28 PM
it has more negative potential consequences than current or future benefits

Uxi
07-23-2012, 1:30 PM
By itself, it could almost be tolerable. That it's historically always preceding confiscation, if not demonization and ostracizing by leftist groups makes me way to skeptical to get beyond the theory.

otalps
07-23-2012, 1:41 PM
I don't think the OP is a troll at all. I've wanted to ask this same question for a long time and I see the same lame answers that I always hear. When are people going to stop living in fear of what the government might do if they have my information on my guns. I could honestly give a rats rear that they know what guns I own nor should any law abiding citizen. The second amendment that was backed by the courts says I get to keep my guns for now. Start looking at the REAL problems that exist by not registering weapons. Guess what?? I DON'T WANT CRAZY PEOPLE TO OWN GUNS!!! Now will registering make it impossible? NO but it will make it harder. If the gun is registered to me. I am now responsible for that gun. Seams like no one wants responsibility. We all sit around and talk about how responsible gun owners we are by pointing them in a safe direction and keeping our fingers off the trigger but it is time to take it to the next level. Flame me and call me a troll all you want its just my opinion. Most of these answers I see are what make us gun owners look like idiots to the rest of the world.

What has registration accomplished since being introduced? Since all the posts against are "idiotic"; I'm sure you have a highly intelligent answer to show registration's effectiveness in keeping guns out of the hands of CRAZY PEOPLE?:rolleyes:

RMP91
07-23-2012, 2:03 PM
I don't think the OP is a troll at all. I've wanted to ask this same question for a long time and I see the same lame answers that I always hear. When are people going to stop living in fear of what the government might do if they have my information on my guns. I could honestly give a rats rear that they know what guns I own nor should any law abiding citizen. The second amendment that was backed by the courts says I get to keep my guns for now. Start looking at the REAL problems that exist by not registering weapons. Guess what?? I DON'T WANT CRAZY PEOPLE TO OWN GUNS!!! Now will registering make it impossible? NO but it will make it harder. If the gun is registered to me. I am now responsible for that gun. Seams like no one wants responsibility. We all sit around and talk about how responsible gun owners we are by pointing them in a safe direction and keeping our fingers off the trigger but it is time to take it to the next level. Flame me and call me a troll all you want its just my opinion. Most of these answers I see are what make us gun owners look like idiots to the rest of the world.

Someone who actually agrees with me?! *Gasp*

And here I was just about getting used to getting dogpiled for saying the secret word... :chris:

surfNshoot
07-23-2012, 2:20 PM
We don't have a true registration so how could you show results on effectiveness? Why would you ask a question you know there is not an answer for at this moment?

Now. What could it do if done all the way? Force people to do proper transactions with firearms. Again. I don't want crazy people owning firearms. This would require a process to transfer every single firearm. For me I'm fine with this. I hate the states that you can just go on KSL and buy and sell guns to whoever. I want responsible people owning guns. If my guns are registered to me and these processes are in place. I'm going to make sure I am following these rules so that nothing comes back to me some day saying "hey, you were the last registered owner of this gun and some guy just shot and killed 5 people with it how did this happen?" To me it just makes people more responsible.

Whiskey_Sauer
07-23-2012, 2:23 PM
Someone who actually agrees with me?! *Gasp*

And here I was just about getting used to getting dogpiled for saying the secret word... :chris:

No, you're getting dogpiled because you posed a question, yet you avoid the hard questions that get asked in return. That's what leads people to believe you're trolling. Have a viewpoint? Fine, but be prepared to defend it.

otalps
07-23-2012, 2:35 PM
We don't have a true registration so how could you show results on effectiveness? Why would you ask a question you know there is not an answer for at this moment?

Now. What could it do if done all the way? Force people to do proper transactions with firearms. Again. I don't want crazy people owning firearms. This would require a process to transfer every single firearm. For me I'm fine with this. I hate the states that you can just go on KSL and buy and sell guns to whoever. I want responsible people owning guns. If my guns are registered to me and these processes are in place. I'm going to make sure I am following these rules so that nothing comes back to me some day saying "hey, you were the last registered owner of this gun and some guy just shot and killed 5 people with it how did this happen?" To me it just makes people more responsible.

We have pistol registration here do we not? Has it done anything to keep pistols out of the hands of CRAZY PEOPLE? How many people are stabbed every year, would registering knives make people more responsible?

surfNshoot
07-23-2012, 2:41 PM
Someone who actually agrees with me?! *Gasp*

And here I was just about getting used to getting dogpiled for saying the secret word... :chris:

I hate to say it but I find that there are just a lot of ignorant people out there that don't know how this country is run. People keep making references to Hitler and taking guns back. We don't have a damned dictator in this country we are a democracy. We vote on things and if things that get voted on are unconstitunional it is taken to court. This is how we have upheld our second amendment right to own firearms. I wish people would stop using arguments that have nothing to do with us and stop living in fear of the government. Become a part of the solution and use the goverment the way it is suppose to be used. We have real problems with no solutions because people are always about just do nothing.

Whiskey_Sauer
07-23-2012, 2:45 PM
I hate to say it but I find that there are just a lot of ignorant people out there that don't know how this country is run. People keep making references to Hitler and taking guns back. We don't have a damned dictator in this country we are a democracy. We vote on things and if things that get voted on are unconstitunional it is taken to court.

I've now said it already in this thread, but I'll say it again, since the OP has ignored this fact:

The UK is not some totalitarian regime. It is a liberal democracy, with a common law tradition recognizing firearms ownership, and private property rights. And a once-proud firearms-owning tradition.

surfNshoot
07-23-2012, 2:48 PM
We have pistol registration here do we not? Has it done anything to keep pistols out of the hands of CRAZY PEOPLE? How many people are stabbed every year, would registering knives make people more responsible?

Such a predictable question. Like i said. If it is done fully all states would have the same thing then we would actually be able to see some results. For some poeple it is a 15 minute drive to go get a gun and bring it back. Please tell me how you can get results with a system like this? OH and here we go with the other remarks of "well lets just register all knives" C'mon guys. stop derailing the conversation. EVERYONE knows you can't stick 10 knives in a magazine and fling them at ten people in a matter of seconds. These are those idiot coments that just make us look stupid. STOP IT!!!!

surfNshoot
07-23-2012, 2:51 PM
I've now said it already in this thread, but I'll say it again, since the OP has ignored this fact:

The UK is not some totalitarian regime. It is a liberal democracy, with a common law tradition recognizing firearms ownership, and private property rights. And a once-proud firearms-owning tradition.

Did the UK have a second ammendment in their constitution that the courts upheld?

otalps
07-23-2012, 2:58 PM
Such a predictable question. Like i said. If it is done fully all states would have the same thing then we would actually be able to see some results. For some poeple it is a 15 minute drive to go get a gun and bring it back. Please tell me how you can get results with a system like this? OH and here we go with the other remarks of "well lets just register all knives" C'mon guys. stop derailing the conversation. EVERYONE knows you can't stick 10 knives in a magazine and fling them at ten people in a matter of seconds. These are those idiot coments that just make us look stupid. STOP IT!!!!

Yes of course and idiot comment. You haven't made one smart point yet. A crazy person can't kill 10 people with a knife? You haven't given one example of how registration will keep guns out of the hands of CRAZY PEOPLE. Who is making who look stupid?

I hate to say it but I find that there are just a lot of ignorant people out there that don't know how this country is run. People keep making references to Hitler and taking guns back. We don't have a damned dictator in this country we are a democracy. We vote on things and if things that get voted on are unconstitunional it is taken to court. This is how we have upheld our second amendment right to own firearms. I wish people would stop using arguments that have nothing to do with us and stop living in fear of the government. Become a part of the solution and use the goverment the way it is suppose to be used. We have real problems with no solutions because people are always about just do nothing.

Let's talk about ignorance. Before Hitler, Germany was a democracy. It was in fact a Republic with a constitution and the people actually voted on things. But no that could never happen.

Connor P Price
07-23-2012, 3:15 PM
I hate to say it but I find that there are just a lot of ignorant people out there that don't know how this country is run. People keep making references to Hitler and taking guns back. We don't have a damned dictator in this country we are a democracy. We vote on things and if things that get voted on are unconstitunional it is taken to court. This is how we have upheld our second amendment right to own firearms. I wish people would stop using arguments that have nothing to do with us and stop living in fear of the government. Become a part of the solution and use the goverment the way it is suppose to be used. We have real problems with no solutions because people are always about just do nothing.

You seem to misunderstand the very same history that you are accusing others of being ignorant of.

Germany's registration regime began under the Weimar Republic, a Representative Democracy, which is actually very analogous to "how this country is run" as you say. Regime change happens frequently in the developed world and is not impossible here. The Weimar Republic started their registration citing entirely benign motives, but because of their foolishness they made it possible for the later Nazi Regime to begin confiscation.

Such a predictable question. Like i said. If it is done fully all states would have the same thing then we would actually be able to see some results. For some poeple it is a 15 minute drive to go get a gun and bring it back. Please tell me how you can get results with a system like this? OH and here we go with the other remarks of "well lets just register all knives" C'mon guys. stop derailing the conversation. EVERYONE knows you can't stick 10 knives in a magazine and fling them at ten people in a matter of seconds. These are those idiot coments that just make us look stupid. STOP IT!!!!

You say that we would see results if registration were done entirely in all states, do you have any evidence to support that claim? What results would we see?

The only countries I'm familiar with which are in any way similar to the US who can serve as examples are the UK, Australia, and Canada. The UK and Australia used their registration as an avenue to confiscation well before we could have seen whether registration alone could have an effect on crime. Canada on the other hand had total registration from 1989 until 2011 if I remember correctly and what did they find? It was such an incredible failure in both its budget and its effect on crime that they have now done away with long gun registration.

Since no modern example suggests that registration has any positive effect on crime it seems strange that you'd suggest that it will work here.

QQQ
07-23-2012, 3:15 PM
Didn't registration lead to confiscation during Katrina? Registration only leads to confiscation, this is where CA is headed. Also, don't forget that SKS owners had to register their guns and then they were taken without compensation...
They did get compensation.

But to get to the main point, there is no reason to register them. That's the main reason why we shouldn't. Canada tried it and saw that it didn't help, and now they're doing the right thing by getting rid of the whole thing.

RMP91
07-23-2012, 3:36 PM
I've now said it already in this thread, but I'll say it again, since the OP has ignored this fact:

The UK is not some totalitarian regime. It is a liberal democracy, with a common law tradition recognizing firearms ownership, and private property rights. And a once-proud firearms-owning tradition.

Where in this thread did I explicitly state that the UK was a "totalitarian regime"?

You're painting my opinion (and by extension SurfNshoot's as well) with a rather broad brush.

Whiskey_Sauer
07-23-2012, 3:43 PM
Did the UK have a second ammendment in their constitution that the courts upheld?

In the first place, our own Second Amendment is derived from the English Bill of Rights, which predated our own Bill of Rights by about a hundred years. More importantly and to the point, Great Britain had a once-proud tradition of firearms ownership, and a common law system that recognized private property rights.

In the second place, in the 237 year history of our republic, Heller was decided merely four years ago, and by a 5-to-4 majority. So in other words, one lawyer in Washington, D.C. essentially decided and guaranteed the individual right to own firearms. [And if you think about it further, if a handful of citizens in one single county in Florida had voted differently in 2000, and the election went Gore's way instead of Bush, the entire outcome would be different. Or more likely, SCOTUS would never have granted cert. on a 2A case in the first place, and we would have been left in the limbo/status quo that was pre-Heller.] This isn't ancient history, this literally one election ago.

In the third place, do you think that tyranny simply melts away in the face of 27 words written on a piece of paper? I'm not necessarily thinking about today's government, or tomorrow's, but the governments of the future, possibly beyond our own time. Around here, we don't just say "Heller was decided, end of story." We stay vigilant, because there are literally millions of people living your precious democracy who would believe the four justices of the minority had the better view.

The point is, if you think "it can't happen here," you're either not being vigilant enough, or in denial. And that's what every single person in the video I posted above said and thought as well, to their eternal regret.

greybeard
07-23-2012, 3:43 PM
Okay question for the registration folks. How would registration prevented the CO. shooting? I pretty sure we do not need to trace the guns to find the shooter.

Connor P Price
07-23-2012, 3:45 PM
RMP91 and surfNshoot - You continue to suggest that registration has some benefit but fail to provide any evidence to support those claims.

RMP91 - How does registration protect you from liability for a crime you didn't commit?

surfNshoot - How is it that you think registration keeps guns out of the hands of crazy people?

Our representatives in government have repeated these fallacies enough that you each seem to have begun believing them without any evidence to support them. Don't blindly trust what you're told, research, understand, learn the reasons people do the things they do. People have given you solid real world examples of problems with registration yet you continue to repeat they cant happen here and we should attempt to reap the benefits. Tell us why you believe the problems can't happen here and why you believe there are benefits to be reaped when the evidence points to the contrary.

Whiskey_Sauer
07-23-2012, 3:48 PM
Where in this thread did I explicitly state that the UK was a "totalitarian regime"?

You're painting my opinion (and by extension SurfNshoot's as well) with a rather broad brush.

I'm sorry, did you or did you not lump the UK together with Nazi Germany and Venezuela as "extreme examples"?

usmcchet9296
07-23-2012, 3:55 PM
I don't think the OP is a troll at all. I've wanted to ask this same question for a long time and I see the same lame answers that I always hear. When are people going to stop living in fear of what the government might do if they have my information on my guns. I could honestly give a rats rear that they know what guns I own nor should any law abiding citizen. The second amendment that was backed by the courts says I get to keep my guns for now. Start looking at the REAL problems that exist by not registering weapons. Guess what?? I DON'T WANT CRAZY PEOPLE TO OWN GUNS!!! Now will registering make it impossible? NO but it will make it harder. If the gun is registered to me. I am now responsible for that gun. Seams like no one wants responsibility. We all sit around and talk about how responsible gun owners we are by pointing them in a safe direction and keeping our fingers off the trigger but it is time to take it to the next level. Flame me and call me a troll all you want its just my opinion. Most of these answers I see are what make us gun owners look like idiots to the rest of the world.

Im a friend of SnS and while I don't see the need for anyone to know what I have or dont have I see what he is trying to say. It is my opinion that the 2nd amendment wasnt a right to hunt or defend yourself against intruders it was a guarentee the founding fathers wanted us to have to protect us from tyrants and tryanny. Now that sounds really militia-ish (I know its not a word) and I don't trust the government not to come after me if the need arises (Katrina anyone) and take away my firearms. Because they don't know exactly what I have it keeps them in line. We all know about Fast and Furious and how easy it is for cartels to get guns from the US and we all know how easy drugs come over the boarder. If guns were taken away from us criminals would still be able to get guns, the wicked would still prey upon the weak. People the real threat is to the ammo we buy and the magazines we load. The Anti-gun movement knows that it cannot take away our guns but it can restrict the ammo we buy and the capacity magazine and that is what we need to fight......Its a argument that might convince the sheeple.

CBruce
07-23-2012, 3:55 PM
Before the :TFH:'s come in saying that it will lead to confiscation, there's more than 200 MILLION firearms (and counting) in private ownership in the United States, I don't think the government would have the resources (or manpower) to go around taking away every single one of them.

Honestly though, what's so bad about it? I think of it as an insurance policy on my guns (in a sense), insurance against being implicated in a crime if my guns were stolen and used for violent offenses.

Not a troll, just don't see what's the big deal with signing a few extra papers than usual and paying a tiny bit more.

It beats not being allowed to have them at all.

We do it for our cars all the time, but I don't hear people complaining about them so much. What would make guns any different?

What's the purpose of registering firearms to law-abiding citizens? Won't prevent gun crimes, criminals won't register, they'll obtain guns and destroy identiftying serial numbers and use them in crimes. These random mass shooters prompting this call for registration are identified with their weapons. We know who the weapons belong to. Having them registered serves no purpose.

And you'd better believe I complain about car registration and the cost to renew said registration every year. And that's not even a constituional right.

usmcchet9296
07-23-2012, 4:00 PM
BTW I think we will find that James Holems like the others who commit these crimes legally purchased there guns and didnt get them illegally.

Connor P Price
07-23-2012, 4:03 PM
BTW I think we will find that James Holems like the others who commit these crimes legally purchased there guns and didnt get them illegally.

Why does that matter in regards to a conversation about registration? They don't appear in any way related.

Beelzy
07-23-2012, 4:05 PM
Meh, they actually banned handguns in San Fran.....and look at what happened, NOTHING!

db.40
07-23-2012, 4:22 PM
I hate to say it but I find that there are just a lot of ignorant people out there that don't know how this country is run. People keep making references to Hitler and taking guns back. We don't have a damned dictator in this country we are a democracy.

You're referring to the same democracy that started wiretapping phone calls, checking emails, and monitoring books rented from the library by innocent civilians after 9/11 right? I didn't vote for that...

If a government can do all of that under the guise of safety, why is it so hard to believe that, given another terror attack or traumatic societal incident, the govt will suddenly respect our other rights like the RKBA.

watsonville
07-23-2012, 4:28 PM
no problem with registration with me unless you have something to hide or have a reason to want to hide them/it. In that case i wouldn't be talking about it with ANYONE especially on an interwebs forum possibly monitored by bradys/antis

Whiskey_Sauer
07-23-2012, 4:35 PM
no problem with registration with me unless you have something to hide or have a reason to want to hide them/it.

And at what point during the confiscation process will you decide that you have something to hide? At the beginning, in the middle or at the end?

Josh3239
07-23-2012, 4:41 PM
They did it in New Orleans. Woodrow Wilson as good as pulled the 1st Amendment. 170 million people were killed by their own governments in the 20th century. Don't ever say it cannot happen.

Jason_2111
07-23-2012, 4:50 PM
I hate to say it but I find that there are just a lot of ignorant people out there that don't know how this country is run.
... snip ...
We don't have a damned dictator in this country we are a democracy.
...


Actually, no, we don't. We have a Constitutional Republic.

If you want to voluntarily register everything you own, go for it. Send a certified letter to the police chief and local sheriff. CC everyone in your neighborhood.
See how much less hassle that causes!

Now if you ask me to do the same, I'll have to politely decline.

So the tally so far, as far as I've been able to read while sitting at work is:

Con: Don't invade my privacy
Government agencies tend to mess things up
Sensitive data leaking can cause issues
Could potentially lead to confiscation (reasonable or not)
Could be easily used by the next round of elected officials to ban your stuff
It's un-constitutional, and I take that seriously.
Any sort of regulation tends to snowball, and there's history of that.
It could be used to levy some kind of "Gun tax"

Pro: It's not that bad, you're just being ignorant/paranoid/whatever.
?

This doesn't add up to me, still not hearing any "pro" arguments.

If in the Pro column we had valid things like:
- Chicks would dig me
- Would cause instant weight loss
- Would reduce my property taxes 20%
- Would make crazy people seek medical help and take their meds
- Would make politicians stop being so smarmy

... Well then we'd have a proper discussion. Since this has gone on this long, and after a review of the OP's previous posts, I'd say :troll:. I don't know why, but that's my opinion. (Hey, I'm more than willing to admit to being wrong, but all I'm hearing is trolling, not a discussion.)

For a quick primer on critical thinking, I'd suggest giving this a listen...

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4297

RMP91
07-23-2012, 4:51 PM
no problem with registration with me unless you have something to hide or have a reason to want to hide them/it. In that case i wouldn't be talking about it with ANYONE especially on an interwebs forum possibly monitored by bradys/antis

This. Exactly.

:TFH: Maybe you don't want to register because you're hiding an illegal unregistered Post-86 MG or an unregistered Class 3 weapon. Or you don't want the government to know what kind of firepower you have so when they come to "get you", they'll know exactly how to counter your weapons, they know your weaknesses (as well as the weaknesses of your particular firearms, the ones you're most likely to use against their agents) and will exploit them. If worst comes to worst and they can't get you out by force, they'll just kidnap your wife and kids and coerce you to surrender your weapons in exchange for their lives. :TFH:

^ This is just pretty much how I'm interpreting most of the responses here, rather hostile IMO.

Also, I own more than just one gun (15 and counting) and I have WILLINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY registered them, even the long guns (they aren't required to be registered yet). I know that the registration information will not be used against me in any way, shape or form. As good as a movie as it is, watching Red Dawn does not make you the be-all end-all expert on gun control and confiscation. Despite what the majority of CalGunners think, these doomsday/apocalyptic "registration leads to confiscation" scenarios are absolute pipe dreams as far as the antis are concerned. I agree that we should remain vigilant, but the sky ain't falling!

POLICESTATE
07-23-2012, 4:54 PM
Why shouldn't it be a hostile attitude? Every time the government wants to find out something by us they should be challenged on it. That's part of being eternally vigilant to safeguard our freedoms.




This. Exactly.

:TFH: Maybe you don't want to register because you're hiding an illegal unregistered Post-86 MG or an unregistered Class 3 weapon. Or you don't want the government to know what kind of firepower you have so when they come to "get you", they'll know exactly how to counter your weapons, they know your weaknesses (as well as the weaknesses of your particular firearms, the ones you're most likely to use against their agents) and will exploit them. :TFH:

^ This is just pretty much how I'm interpreting most of the responses here, rather hostile IMO.

Whiskey_Sauer
07-23-2012, 4:59 PM
:TFH: Maybe you don't want to register because you're hiding an illegal unregistered Post-86 MG or an unregistered Class 3 weapon. Or you don't want the government to know what kind of firepower you have so when they come to "get you", they'll know exactly how to counter your weapons, they know your weaknesses (as well as the weaknesses of your particular firearms, the ones you're most likely to use against their agents) and will exploit them. If worst comes to worst and they can't get you out by force, they'll just kidnap your wife and kids and coerce you to surrender your weapons in exchange for their lives. :TFH:


I'll ask you again, since you seem to consistently dodge the question, were these people wearing your so-called tin foil hats?

TkS2BRoCd2I

John-Melb
07-23-2012, 5:00 PM
Before the :TFH:'s come in saying that it will lead to confiscation, there's more than 200 MILLION firearms (and counting) in private ownership in the United States, I don't think the government would have the resources (or manpower) to go around taking away every single one of them.

Honestly though, what's so bad about it? I think of it as an insurance policy on my guns (in a sense), insurance against being implicated in a crime if my guns were stolen and used for violent offenses.

Not a troll, just don't see what's the big deal with signing a few extra papers than usual and paying a tiny bit more.

It beats not being allowed to have them at all.

We do it for our cars all the time, but I don't hear people complaining about them so much. What would make guns any different?

Because registration will lead to confiscation, followed by another round of confiscations, followed by another round of confiscations, until no-one will be allowed to own any firearm of any type.

How do I know this, because I'm an Australian.

And you're a fool.

Whiskey_Sauer
07-23-2012, 5:03 PM
Because registration will lead to confiscation, followed by another round of confiscations, followed by another round of confiscations, until no-one will be allowed to own any firearm of any type.

How do I know this, because I'm an Australian.

And you're a fool.

John-Melb, sincerely... thank you.

Pred@tor
07-23-2012, 5:04 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=426995 Anyone remember this thread or this one http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=487506 I do?

Well I buy guns of total strangers out here without the government knowing and I love it! No hassle no paper trail or anything. Buying a gun like a free man and if I were asked to register them voluntarily or mandatory I would not!

John-Melb
07-23-2012, 5:08 PM
I hate to say it but I find that there are just a lot of ignorant people out there that don't know how this country is run. People keep making references to Hitler and taking guns back. We don't have a damned dictator in this country we are a democracy. We vote on things and if things that get voted on are unconstitunional it is taken to court. This is how we have upheld our second amendment right to own firearms. I wish people would stop using arguments that have nothing to do with us and stop living in fear of the government. Become a part of the solution and use the goverment the way it is suppose to be used. We have real problems with no solutions because people are always about just do nothing.

You're right, there are a lot of ignorant people.

I don't think you and I are talking about the same people.

TempleKnight
07-23-2012, 5:17 PM
I don't think the OP is a troll at all. I've wanted to ask this same question for a long time and I see the same lame answers that I always hear. When are people going to stop living in fear of what the government might do if they have my information on my guns. I could honestly give a rats rear that they know what guns I own nor should any law abiding citizen. The second amendment that was backed by the courts says I get to keep my guns for now. Start looking at the REAL problems that exist by not registering weapons. Guess what?? I DON'T WANT CRAZY PEOPLE TO OWN GUNS!!! Now will registering make it impossible? NO but it will make it harder. If the gun is registered to me. I am now responsible for that gun. Seams like no one wants responsibility. We all sit around and talk about how responsible gun owners we are by pointing them in a safe direction and keeping our fingers off the trigger but it is time to take it to the next level. Flame me and call me a troll all you want its just my opinion. Most of these answers I see are what make us gun owners look like idiots to the rest of the world.

Very serious failure in your logic. How does registration keep guns away from crazy people? Are we going to register nut-balls? Do you trust some shrink to decide if you are fit to own firearms? Would the outcome in Aurora have been different if his guns were registered?

I don't see an upside to registration. We don't look like idiots when we challenge your logic-fail. Canada tried it and decided it didn't do what you think does. It's just another government black hole for money and a proven track for incremental disarmament.

Connor P Price
07-23-2012, 5:21 PM
This. Exactly.

:TFH: Maybe you don't want to register because you're hiding an illegal unregistered Post-86 MG or an unregistered Class 3 weapon. Or you don't want the government to know what kind of firepower you have so when they come to "get you", they'll know exactly how to counter your weapons, they know your weaknesses (as well as the weaknesses of your particular firearms, the ones you're most likely to use against their agents) and will exploit them. If worst comes to worst and they can't get you out by force, they'll just kidnap your wife and kids and coerce you to surrender your weapons in exchange for their lives. :TFH:

^ This is just pretty much how I'm interpreting most of the responses here, rather hostile IMO.

Also, I own more than just one gun (15 and counting) and I have WILLINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY registered them, even the long guns (they aren't required to be registered yet). I know that the registration information will not be used against me in any way, shape or form. As good as a movie as it is, watching Red Dawn does not make you the be-all end-all expert on gun control and confiscation. Despite what the majority of CalGunners think, these doomsday/apocalyptic "registration leads to confiscation" scenarios are absolute pipe dreams as far as the antis are concerned. I agree that we should remain vigilant, but the sky ain't falling!

I find it quite telling about your opinion that you decide to respond only to the person who agreed with you over the last few hours yet you ignore my perfectly valid request for evidence to support your assertions.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk 2

Whiskey_Sauer
07-23-2012, 5:34 PM
I know that the registration information will not be used against me in any way, shape or form. As good as a movie as it is, watching Red Dawn does not make you the be-all end-all expert on gun control and confiscation. Despite what the majority of CalGunners think, these doomsday/apocalyptic "registration leads to confiscation" scenarios are absolute pipe dreams as far as the antis are concerned. I agree that we should remain vigilant, but the sky ain't falling!

Were the British and Australians living a "pipe dream"? It's a question you seem rather intent on avoiding.

Basking in the post-Heller glow of a mere four years ago, you confidently state that the information you provide to your government will not be used against you in any way, shape or form. How confidently can you make that assertion as it pertains to your children? Your grandchildren? I guess you're willing to take that chance on their behalves.

otalps
07-23-2012, 5:36 PM
Also, I own more than just one gun (15 and counting) and I have WILLINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY registered them, even the long guns (they aren't required to be registered yet). I know that the registration information will not be used against me in any way, shape or form. As good as a movie as it is, watching Red Dawn does not make you the be-all end-all expert on gun control and confiscation. Despite what the majority of CalGunners think, these doomsday/apocalyptic "registration leads to confiscation" scenarios are absolute pipe dreams as far as the antis are concerned. I agree that we should remain vigilant, but the sky ain't falling!

How can talk about remaining vigilant and then cry for registration at the same time? Non sequitur much?

John-Melb
07-23-2012, 5:46 PM
"And across the lives of most men run stretches of Goodwin Sand;
And across the life of a nation, as across the track of a ship,
Lies the hidden rock, or the iceberg, within the horizon dip.
And wise men know them, and warn us, with lightship, or voice, or pen;
But we strike, and the fool survivors sail on to strike again."

In 1982, they introduced registration, the government of the day guaranteed they would not limit the number or type of guns we were "allowed" to own.

In 1982, they banned the private ownership of semi-auto centre fire rifles, they knew who had them, because they were registered. They also introduced "permits to purchase" which required licence holders to apply to a Sergeant of Police for permission to purchase a firearm. Private sales were banned.

In 1996, they banned semi and pump shotguns and semi rimfires, they knew who had them, they were registered. "Permits to purchase" became "applications to acquire" and required a twenty eight day cooling off period before issue.

In 2002, they came after most pistols, they knew who had them, they were registered. They also required the registration of most antiques.

In 2010, they banned imitation longarms, you're not even allowed to hang a non-firing replica musket above your mantlepiece.

The anti's are now pushing for a total ban on the private ownership of pistols and all centrefire rifles.

Do not go down the "Australian road".

Whiskey_Sauer
07-23-2012, 5:50 PM
"And across the lives of most men run stretches of Goodwin Sand;
And across the life of a nation, as across the track of a ship,
Lies the hidden rock, or the iceberg, within the horizon dip.
And wise men know them, and warn us, with lightship, or voice, or pen;
But we strike, and the fool survivors sail on to strike again."

In 1982, they introduced registration, the government of the day guaranteed they would not limit the number or type of guns we were "allowed" to own.

In 1982, they banned the private ownership of semi-auto centre fire rifles, they knew who had them, because they were registered. They also introduced "permits to purchase" which required licence holders to apply to a Sergeant of Police for permission to purchase a firearm. Private sales were banned.

In 1996, they banned semi and pump shotguns and semi rimfires, they knew who had them, they were registered. "Permits to purchase" became "applications to acquire" and required a twenty eight day cooling off period before issue.

In 2002, they came after most pistols, they knew who had them, they were registered. They also required the registration of most antiques.

In 2010, they banned imitation longarms, you're not even allowed to hang a non-firing replica musket above your mantlepiece.

The anti's are now pushing for a total ban on the private ownership of pistols and all centrefire rifles.

Do not go down the "Australian road".

RMP91 will simply dismiss this as tin-foil hattery, of course. You must have simply "pipe dreamt" it.

Arondos
07-23-2012, 5:52 PM
I will respond with a couple simple questions.

What's so good about registration?

What does it gain me or anybody else for someone to know what I own?

And I will bet I will not get a logical response.

otalps
07-23-2012, 5:53 PM
RMP91 will simply dismiss this as tin-foil hattery, of course. You must have simply "pipe dreamt" it.

That's only because it's one of those idiot comments that make gun owners look stupid.:rolleyes:

RMP91
07-23-2012, 5:59 PM
That's only because it's one of those idiot comments that make gun owners look stupid.:rolleyes:

You're actually correct. I've ignored certain posts (esp. the personal attack ones) here as those kinds of statements will simply make us all look bad in the eyes of the media and legislature (as if they didn't hate us enough). I wisely pick my battles, this one, it seems is a losing one no matter whose side you're on, which is why this will be my last post in this thread. While we were all busy ridiculing and arguing amongst ourselves, the antis are reorganizing, regrouping.

We're our own worst enemy here folks. Let's just agree to disagree on things, for if we stay fixated on those disagreements, we will surely lose in the end.

John-Melb
07-23-2012, 6:04 PM
That's only because it's one of those idiot comments that make gun owners look stupid.:rolleyes:

Really? how so?

tuolumnejim
07-23-2012, 6:06 PM
We don't have a true registration so how could you show results on effectiveness? Why would you ask a question you know there is not an answer for at this moment?

Now. What could it do if done all the way? Force people to do proper transactions with firearms. Again. I don't want crazy people owning firearms. This would require a process to transfer every single firearm. For me I'm fine with this. I hate the states that you can just go on KSL and buy and sell guns to whoever. I want responsible people owning guns. If my guns are registered to me and these processes are in place. I'm going to make sure I am following these rules so that nothing comes back to me some day saying "hey, you were the last registered owner of this gun and some guy just shot and killed 5 people with it how did this happen?" To me it just makes people more responsible.
Don't worry I'm sure freedom loving Americans from all over hate you too. :rolleyes:


I hate to say it but I find that there are just a lot of ignorant people out there that don't know how this country is run. People keep making references to Hitler and taking guns back. We don't have a damned dictator in this country we are a democracy. We vote on things and if things that get voted on are unconstitunional it is taken to court. This is how we have upheld our second amendment right to own firearms. I wish people would stop using arguments that have nothing to do with us and stop living in fear of the government. Become a part of the solution and use the goverment the way it is suppose to be used. We have real problems with no solutions because people are always about just do nothing.
Ah I see public school fail's again, the United States is a Republic and not a democracy.

Connor P Price
07-23-2012, 6:06 PM
You're actually correct. I've ignored certain posts (esp. the personal attack ones) here as those kinds of statements will simply make us all look bad in the eyes of the media and legislature (as if they didn't hate us enough). I wisely pick my battles, this one, it seems is a losing one no matter whose side you're on, which is why this will be my last post in this thread. While we were all busy ridiculing and arguing amongst ourselves, the antis are reorganizing, regrouping.

We're our own worst enemy here folks. Let's just agree to disagree on things, for if we stay fixated on those disagreements, we will surely lose in the end.

Ignoring posts containing personal attacks may make sense. However it seems that you may also be ignoring perfectly legitimate questions.

Perhaps the most important question is the opposite of the one that began this thread.

So what's good about registration?

Connor P Price
07-23-2012, 6:07 PM
Really? how so?

I think he was just sarcastically taking a jab at RMP91.

ETA: Sorry, my memory served me poorly. It appears to have been directed at surfNshoot.

otalps
07-23-2012, 6:08 PM
Really? how so?

It was sarcasm, I was referencing this post


Such a predictable question. Like i said. If it is done fully all states would have the same thing then we would actually be able to see some results. For some poeple it is a 15 minute drive to go get a gun and bring it back. Please tell me how you can get results with a system like this? OH and here we go with the other remarks of "well lets just register all knives" C'mon guys. stop derailing the conversation. EVERYONE knows you can't stick 10 knives in a magazine and fling them at ten people in a matter of seconds. These are those idiot coments that just make us look stupid. STOP IT!!!!

tuolumnejim
07-23-2012, 6:11 PM
Such a predictable question. Like i said. If it is done fully all states would have the same thing then we would actually be able to see some results. For some poeple it is a 15 minute drive to go get a gun and bring it back. Please tell me how you can get results with a system like this? OH and here we go with the other remarks of "well lets just register all knives" C'mon guys. stop derailing the conversation. EVERYONE knows you can't stick 10 knives in a magazine and fling them at ten people in a matter of seconds. These are those idiot coments that just make us look stupid. STOP IT!!!!

Then stop making asinine statements, seems pretty simple.

missiondude
07-23-2012, 6:21 PM
Vilgilance. Voting for the right man/woman (Granted, almost all politicians suck, but that's beside the point).

If worst comes to worst, find a place in the woods to stash them for a while :43: and use the "boating accident" excuse!

Easier not to register in the first place. Besides, do you really think they will buy the boating accident excuse. If it is time to bury your guns, it is time to dig them up...

mrPhelps
07-23-2012, 6:26 PM
gun registration should just have one question on it. "Do you own guns?" followed by 2 check boxes. 1 for yes and the other for no. And that is all the registration questions that need be asked by our government.

Why does the government need to know what type of gun I own? Does it really matter?
Why does the government need to know how many I have? I can only use 1 or 2 at a time. So if I own over 2 guns then does it matter how many more I own?

Lets say the government knows I own 3 big bad as rifles and a kick as pistol. How will that info help government? Does that info help government? It would be great info for ammo and gear manufacturers and retailers but I fail to see how this info is helpful to the government. In fact this government run database actually costs money to keep running and maintain! So a better question is how much is this useless database of gun owners costing the tax payers?

Connor P Price
07-23-2012, 6:44 PM
gun registration should just have one question on it. "Do you own guns?" followed by 2 check boxes. 1 for yes and the other for no. And that is all the registration questions that need be asked by our government.

Why does the government need to know what type of gun I own? Does it really matter?
Why does the government need to know how many I have? I can only use 1 or 2 at a time. So if I own over 2 guns then does it matter how many more I own?

Lets say the government knows I own 3 big bad as rifles and a kick as pistol. How will that info help government? Does that info help government? It would be great info for ammo and gear manufacturers and retailers but I fail to see how this info is helpful to the government. In fact this government run database actually costs money to keep running and maintain! So a better question is how much is this useless database of gun owners costing the tax payers?

Why should they know whether you have guns or not?

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk 2

mrdd
07-23-2012, 6:49 PM
You're actually correct. I've ignored certain posts (esp. the personal attack ones) here as those kinds of statements will simply make us all look bad in the eyes of the media and legislature (as if they didn't hate us enough). I wisely pick my battles, this one, it seems is a losing one no matter whose side you're on, which is why this will be my last post in this thread. While we were all busy ridiculing and arguing amongst ourselves, the antis are reorganizing, regrouping.

We're our own worst enemy here folks. Let's just agree to disagree on things, for if we stay fixated on those disagreements, we will surely lose in the end.

Why even ask a question such as posed in the OP? Nothing good can come from registration. Sorry, but even posing such a question on this board comes across as divisive.

John-Melb
07-23-2012, 6:54 PM
Look, I understand and respect all of your views on this.

But I just don't see how registering a gun = getting confiscated (and even if that were true, there's no way they'd get away with it without AT THE VERY LEAST a Compensation Clause in which the government has to pay you $1 million for EVERY gun taken, don't think they can't afford that).

Yes, extreme versions of this has happened in Nazi Germany, Australia, the UK and (more recently) Venezuela. But remember that we, the United States of America have the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights, these are rights that cannot be taken away from you without Due Process of Law (or, if you for some reason choose to waive them).

So all these fantasies and doomsday scenarios in which the government comes door to door taking your guns by force is completely outlandish in a place like America. Our military and police forces swore an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I do not believe for a moment that they will go back on their vows even if it meant putting food on the table for their families.

Yep, and in the period immediately following Hurricane Katrina, there was the 2nd Amendment, all poised to defend your rights from abuse under "due process of law"

Hint here, the 2nd Amendment isn't much use when the copper points his M16 at you and says he's taking your guns, and you can't prove anything, because he isn't giving receipts out today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K52h9m0_OiY

gunsandrockets
07-23-2012, 8:56 PM
I hate to say it but I find that there are just a lot of ignorant people out there that don't know how this country is run. People keep making references to Hitler and taking guns back. We don't have a damned dictator in this country we are a democracy. We vote on things and if things that get voted on are unconstitunional it is taken to court. This is how we have upheld our second amendment right to own firearms. I wish people would stop using arguments that have nothing to do with us and stop living in fear of the government. Become a part of the solution and use the goverment the way it is suppose to be used. We have real problems with no solutions because people are always about just do nothing.

I'm stunned at your naivete and your ignorance of American gun-politics. How could you not be aware of the death struggle over gun-rights which has transpired over the last 80 years?

If only things were as safe and settled in America as you seem to assume. But the level of security of our gun-rights which you take for granted, will in reality not be achieved until decades from now.

The power of the anti-gun movement in America peaked as recently as 1994. True enough the tide has turned in a dramatic fashion since then, but the fight is only at a climax and it is far from over. In other English speaking nations, the anti-gunners have all but won. Only Canada shows some small signs of reversing the inevitable tide of total gun prohibition, a tide which has swamped the UK and is busy swallowing up Australia.

DC v Heller was in 2008! McDonald v Chicago was in 2010! And both those cases were decided by a razor thin 5 to 4 vote. Even worse, the minority opinion in McDonald v Chicago let it be known that they want to overturn DC v Heller. If Obama is reelected and appoints one more anti-gun justice to the two he has already appointed to the US Supreme Court, the 2nd Amendment is as good as dead. That's how close and how tight the battle for gun-rights remains, even today.

Yet you casually assume that any interference in our gun rights will be overturned in Federal Court? Are you paying attention to recent events? The handgun bans in Chicago and Washington DC were just struck down, and yet people still can't get handguns there due to the obstinate and illegal resistance of the anti-gun city governments.

The registration law you suggest would work so well is just like the NYC Sullivan law. The reality of such laws is they are tools used by anti-gunners to suppress ordinary gun ownership and gun-rights. Our nation has a decades long history of governments abusing laws which regulate guns. That's why legal concealed carry was almost dead in our country for fifty years, and has only recently revived.

John-Melb
07-24-2012, 12:00 AM
For all those who believe that registration is harmless, there's one aspect I neglected to mention, legislated "safekeeping" requirements.

Once the powers that be know exactly who owns what, they begin legislating who can keep what and the manner in which it can be kept.

Police cannot enter my neighbour's home without a search warrant.

At my home, they can enter and search at any time, night or day, on the basis of a "safekeeping" inspection, because I have firearms registered on the premises. Any attempt to deny enter may result in force being used, and will result in the confiscation of all arms and ammunition and cancellation of licence.

With apologies to Goodwin, there's a word for people who lawfully own guns in any jurisdiction requiring registration, they're called "untermensch"

Jason_2111
07-24-2012, 7:50 AM
Easier not to register in the first place. Besides, do you really think they will buy the boating accident excuse. If it is time to bury your guns, it is time to dig them up...

QFT.

Whiskey_Sauer
07-24-2012, 11:42 AM
You're actually correct. I've ignored certain posts (esp. the personal attack ones) here as those kinds of statements will simply make us all look bad in the eyes of the media and legislature (as if they didn't hate us enough). I wisely pick my battles, this one, it seems is a losing one no matter whose side you're on, which is why this will be my last post in this thread. While we were all busy ridiculing and arguing amongst ourselves, the antis are reorganizing, regrouping.

We're our own worst enemy here folks. Let's just agree to disagree on things, for if we stay fixated on those disagreements, we will surely lose in the end.

Once again, you are wrong. We are stronger, not in spite of our willingness to debate, but because of it. Because we are willing to debate these matters, we test our arguments, our assumptions. And in the end, it makes our arguments stronger, so that we're not just relying on canned, stock phrases that may be true but tired.

Aside from being suspected of trolling, I did not see anything close to being a personal attack on you. On the other hand, you resorted to the watered-down insult of "tin foil hats" to characterize anyone who believed in confiscation (ignoring, of course, people here who have had actual experience with confiscation.)

If you staked out a position, and were willing to defend it, I think you would have gotten a lot more respect. Too bad. But I'm not sure what type of reaction you expected posting a loose argument in favor of gun registration on a gun forum, in the 2A section.

Wiz-of-Awd
07-24-2012, 12:41 PM
Why should they know whether you have guns or not?

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk 2

Psst...

Unless you bought your guns illegally, they already do!

A.W.D.

12voltguy
07-24-2012, 12:43 PM
Psst...

Unless you bought your guns illegally, they already do!

A.W.D.

really????????
I got guns I bought at yard sales etc before the FFL requirment.
So NO THEY DON'T KNOW & I DID NOTHING ILLEGAL:rolleyes:

Wiz-of-Awd
07-24-2012, 12:54 PM
really????????
I got guns I bought at yard sales etc before the FFL requirment.
So NO THEY DON'T KNOW & I DID NOTHING ILLEGAL:rolleyes:

OK, so to rephrase my question correctly:

What about the guns purchased across our country "through the system?"
These are known about, and this data could be quite easily turned into a database/registry of firearms and owners. I think we are all naive to think that it isn't already the case.

Also, there is no reason to yell. My question was meant to make you think about things a bit - outside a small set of circumstances compared to all guns sold nationwide.

A.W.D.

12voltguy
07-24-2012, 1:05 PM
OK, so to rephrase my question correctly:

What about the guns purchased across our country "through the system?"
These are known about, and this data could be quite easily turned into a database/registry of firearms and owners. I think we are all naive to think that it isn't already the case.

Also, there is no reason to yell. My question was meant to make you think about things a bit - outside a small set of circumstances compared to all guns sold nationwide.

A.W.D.

no reason to own a fast car or a gun, but we can, so I CAN YELL:smilielol5::smilielol5::smilielol5: it's my 1st amd right;)

otalps
07-24-2012, 1:06 PM
OK, so to rephrase my question correctly:

What about the guns purchased across our country "through the system?"
These are known about, and this data could be quite easily turned into a database/registry of firearms and owners. I think we are all naive to think that it isn't already the case.


It is illegal for the government to set up such a database. Not that I'd put it past them though.

Connor P Price
07-24-2012, 1:10 PM
Psst...

Unless you bought your guns illegally, they already do!

A.W.D.

That's an answer to an entirely different question than the one I asked.

jwkincal
07-24-2012, 1:10 PM
What about the guns purchased across our country "through the system?"
These are known about, and this data could be quite easily turned into a database/registry of firearms and owners. I think we are all naive to think that it isn't already the case.

OK all you DB engineers and Systems guys out there...

Care to comment on the challenges of developing an orthogonal, normalized data set from such a spectacularly disparate input stream?

The go'vt might know WHO has firearms but they don't know WHAT they have.

...then there's always the 80%s

dfletcher
07-24-2012, 1:17 PM
Meh, they actually banned handguns in San Fran.....and look at what happened, NOTHING!

What's your point? The law was overturned by Judge Warren before it could have taken effect. You realize handguns are not banned in SF, yes?

dfletcher
07-24-2012, 1:33 PM
I find it quite telling about your opinion that you decide to respond only to the person who agreed with you over the last few hours yet you ignore my perfectly valid request for evidence to support your assertions.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk 2

You're being polite - you didn't really expect answers to your reasonable questions or regarding police visits to homes, the "benefits" of registration or why government intrusuion should be allowed. No support regarding "the police won't do it" statements - you didn't really, right? :cool:

These opening posts have a familiar lifespan, we saw it in the "should we be limited to 10 rounds?" thread. They read the same as the "gee whiz guys, I heard something bad about the Remington 700 trigger - tell me it isn't so" in which the "open minded" poster asks opinions, hasn't made up his mind and is looking for some honest discussion. Of course he's not and that soon becomes evident.

Whether they're even gun owners, who knows. But it soon becomes very clear their minds are made up, the harsh comments fly and an "I'm out of here" (which never seems to take ... :() is offered.

The larger issue is that gun owners supporting gun control causes us injury because in addition to being a legal issue gun control is a political issue. When gun owners allow that some gun control is OK they are pointed out by the Brady's and Bloombergs, the Schumers as "one of them says it's OK".

When a few CA gun owners take a "OK, it's not too bad" approach to a particular aspect of gun control such as the AW ban, mag limits, the roster, "gun show loophole", etc - well is it any surprise gun owners in other states don't consider us much of an asset and do the "it's your own fault" routine? I wonder, how would NAACP react if some of their members said "well, a little racism and inequality is OK"? How far would ACLU get if their member attorneys believed "a little bit of civil rights violation is OK"?

CA gun owners may end up with the sh*t end of the stick, but that doesn't mean we have to smile & ask for the sh*t end of the stick.

Connor P Price
07-24-2012, 1:43 PM
You're being polite - you didn't really expect answers to your reasonable questions or regarding police visits to homes, the "benefits" of registration or why government intrusuion should be allowed. No support regarding "the police won't do it" statements - you didn't really, right? :cool:


Nope, I didn't. ;)

Just pointing out to the casual reader what's going on in my own round about way.

Yaki
07-24-2012, 1:48 PM
Go look at San Fransisco. They are trying to put meters in your car and charge i believe .11 a mile to drive in the Bay Area. Imagine living there and having to pay to drive daily. Not that i go there but I will never go there if they do this.
My point is as others have said give an inch ..

tuolumnejim
07-24-2012, 1:57 PM
Psst...

Unless you bought your guns illegally, they already do!

A.W.D.
I have a total of one papered firearm, just like 12VGUY I bought many firearms well before that moronic and illegal FFL requirement or built them so no paperwork needed.
I'll be so glad when we finally go to Nevada full time and I can cash and carry whatever I'd like again.

mrPhelps
07-24-2012, 2:17 PM
OK all you DB engineers and Systems guys out there...

Care to comment on the challenges of developing an orthogonal, normalized data set from such a spectacularly disparate input stream?

The go'vt might know WHO has firearms but they don't know WHAT they have.

...then there's always the 80%s

Ok so off the top of my head I see 2 tables needed. One table would just hold the ssn and simple yes no if they own or not. If the ssn own is yes then go to table 2. Table 2 would hold ssn and gun identification number. Now if the government or law enforcement wanted more detail of the guns then a 3rd table would be needed to hold gun identification as key, make, model, cal, rate of fire, max effective range and max mag cap.

And I ask again. What benefit does this info serve our government? Lets stop and think about confiscation for a bit here. Average town of 2000 has what a sheriff and a couple deputies. Total of 3 law versus 1997 citizens. How will they confiscate? Los Angeles population around 3mil with a police force of 12000. How are those 12000(3000 civilian staff) going to confiscate all your firearms? How long would it take from the first confiscation for this to air on all major news channels? What would be the reaction from gun owners nation wide?

On a side note to my comment on the gun registration being only one question. Do you own yes or no. I did state only ONE UNO question! How do you all figure the link of that one question to come back to you? Did I say it should ask for your name, address and phone? narp!

Timbob55
07-24-2012, 2:27 PM
What good would come out of registering guns? Nothing would change except the gov't would know what you have. I don't want them to know that kind of information.

The way I see it confiscation isn't that remote of an possibility. It has happend in the past to other countries. Right now the NRA is fighting the good fight but there could come a time when they aren't able to any more. Then nothing would stop the anti's

I am not a :TFH:

Respectfully

deebix
07-24-2012, 2:58 PM
I make this registration conundrum easy to contemplate for myself. I simply ask, "How does registration benefit me?" (thinks)...can't come up with an answer. So then 'Cui Bono' ? Dictators and elitist pigs.

Wiz-of-Awd
07-24-2012, 3:09 PM
...What benefit does this info serve our government? Lets stop and think about confiscation for a bit here....

nevermind

A.W.D.

The Geologist
07-24-2012, 9:11 PM
Registration leads to confiscation. All oppressive countries have done this to their citizens. Does Nazi Germany ring a bell?

Arondos
07-24-2012, 10:46 PM
I see I got exactly the response I figured I would to what is good about registration. NOTHING

Arondos
07-24-2012, 10:46 PM
Deleted

mrPhelps
07-24-2012, 11:00 PM
Registration leads to confiscation.

How? What government force is going to carry out this plan? How big is that force compared to the citizens?

MODS! Can you answer the following question here in this forum. Is it the intension of your web site to scare the crap out of it's patrons with anti government debates in hopes of generating more donations to the Calguns Foundation and the NRA?

Reason I ask this is out of the several gun sites I belong to this one is the best at yelling fear and anti government every time I visit! Every day the members on this site are shouting "THE SKY IS FALLING!!!"

The whole "der gunna taek ur guns!" is getting real freakin old! And that is all you keep saying like a broken record!

SilverTauron
07-24-2012, 11:04 PM
How? What government force is going to carry out this plan? How big is that force compared to the citizens?

MODS! Can you answer the following question here in this forum. Is it the intension of your web site to scare the crap out of it's patrons with anti government debates in hopes of generating more donations to the Calguns Foundation and the NRA?

Reason I ask this is out of the several gun sites I belong to this one is the best at yelling fear and anti government every time I visit! Every day the members on this site are shouting "THE SKY IS FALLING!!!"

The whole "der gunna taek ur guns!" is getting real freakin old! And that is all you keep saying like a broken record!

http://rkba.org/ca/lockyer-sks-confiscation/lockyer1.gif

John-Melb
07-25-2012, 12:24 AM
How? What government force is going to carry out this plan? How big is that force compared to the citizens?

MODS! Can you answer the following question here in this forum. Is it the intension of your web site to scare the crap out of it's patrons with anti government debates in hopes of generating more donations to the Calguns Foundation and the NRA?

Reason I ask this is out of the several gun sites I belong to this one is the best at yelling fear and anti government every time I visit! Every day the members on this site are shouting "THE SKY IS FALLING!!!"

The whole "der gunna taek ur guns!" is getting real freakin old! And that is all you keep saying like a broken record!

Maybe it's "getting real freakin old" and sounds like "a broken record" to you.

To me, it's historical fact and I'm still as bitter and twisted about it as I was when it happened.

Read my posts on this thread.

"Those who forget the past........" I'm sure you know the rest.

Jason_2111
07-25-2012, 6:51 AM
Why won't this thread die?

:beatdeadhorse5:

Stop feeding the :troll:.

Dragunov
07-26-2012, 1:59 PM
I don't think the OP is a troll at all. I've wanted to ask this same question for a long time and I see the same lame answers that I always hear. When are people going to stop living in fear of what the government might do if they have my information on my guns. I could honestly give a rats rear that they know what guns I own nor should any law abiding citizen. The second amendment that was backed by the courts says I get to keep my guns for now. Start looking at the REAL problems that exist by not registering weapons. Guess what?? I DON'T WANT CRAZY PEOPLE TO OWN GUNS!!! Now will registering make it impossible? NO but it will make it harder. If the gun is registered to me. I am now responsible for that gun. Seams like no one wants responsibility. We all sit around and talk about how responsible gun owners we are by pointing them in a safe direction and keeping our fingers off the trigger but it is time to take it to the next level. Flame me and call me a troll all you want its just my opinion. Most of these answers I see are what make us gun owners look like idiots to the rest of the world.Because of Hitler, Mussolini, The Turks, The USSR, etc. We should NEVER stop living in "fear" of what our .GOV does with our PRIVATE information.

You said:
"I DON'T WANT CRAZY PEOPLE TO OWN GUNS!!! Now will registering make it impossible?" As you said...... No, nor will it make it harder. I can go to several sources around here and buy an unregistered sidearm, or an AK with no problem. I wouldn't do that, just saying. I don't want crazy people to have them either, but as long as they can get them..... Legally, or ILLegally, I don't want mine registered, or the .GOV having their nose stuck up my butt over it.

Dragunov
07-26-2012, 2:06 PM
How? What government force is going to carry out this plan? How big is that force compared to the citizens?

MODS! Can you answer the following question here in this forum. Is it the intension of your web site to scare the crap out of it's patrons with anti government debates in hopes of generating more donations to the Calguns Foundation and the NRA?

Reason I ask this is out of the several gun sites I belong to this one is the best at yelling fear and anti government every time I visit! Every day the members on this site are shouting "THE SKY IS FALLING!!!"

The whole "der gunna taek ur guns!" is getting real freakin old! And that is all you keep saying like a broken record!All the DOJ has to do is send a certified or otherwise letter to all registered gun owners to turn in their firearms under threat of a visit, and arrest if caught with them. Most will sadly comply. If they don't know you have it, there isn't much they can do about it.

1savage99
07-26-2012, 7:53 PM
Honestly though, what's so bad about it? I think of it as an insurance policy on my guns (in a sense), insurance against being implicated in a crime if my guns were stolen and used for violent offenses.

We do it for our cars all the time, but I don't hear people complaining about them so much. What would make guns any different?

PLease explain the benefits of registration.

First, very few crimes are solved due to DROS of firearms. While cars are registered to ensure that the owner is paying the fees, taxes and maintaining insurance for that vehicle so that it can access public roadways. Now given the unlicensed drivers, hit and runs, and number of vehicles whose insurance is canceled after receiving the tags. it would seem that except to the purposes of tax collection, auto registration is a failure in terms of public safety.

Second, If your guns are stolen you are potentially liable for their subsequent use, both civilly and criminally now, so I don't understand how registration in insurance for you in those matters.

Third, registrations does not prevent criminals for getting guns. Guns are stolen and sold by all types, and guns aren't that hard to make if you have a lathe and a mill. Ignoring the whole F&F debacle, this last week a NYPD officer was arrested for stealing guns out of the police locker room and selling them to drug dealers. The local, state, and federal agencies loose rifles, handguns, and even a hand grenade occasionally out the back door. I have rifles that once belong to an old LA Judge. The Judge's bailiff had joked that "the Judges gun safe had more evidence than most police stations."

As to complaining about DMV car registration, you must have different friends than I. The public revolted and kicked Gov. Gray Davis out of office over registration fees. I scream when I register my 1965 Ford C-600 Flat bed with the CA DMV - it costs me $500 every year, because it is a large truck and they charge the commercial weight fees on top of the other fees. My buddy builds kit cars and dreads the DMV because every time he goes there he has to educate them on their own regulations and procedures.

But back to my original question, so what is the benefit of registration except as a way for the state to limit your choices of "safe" weapons. and raise tax revenue?

lilro
07-26-2012, 8:35 PM
Before the :TFH:'s come in saying that it will lead to confiscation, there's more than 200 MILLION firearms (and counting) in private ownership in the United States, I don't think the government would have the resources (or manpower) to go around taking away every single one of them.They may not be completely successful, but that doesn't mean they won't try. New Orleans during Katrina comes to mind. They went door to door confiscating firearms.

We do it for our cars all the time, but I don't hear people complaining about them so much. What would make guns any different?

If they take our cars, that means we walk, bike, etc. If they take our guns, then slavery is only 1 step away.