Where and why would YOU put limits on RKBA?

[DocSkinner]

I call BS. At the time of the revolution it was a safe assumption that virtually all adult male citizens could put their hands on an effective long gun.

or be provided one, which is still the case.

[dantodd]

Today I think the US military has all the artillery they need. If they need mine they can just ask and I will help if I can.

How would they know whom to ask?

The only need to know where weapons are today is confiscation, period. To assert otherwise is to muddy the waters to cover for tyrannical statists.

Registration does not infringe on one's right to keep and bear arms. It certain does make it easier to infringe on the right though. There is no evidence that the only major gun confiscation in recent times (Katrina aftermath) was driven by registration, it was done door to door.

I have proposed one reason it would be valuable to have registration of weapons that is not confiscation so you are provably wrong in your assertion that there is only one reason period. Now, you might not believe that the prefatory clause to the second amendment is a valid enough "interest" for the government to keep such a list but merely spouting jingoistic catch phrases is not a convincing way to argue the point.

[dantodd]

and so from then reading this response, and your previous posts, you agree that registration IS necessary for the primary purpose of confiscating arms from law abiding cirtizens to prevent them from defending themselves/the constitution?

I'm sorry, I can't possibly imagine why anyone who believes that confiscation is a good thing would be posting here. I didn't take you to be so irrational when I spent 6 hours with you at the cow palace booth.

If you feel that I said anywhere that registration is appropriate for the expressed purpose of confiscation please quote the relevant post and I will try to explain what I meant. I surely didn't mean to post anything so ambiguous that it could be taken so.

[dantodd]

+1!!
there were no computerized databases back then. They knew where ARSENALS and ARMORIES (i.e.: government established arms stockpiles) were, but they had no clue where all teh individual arms were.

This is pretty much my point. Registration should be reserved for those items which would be considered part of the privately owned arsenal or armory and not for individual arms.

[dantodd]

And you also suppose the European model - ALL arms are stored in a specific location, and when people need them - they go there for them.

No, I do not. Please quote where I said anything about a common stockpile or the weapons at question NOT being in the possession of the owner.

That is the exact model the US was designed AGAINST. 1) the power to govern rests in the people, therefore, no need to restrict ownership. 2) teh right of self defense is a preset/preordained right - therefore everyone has teh right to have the means to defend themselves at their house, with out having to go to a central storage to get the means to defend their homes

We agree completely.

you are talking in the usual BS loops. please put up a decent point, or just admit, as you can't put up a decent point, you are clueless on thiss issue and talking out your a......

You are again injecting very aggressive language into a discussion about what might or mightn't pass constitutional muster. I really thought you a better person than to attack the person making the argument rather than the issues at hand.

If you actually care about my point please read through my posts where I explain what I think could constitutionally be required to be registered and why and ask me questions about that rather than simply accusing me of talking in "BS loops" or being incapable of making a point. If you don't REALLY want to discuss my thoughts on it then simply ignore my posts. I usually assume that someone who takes the time to respond to my posting wants to discuss its content, if you merely want to scream at me for not holding your exact belief please just say so and try to not put words in my mouth at the same time. If you do that I won't feel the need to reply in order to correct things that you inaccurately attribute to me.

[Meplat]

How would they know whom to ask?

They don't have to know whom to ask. A simple public announcement would suffice. But a list can be used for mistchif.



Registration does not infringe on one's right to keep and bear arms. It certain does make it easier to infringe on the right though. There is no evidence that the only major gun confiscation in recent times (Katrina aftermath) was driven by registration, it was done door to door.

That would be more accurately discribed as the only major (AMERICAN) gun confiscation in recent times. There are plenty of forigen examples. It can't happen here? BTW I don't remember any artillery pieces being confiscated in assocation with Katrina. You admonished me earlyer that we were talking about artillery, please hold to your own standards.

I have proposed one reason it would be valuable to have registration of weapons that is not confiscation so you are provably wrong in your assertion that there is only one reason period. Now, you might not believe that the prefatory clause to the second amendment is a valid enough "interest" for the government to keep such a list but merely spouting jingoistic catch phrases is not a convincing way to argue the point.

Your reason is ludicrous. BTW, "jingoistic" is one of those alarm words that tells me I am dealing with a mole or a moron, so I don't much care if I convince you of anything or not. But I am sure others will recognize the folly of your position.

[dantodd]

I used Katrina as the only example I know of a recent gun confiscation. As you seem to know of others outside of the United States please do post details. And since you are so adverse to me using a confiscation example of a small arms confiscation please be sure to post an example of one in which otherwise legally owned large arms were confiscated.

Your reason is ludicrous. BTW, "jingoistic" is one of those alarm words that tells me I am dealing with a mole or a moron, so I don't much care if I convince you of anything or not. But I am sure others will recognize the folly of your position.

My reason is ludicrous and I am either a mole or a moron. I guess there is really no reasonable response I could make as it is simply a personal attack. But for the record I know a number of people on the board personally and I am quite certain they can tell you I am neither a mole nor a moron.

[Meplat]

My reason is ludicrous and I am either a mole or a moron. I guess there is really no reasonable response I could make as it is simply a personal attack. But for the record I know a number of people on the board personally and I am quite certain they can tell you I am neither a mole nor a moron.

The assertion that I was "spouting jingoistic catch phrases" was not a personal attack? I don't give a damn if you know the pope personally. You are having way too much fun at the expense of this forum with your holeyer than thou attitude. I think you are trolling for trouble and should be ashamed.

[dantodd]

The assertion that I was "spouting jingoistic catch phrases" was not a personal attack? I don't give a damn if you know the pope personally. You are having way too much fun at the expense of this forum with your holeyer than thou attitude. I think you are trolling for trouble and should be ashamed.

I am neither holier than thou nor trolling. My use of "jingoistic catch phrases" was in response to the repeated use of "registration is good for nothing but confiscation" as if it is a reply to any discussion. It was meant to attack your assertion not you personally. If you think that is the same as calling someone a moron, mole, troll and holier than thou I don't know what to say.

[oaklander]

Limits to RKBA:

1) people who are dangerous and/or violent, and have been proven so should not have guns of any kind.

2) civilians should be able to own select-fire weapons, IF they store them so that criminals can't get them.

3) cannons and stuff like that sounds like fun, and law abiding citizens should be able to have those too.

4) complex weapons systems - well, I'm not so sure about that. I don't trust about 75 percent of the drivers I see on the freeway. The thought that the guy who just cut me off while texting owns a nuke scares me. Even worse, the thought of my ex-wife with an RPG scares the crap out of me!

[AndrewMendez]

2) civilians should be able to own select-fire weapons, IF they store them so that criminals can't get them.

Couldn't we argue that we would not be able to stand a chance if we needed to revolt? When they are using Automatic M4s?

[oaklander]

I think that's a good argument, personally!

Couldn't we argue that we would not be able to stand a chance if we needed to revolt? When they are using Automatic M4s?

[Mitch]

Your reason is ludicrous. BTW, "jingoistic" is one of those alarm words that tells me I am dealing with a mole or a moron, so I don't much care if I convince you of anything or not. But I am sure others will recognize the folly of your position.

It sounds like someone has called you a jingo before.

[yellowfin]

Then why do you continue to ask about handguns and rifles or ask if registration will keep people from killing one another? These are not, imo, valid reasons for registration. If you are going to argue against what I feel is valid governmental interest in registration don't argue non-points. If you are merely responding to my posts in order to reiterate your opinions on those issues please feel free to quote someone else in your replies. I'm more than happy to discuss what I think is valid registration but to continually inject irrelevant issues detracts from the conversation.

I will say again that I think the government has a valid interest in having a registration list of those weapons, beyond the basic tools of individual soldiers, in the hands of the unorganized militia (i.e. "the people") This would mean items like APCs, Tanks, anti-tank missile systems, anti-aircraft weapons, Medium machine guns, mines and artillery pieces. All of which I think should be protected expressions of the Second Amendment.

Do you not clearly see how that very list is a virtual shopping cart enemies list for the very type of government that such items are to be used to stop or remove? It's like wearing a sign on your shirt with your bank account number, PIN number, and how much is in it. Are you really honestly advocating that? Sure they have a valid interest, and that interest is 180 degrees in the opposite direction from ours! You simply cannot trust a government to be good when dealing with the stuff that matters when they're being bad. That's like asking a carjacker to valet park your car simply because they haven't been carjacking you at the time.

[fullrearview]

So, given that, what sort of "system" would you set up to enable the people to overthrow an irredeemably corrupt government?

Clearly the citizenry is going to need some kind of access to heavy weaponry in order to stand a chance.


Think about it a second and you'll see that I'm right. A sufficiently corrupt government that is fighting for its own existence against its own citizenry will have no trouble with the idea of wiping out a few hundred thousand citizens (innocent or not) at a time until the challenge to their power is eliminated. Clearly the threat to the government from the citizenry in that situation needs to be so credible that the government will surrender rather than fight. That's not possible if the government's firepower overshadows the citizenry's by many orders of magnitude, as it would if the government were the only entity with access to heavy weaponry.

That's assuming our military will follow the orders to kill 100K of our citizenry. In an all volunteer force, not gonna happen.