The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Second Amendment => Topic started by: SZonian on June 11, 2018, 09:51:37 pm
-
Uhm, ok. My questions about this "study" would fill a volume of encyclopedias. 9 dead in Chicago with dozens more wounded this past weekend. Please tell me again how that correlates with the purported results of this study? I would suspect that those "legally" carrying without the onerous "suggestions" posited in this article are killing thugs, robbers, etc. and not just shooting up their neighborhoods ala ChiIraq. A study that doesn't provide relevant information on the shooting situations/facts, is, in my opinion, completely worthless. Just more anti-2nd Amendment drum beating.
https://health.usnews.com/health-care/articles/2018-06-11/strict-handgun-laws-lower-gun-murder-rates-in-cities
-
Findings reached and study created to validate findings. That's the way they always do it!
-
Findings reached and study created to validate findings. That's the way they always do it!
State a hypothesis. Then create a study to prove the hypothesis. Reject any and all data to the contrary. Publish findings.
-
Gun crime down in England. It worked on gun crime.
Overall crime went up over 80%
-
Only 14%?
-
If this is true for cities it ought to hold for states. In 2013 Wyoming led the nation in per capita firearm ownership; 195.7 per 1,000 people.
District of Columbia came in a second; 66.4 firearms per 1,000 people.
If this study is correct then Wyoming should have a murder rate over double that of Washington DC.
-
They found that counties in states that adopted stand-your-ground laws saw a 7 percent increase in gun homicides, and counties in states with right-to-carry laws saw a 4 percent increase in firearm deaths.
I think they are counting shot criminals as "homicides", just from reading that, which would inflate the number of "victims".
-
I think they are counting shot criminals as "homicides", just from reading that, which would inflate the number of "victims".
@Smokin Joe :thumbsup:
Most agreed...this "study" is just more anti-2nd Amendment pap as I alluded to in my original statement. Liars figure and figures lie...
-
@Smokin Joe :thumbsup:
Most agreed...this "study" is just more anti-2nd Amendment pap as I alluded to in my original statement. Liars figure and figures lie...
I have found (examining motorcycle safety studies) that when rates and percentages are mixed with raw numbers, the purpose is to either inflate or otherwise distort what is going on. The other trick is to arcanely delineate the topic so the criteria select the study grouping, the statistical equivalent of gerrymandering. That way a small sample can be presented as universal in the title or conclusions, even though broader data do not support that presentation.
-
Gun crime down in England. It worked on gun crime.
Overall crime went up over 80%
Exactly, using statistics to ignore overall rates while claiming victory by only looking at a piece of the total situation.
-
If you outlaw cars, deaths involving cars will decrease.
-
This isn't about outlawing guns. It is about licensure, a time tested means for identifying a legal gun and its owner. It doesn't surprise me, even given the ease at which guns travel from state to state, that a city that requires licensure of its residents will, all other things being equal, tend to have less gun crime than a city that does not. At the very least, cops have the ability to cite an individual for having an unlicensed gun, and to remove that gun from circulation.
What we need are more studies that can differentiate between bad gun laws and those which are actually efficacious. No one wants gun laws that penalize lawful gun ownership and use.
-
The trouble we have is ignorance and a very short attention span for the average person.
People see a crime, someone says its because of guns, and the emotions from the crime bleed over to the firearm. Most people won't take long enough to research the issue. Statistics are great but unless you can engage someone at an emotional level you'll eventually lose.
The ads showing defensive use of firearms do a lot to engage people at an emotional level, especially women.
-
This isn't about outlawing guns. It is about licensure, a time tested means for identifying a legal gun and its owner. It doesn't surprise me, even given the ease at which guns travel from state to state, that a city that requires licensure of its residents will, all other things being equal, tend to have less gun crime than a city that does not. At the very least, cops have the ability to cite an individual for having an unlicensed gun, and to remove that gun from circulation.
What we need are more studies that can differentiate between bad gun laws and those which are actually efficacious. No one wants gun laws that penalize lawful gun ownership and use.
@Jazzhead
So in every other country they've virtually banned guns. In many places in the US they have virtually banned firearms. They've openly stated on numerous occasions they want to ban private ownership of firearms.
But its not about banning firearms?
-
This isn't about outlawing guns. It is about licensure, a time tested means for identifying a legal gun and its owner. It doesn't surprise me, even given the ease at which guns travel from state to state, that a city that requires licensure of its residents will, all other things being equal, tend to have less gun crime than a city that does not. At the very least, cops have the ability to cite an individual for having an unlicensed gun, and to remove that gun from circulation.
What we need are more studies that can differentiate between bad gun laws and those which are actually efficacious. No one wants gun laws that penalize lawful gun ownership and use.
The concept of only wanting to reduce gun crime, while total crime including homicides goes up, is insane.
-
@Jazzhead
So in every other country they've virtually banned guns. In many places in the US they have virtually banned firearms. They've openly stated on numerous occasions they want to ban private ownership of firearms.
But its not about banning firearms?
No, the study is about the impact of licensure. The study suggests that licensure works to reduce gun crime. Hysteria about banning guns is a straw man.
-
The concept of only wanting to reduce gun crime, while total crime including homicides goes up, is insane.
It's insane if the goal is to reduce crime. It makes perfect sense if the goal is to confiscate guns and control the population. But never, never, never tip your hand and let the people know that's what you want.
-
I think they are counting shot criminals as "homicides", just from reading that, which would inflate the number of "victims".
(https://i.imgflip.com/1amtiq.jpg)
-
No, the study is about the impact of licensure. The study suggests that licensure works to reduce gun crime. Hysteria about banning guns is a straw man.
@Jazzhead
Lies like that seriously degrade your message.
-
@Jazzhead
Lies like that seriously degrade your message.
What lie? I am sick and tired of the straw man that licensure or registration is for the purpose of banning/confiscating guns. THAT is the big lie.
I remain very interested in this or any other study that speaks to whether a regime of licensure and/or registration can reduce gun crime.
-
What lie? I am sick and tired of the straw man that licensure or registration is for the purpose of banning/confiscating guns. THAT is the big lie.
I remain very interested in this or any other study that speaks to whether a regime of licensure and/or registration can reduce gun crime.
It doesn't reduce gun crime, it takes legal activity and redefines it as gun crime.
Criminals are not impacted by laws they already chose to break. More laws only puts the law abiding at risk.
-
What lie? I am sick and tired of the straw man that licensure or registration is for the purpose of banning/confiscating guns. THAT is the big lie.
It may not be the original purpose, but you can bet down the line that list will be used for confiscation.
-
What lie? I am sick and tired of the straw man that licensure or registration is for the purpose of banning/confiscating guns. THAT is the big lie.
I remain very interested in this or any other study that speaks to whether a regime of licensure and/or registration can reduce gun crime.
@Jazzhead
hey I only look at what has happened every single time someone has gone the licensure/registration route. Every single time
Whats really curious is why are you so focused on gun crime to the exclusion of other crime? Guns were banned in England but the crime rate went up. More rapes, more robberies, more murders and less safety.
Why the tunnel vision?
Unless of course its not about the guns, but about the control. Which of course matches your other policy stances.
-
What lie? I am sick and tired of the straw man that licensure or registration is for the purpose of banning/confiscating guns. THAT is the big lie.
I remain very interested in this or any other study that speaks to whether a regime of licensure and/or registration can reduce gun crime.
If they know who has the guns and where they are, they can be confiscated.
-
Why the tunnel vision?
Unless of course its not about the guns, but about the control. Which of course matches your other policy stances.
Have a cigar, @driftdiver
-
If they know who has the guns and where they are, they can be confiscated.
But only of the law abiding citizens. It does nothing for getting the guns of criminals.
-
But only of the law abiding citizens. It does nothing for getting the guns of criminals.
Because they don't care about those guns.
-
Because they don't care about those guns.
I know that, and you know that, but....
-
I know that, and you know that, but....
but they won't admit it publicly and the average Joe on the street doesn't realize it.
-
What lie? I am sick and tired of the straw man that licensure or registration is for the purpose of banning/confiscating guns. THAT is the big lie.
I remain very interested in this or any other study that speaks to whether a regime of licensure and/or registration can reduce gun crime.
Of course you do.
(http://img2.thejournal.ie/inline/485125/original/?width=605)
China
(https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/sites/buckeyefirearms.org/files/styles/slideshow/public/field/image/gun-confiscation.jpg?itok=hgVwYEnS)
(https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Gun-destruction-amnesty-turn-in-buy-back-Australia-WITH-TEXT.jpg)
Australia
(http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Danish-Government-Destroying-Seized-Firearms-660x380.jpg)
Denmark
Now read this:
http://stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf (http://stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf)
and try again to tell me the goal isn't confiscating guns....
-
Of course it is confiscation. Why else would the government need to know who has guns? That information is worthless to them otherwise.
The Chinese student here was arrested for having a gun. The government knew he had it because he registered it and they followed him to the gun range. Then they confiscated the him and the gun.
-
The straw men continue to march, like zombies. *****rollingeyes*****
-
The straw men continue to march, like zombies. *****rollingeyes*****
You're being deliberately obtuse.
By definition, the reason to license guns is to know who has them. And if you know who has them, you can then take them at any time, for any reason.
-
The straw men continue to march, like zombies. *****rollingeyes*****
Your mouth continues to move, but no original sounds come out. Like zombies. :laugh:
-
By definition, the reason to license guns is to know who has them. And if you know who has them, you can then take them at any time, for any reason.
Yes, the purpose of licensure is to connect a gun to its lawful owner. But it does not follow that licensure is a prelude to confiscation. That is a misapplication of logic which ignores that, in America, the Constitution provides both specific protections for gun ownership and general provisions addressing respect for property rights and the due process of law.
I will not give credit to straw man arguments. At issue in this thread is a study that seems to support the argument that licensure is a useful tool to reduce gun violence. That is the goal, not confiscation.
-
Yes, the purpose of licensure is to connect a gun to its lawful owner. But it does not follow that licensure is a prelude to confiscation. That is a misapplication of logic which ignores that, in America, the Constitution provides both specific protections for gun ownership and general provisions addressing respect for property rights and the due process of law.
I will not give credit to straw man arguments. At issue in this thread is a study that seems to support the argument that licensure is a useful tool to reduce gun violence. That is the goal, not confiscation.
Then you admit that licensing/registration is for the purpose of the govt knowing who has firearms.
What other purpose do you think it serves, other than enforcement?
-
Yes, the purpose of licensure is to connect a gun to its lawful owner. But it does not follow that licensure is a prelude to confiscation. That is a misapplication of logic which ignores that, in America, the Constitution provides both specific protections for gun ownership and general provisions addressing respect for property rights and the due process of law.
I will not give credit to straw man arguments. At issue in this thread is a study that seems to support the argument that licensure is a useful tool to reduce gun violence. That is the goal, not confiscation.
(http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l240/robo848/not_this_shit_again.jpg)Historically, the indication is that firearms licensing and registration overwhelmingly leads to confiscation. There are no cases where it did not, just where it hasn't yet.
If confiscation is the goal, you don't need to know.
If the goal is to create legal traps to deprive people of their Rights, you don't need to know.
If confiscation is not the goal, then what you don't know won't hurt me, and you don't need to know.
If you had read the paper at the link I provided, you'd see how the Wiemar gun registrations were used later by the Nazis to confiscate firearms.
So what you think the current Congress might or might not do is irrelevant. There is enough egregious disregard for the Constitution over the last century (actually longer) without ginning up the appearance of people clamoring to divest themselves of their Civil Rights already that some information simply does not need to be collected.
Governments and societies attitudes are transient in nature, despite the attempts by the Founders to hinder that when it comes to our Rights.
I do not trust either my government nor my fellow man to have my best interests and those of my family at the forefront, not enough to disarm. The Founders didn't trust government that much either.
If the "Right" to end innocent lives in some of the most horrific ways known to man can be somehow scrounged up by the courts, in defiance of the most fundamental right (life, itself) then there is no trust to be given those who can readily decree almost anything in spite of the original intent of the Constitution.
What firearms I have or don't, how many, or even whether I just own one, ain't nobody's business but my own. It doesn't matter how warm and fuzzy anyone's intent may be now, the potential for abuse of the information in the future is just too great.
Once revealed, you can't put a secret back in the bag.
-
Then you admit that licensing/registration is for the purpose of the govt knowing who has firearms.
Yes, but not for reason of confiscation, but for the assignment of legal responsibility for a firearm's use and disposition. Same as with a car.
-
Except there is no provision in the US constitution for a "Right to Keep and Bear Cars." But you knew that.
-
Yes, but not for reason of confiscation, but for the assignment of legal responsibility for a firearm's use and disposition. Same as with a car.
So says you. However that's a line in the sand you can't enforce. You are relying on face value statements and not considering ulterior intent and agendas of those with greater power than you.
The problem regardless is that registration/licensing applies to law abiding citizens who are likely to obey the law, in contrast to criminals, making the stated reason for doing so ridiculous and ineffective on it's face.
-
Yes, but not for reason of confiscation, but for the assignment of legal responsibility for a firearm's use and disposition. Same as with a car.
@Jazzhead
its not the same as a car. Cars aren't registered if they arent driven on public roads. but you knew that
Neither are knives, pillows, hammers, or heck hands. hands kill more people then guns.
-
So says you. However that's a line in the sand you can't enforce. You are relying on face value statements and not considering ulterior intent and agendas of those with greater power than you.
I am relying on the Constitution to rein in the sort of tyranny you fear. It's worked well for over two centuries now.
The problem regardless is that registration/licensing applies to law abiding citizens who are likely to obey the law, in contrast to criminals, making the stated reason for doing so ridiculous and ineffective on it's face.
Don't make me laugh! Are you referring to the "law-abiding" folks on this forum who vow not to comply and even to shoot dead peace officers who try to enforce the law? Licensure is an effective tool against criminals; the lack of licensure provides the basis for taking a criminal's gun away from him.
There is no constitutional right to keep an arsenal of guns in secret. The 2A itself is predicated on the need for a "well-regulated" militia. Licensure and registration is compatible with the Constitution, arbitrary confiscation isn't.
-
@Jazzhead
its not the same as a car. Cars aren't registered if they arent driven on public roads. but you knew that
So what?
-
Yes, but not for reason of confiscation, but for the assignment of legal responsibility for a firearm's use and disposition. Same as with a car.
But owning a car does not have that requirement. Only using it on public roads has that requirement.
If states want to make a carry permit have these requirements, let them add them. No reason for ownership to require this, same as with a car.
-
I am relying on the Constitution to rein in the sort of tyranny you fear. It's worked well for over two centuries now.
Don't make me laugh! Are you referring to the "law-abiding" folks on this forum who vow not to comply and even to shoot dead peace officers who try to enforce the law? Licensure is an effective tool against criminals; the lack of licensure provides the basis for taking a criminal's gun away from him.
There is no constitutional right to keep an arsenal of guns in secret. The 2A itself is predicated on the need for a "well-regulated" militia. Licensure and registration is compatible with the Constitution, arbitrary confiscation isn't.
Nonsense. It only makes a criminal out of current law abiding citizens. If they are a criminal (felony) they already have that basis.
-
I am relying on the Constitution to rein in the sort of tyranny you fear. It's worked well for over two centuries now.
Don't make me laugh! Are you referring to the "law-abiding" folks on this forum who vow not to comply and even to shoot dead peace officers who try to enforce the law? Licensure is an effective tool against criminals; the lack of licensure provides the basis for taking a criminal's gun away from him.
There is no constitutional right to keep an arsenal of guns in secret. The 2A itself is predicated on the need for a "well-regulated" militia. Licensure and registration is compatible with the Constitution, arbitrary confiscation isn't.
So you are opening the door to the abuse and erosion of constitutional rights, then hoping beyond hope they won't be abused?
You then, in the very next sentence and after asserting it won't be abused, seem willing to take unleash that very abuse on previously law abiding gun owners, by manufacturing a new class of criminal that weren't criminals before, nor likely to be in the future, yet were suddenly criminals due to nothing but a change in the law.
You justify this based on the presumption that because they desire to keep their gun ownership private that essentially makes them criminal, so you are willing to pass a law to make them so based on your papal decree of what the 2A means.
You then imply that you're willing to go door-to-door to confiscate same previously legal firearms that are now illegal, because you have made these people criminals who weren't before, after having previously moralized they were engaging in criminal activity because of their possible desire to defend themselves from you suddenly making them into criminals. Therefore in the end accomplishing the very goal you said wouldn't happen.
Meanwhile, no real crime of violence has been committed by these people, while the real criminals continue to prey on society because they don't care about the law, and nothing is solved because registration will not solve violent crime.
You have made no case that licensing guns will stop crime or how exactly it would get illegal weapons out of the hands of criminals. You've made an excellent case in how the State could create the excuse to confiscate weapons and justify it by claiming that possibly defending yourself from that is presumptively criminal.
You are literally making my argument.
-
I am relying on the Constitution to rein in the sort of tyranny you fear. It's worked well for over two centuries now.
Don't make me laugh! Are you referring to the "law-abiding" folks on this forum who vow not to comply and even to shoot dead peace officers who try to enforce the law? Licensure is an effective tool against criminals; the lack of licensure provides the basis for taking a criminal's gun away from him.
There is no constitutional right to keep an arsenal of guns in secret. The 2A itself is predicated on the need for a "well-regulated" militia. Licensure and registration is compatible with the Constitution, arbitrary confiscation isn't.
OH, bullshit. Evewr hear of this?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I will not provide a shopping list for anyone.
Credit card information is worth a mint. People hack it and steal it daily. Entire identities are 'stolen' and people ruined because those who are supposed to keep that information secure FAIL. An entire industry has sprung up around data protection and mitigation of the results when those protections fail.
So what is to stop really dedicated criminal elements from hacking that information in government hands and selling neighborhood specific shopping lists to those who would use them to select robbery/burglary/home invasion targets? That information would be worth a lot to thieves. Few people are home 24/7/365 to deter such theft, and some more motivated thieves don't care if they are or not.
NOTHING. But you think we should trust our well being and security to people who can hide behind a sovereign immunity clause and suffer none of the depredations, injury (economic or physical) or even death because they failed to secure that information and it fell into the wrong hands. No effing way.
I know how many people it takes to keep a secret: one. Beyond that, it isn't a secret any more.
The less information is out there, the less can be stolen. It's the reason people try to keep their financial data, addresses, use avatars online, don't post their picture on political forums, etc. Why would anyone want a list of items they own, often worth thousands of dollars, in the hands of those who have no real incentive to keep that information secure, who have no personal downside to it being 'lost' or hacked, and who, in the event of misuse of that information will suffer no penalty?
It really is no one's business what I have or don't so long as it poses no imminent hazard to you. If it's mere presence poses no hazard, and none of my firearms have ever left the place I have stored them and gone off on some shooting spree or even threatened another person.
My mere possession of a firearm poses no hazard to anyone who is conducting themselves in a moral and lawful fashion-- those rules of behaviour and respect for property we as a culture have settled on.
I reserve the Right to defend me and mine, my family, life, and property, with lethal force if necessary, under It is only when people step outside those bounds that my firearm may become a threatening piece of hardware, that its mere presence may pose a threat to those who neither respect my rights nor the law.
How about:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I am not going to give you that information. Nor will you deprive me of my property because someone might wet themselves over the thought that I might merely own something.
I am not responsible for the ability of others to conjure violent fantasies which simply do not conform to reality, nor am I responsible for the promotion of such images, be they fictional or even occasionally real in the various forms of media out there from television to video games and movies. Perhaps if those images are disturbing people that much that they want to make me give up my property, people should watch something else, or we should make horror movies (splatterflicks) which use ordinary household items as weapons and promote registration of kitchen gadgets and power tools. Or not. Maybe liberals would be howling for the registration of melon ballers and hand blenders.
So tell me, what difference does it make if your neighbor has a Ma Deuce in his basement if he isn't threatening others? None whatsoever. No more than a Picasso on your wall, or Hummel figurines, or porn DVDs on your shelf, the knives in your kitchen, or the chainsaw or axe in your garage.. It isn't having the object, it is how you use it.
As for "potential this that or the other, blah, blah,blah...." Wrap your pointy head around this thought. The Wiemar gun registration wasn't for confiscation purposes. BUT once that information was available, within two decades it had been used to confiscate firearms by another iteration of German leadership.
It doesn't matter one damned bit what good intentions you wave when you say "Licensing, yadda, yadda, yadda..." ad infinitum. THAT isn't the sole issue, albeit an infringement on my 2nd Amendment rights, the issue is one of there being no guarantee that the information would not be used in exactly the manner we have observed that information being used in other countries, and indeed, even in some states in the US.
With the overwhelming number of instances where registration exactly led to confiscation, either by the registering authority or by subsequent administrations, the government has no compelling reason to know what firearms I may or may not have. I am not operating them on the highway, they were lawfully obtained through purchase or trade, and are not stolen, they are not a public threat. Trust ME. I have lived over half a century without misusing a firearm, so TRUST ME. I could conceivably be just as destructive to a public without firearms, should I be so inclined, and if you look around the world, there are serious incidents which cause loss of lives and injury to even more people without a firearm even being involved. Ultimately, it isn't the firearm which is the source of your fear, it is the fear that others will resist, with every fiber of their being, the attempt to use government to micromanage the affairs of the individual.
It is almost amusing to me and doubtless others that as you champion the rights of the group who brought AIDS to the forefront as a disease, and all their rights, right down to having cakes baked for them, that you think gun owners should be subjected to registration schemes. What if the call was to register homosexuals?--just for public health purposes, mind you, after all, 1 in 5 homosexual males have HIV, and nearly 2/3 of new infections occur within that group. What would you say to that? Would you object? Those numbers look a lot worse than the percentage of guns (>ahem< firearms) involved in crime.
We know how that worked out in the 30s, don't we?
Historically, such databases have only facilitated the eventual loss of life, property, and liberty, either taken by the very supposedly benevolent governments which gathered that information, or subsequent authorities who were not so benevolent.
I do not trust any administration, even with Constitutional protections, to have information about what firearms I may own, because the potential for the abuse of that information, and the possible consequences of that, whether by authorities or others is so profound. In the post semantic era, where words no longer seem to have the meanings they did have (how Roberts ruled the penalty was a tax), I don't trust the SCOTUS to clean up the mess, either.
-
OH, bullshit. Evewr hear of this?
I will not provide a shopping list for anyone.
Credit card information is worth a mint. People hack it and steal it daily. Entire identities are 'stolen' and people ruined because those who are supposed to keep that information secure FAIL. An entire industry has sprung up around data protection and mitigation of the results when those protections fail.
So what is to stop really dedicated criminal elements from hacking that information in government hands and selling neighborhood specific shopping lists to those who would use them to select robbery/burglary/home invasion targets? That information would be worth a lot to thieves. Few people are home 24/7/365 to deter such theft, and some more motivated thieves don't care if they are or not.
NOTHING. But you think we should trust our well being and security to people who can hide behind a sovereign immunity clause and suffer none of the depredations, injury (economic or physical) or even death because they failed to secure that information and it fell into the wrong hands. No effing way.
I know how many people it takes to keep a secret: one. Beyond that, it isn't a secret any more.
The less information is out there, the less can be stolen. It's the reason people try to keep their financial data, addresses, use avatars online, don't post their picture on political forums, etc. Why would anyone want a list of items they own, often worth thousands of dollars, in the hands of those who have no real incentive to keep that information secure, who have no personal downside to it being 'lost' or hacked, and who, in the event of misuse of that information will suffer no penalty?
It really is no one's business what I have or don't so long as it poses no imminent hazard to you. If it's mere presence poses no hazard, and none of my firearms have ever left the place I have stored them and gone off on some shooting spree or even threatened another person.
My mere possession of a firearm poses no hazard to anyone who is conducting themselves in a moral and lawful fashion-- those rules of behaviour and respect for property we as a culture have settled on.
I reserve the Right to defend me and mine, my family, life, and property, with lethal force if necessary, under It is only when people step outside those bounds that my firearm may become a threatening piece of hardware, that its mere presence may pose a threat to those who neither respect my rights nor the law.
How about: I am not going to give you that information. Nor will you deprive me of my property because someone might wet themselves over the thought that I might merely own something.
I am not responsible for the ability of others to conjure violent fantasies which simply do not conform to reality, nor am I responsible for the promotion of such images, be they fictional or even occasionally real in the various forms of media out there from television to video games and movies. Perhaps if those images are disturbing people that much that they want to make me give up my property, people should watch something else, or we should make horror movies (splatterflicks) which use ordinary household items as weapons and promote registration of kitchen gadgets and power tools. Or not. Maybe liberals would be howling for the registration of melon ballers and hand blenders.
So tell me, what difference does it make if your neighbor has a Ma Deuce in his basement if he isn't threatening others? None whatsoever. No more than a Picasso on your wall, or Hummel figurines, or porn DVDs on your shelf, the knives in your kitchen, or the chainsaw or axe in your garage.. It isn't having the object, it is how you use it.
As for "potential this that or the other, blah, blah,blah...." Wrap your pointy head around this thought. The Wiemar gun registration wasn't for confiscation purposes. BUT once that information was available, within two decades it had been used to confiscate firearms by another iteration of German leadership.
It doesn't matter one damned bit what good intentions you wave when you say "Licensing, yadda, yadda, yadda..." ad infinitum. THAT isn't the sole issue, albeit an infringement on my 2nd Amendment rights, the issue is one of there being no guarantee that the information would not be used in exactly the manner we have observed that information being used in other countries, and indeed, even in some states in the US.
With the overwhelming number of instances where registration exactly led to confiscation, either by the registering authority or by subsequent administrations, the government has no compelling reason to know what firearms I may or may not have. I am not operating them on the highway, they were lawfully obtained through purchase or trade, and are not stolen, they are not a public threat. Trust ME. I have lived over half a century without misusing a firearm, so TRUST ME. I could conceivably be just as destructive to a public without firearms, should I be so inclined, and if you look around the world, there are serious incidents which cause loss of lives and injury to even more people without a firearm even being involved. Ultimately, it isn't the firearm which is the source of your fear, it is the fear that others will resist, with every fiber of their being, the attempt to use government to micromanage the affairs of the individual.
It is almost amusing to me and doubtless others that as you champion the rights of the group who brought AIDS to the forefront as a disease, and all their rights, right down to having cakes baked for them, that you think gun owners should be subjected to registration schemes. What if the call was to register homosexuals?--just for public health purposes, mind you, after all, 1 in 5 homosexual males have HIV, and nearly 2/3 of new infections occur within that group. What would you say to that? Would you object? Those numbers look a lot worse than the percentage of guns (>ahem< firearms) involved in crime.
We know how that worked out in the 30s, don't we?
Historically, such databases have only facilitated the eventual loss of life, property, and liberty, either taken by the very supposedly benevolent governments which gathered that information, or subsequent authorities who were not so benevolent.
I do not trust any administration, even with Constitutional protections, to have information about what firearms I may own, because the potential for the abuse of that information, and the possible consequences of that, whether by authorities or others is so profound. In the post semantic era, where words no longer seem to have the meanings they did have (how Roberts ruled the penalty was a tax), I don't trust the SCOTUS to clean up the mess, either.
blij26 :da man: :hands:
-
I give no credit to slippery slope arguments. A law requiring the licensure of gun owners and/or the registration of firearms is compatible with the Second Amendment, and the potential abuse of such a law is addressed by the Constitution's protections. I will stand right with you if your Constitutional rights are infringed. Confiscation of property is the act of a tyrant, and must be opposed. But licensure and registration for the purposes of efficient and effective law enforcement, to lift more gun transactions out of the shadows and off of the back of trucks, is both Constitutional and, it sure as heck seems to me, simple common sense.
What you do not have is the Constitutional right to be a law unto yourself. If the community decides that as a gun owner you must be licensed, just as you are with respect to the cars you drive, then yes, you are no longer law-abiding if you refuse to comply. Because such a law is lawfully enacted and consistent with the Constitution, and you are a member of the community.
It is up to you whether to risk the law's sanction. Will you come out with guns blazing? If you do, you may or may not lose your life. But you will surely have lost your moral authority, in the eyes of man and of God.
-
I give no credit to slippery slope arguments. A law requiring the licensure of gun owners and/or the registration of firearms is compatible with the Second Amendment, and the potential abuse of such a law is addressed by the Constitution's protections. I will stand right with you if your Constitutional rights are infringed. Confiscation of property is the act of a tyrant, and must be opposed. But licensure and registration for the purposes of efficient and effective law enforcement, to lift more gun transactions out of the shadows and off of the back of trucks, is both Constitutional and, it sure as heck seems to me, simple common sense.
What you do not have is the Constitutional right to be a law unto yourself. If the community decides that as a gun owner you must be licensed, just as you are with respect to the cars you drive, then yes, you are no longer law-abiding if you refuse to comply. Because such a law is lawfully enacted and consistent with the Constitution, and you are a member of the community.
It is up to you whether to risk the law's sanction. Will you come out with guns blazing? If you do, you may or may not lose your life. But you will surely have lost your moral authority, in the eyes of man and of God.
How fortunate we are to live in areas communities that think as we do, and do not have such laws.
We don't risk any sanctions from laws that don't exist. And we will work to see that they don't exist.
Your hypothetical situation claiming moral authority remains hypothetical.
-
How fortunate we are to live in areas communities that think as we do, and do not have such laws.
We don't risk any sanctions from laws that don't exist. And we will work to see that they don't exist.
Your hypothetical situation claiming moral authority remains hypothetical.
The notion that a "community" outweighs the "individual" is repulsive to me. There's an Ayn Rand quote about the smallest minority.
I don't think "licensure" is something the grabbers are going to allow to be decided at the local level.
-
I give no credit to slippery slope arguments. A law requiring the licensure of gun owners and/or the registration of firearms is compatible with the Second Amendment, and the potential abuse of such a law is addressed by the Constitution's protections. I will stand right with you if your Constitutional rights are infringed. Confiscation of property is the act of a tyrant, and must be opposed. But licensure and registration for the purposes of efficient and effective law enforcement, to lift more gun transactions out of the shadows and off of the back of trucks, is both Constitutional and, it sure as heck seems to me, simple common sense.
What you do not have is the Constitutional right to be a law unto yourself. If the community decides that as a gun owner you must be licensed, just as you are with respect to the cars you drive, then yes, you are no longer law-abiding if you refuse to comply. Because such a law is lawfully enacted and consistent with the Constitution, and you are a member of the community.
It is up to you whether to risk the law's sanction. Will you come out with guns blazing? If you do, you may or may not lose your life. But you will surely have lost your moral authority, in the eyes of man and of God.
Sorry Pope Jazzhead, this is nothing but empty moralizing and pontificating, and convoluted logic.
Licensing and registration will not affect 'to lift more gun transactions out of the shadows and off of the back of trucks' because those aren't sold legally to begin with. If they are breaking the law now, they won't obey the new one.
By your logic if 'the community' (which is not how our govt works) decides that the rural areas must be cleared of all people for the sake of the environment and moved to the cities or camps en masse, then they must comply or they have ' lost your moral authority, in the eyes of man and of God'.
You keep saying the Constitution will protect us, yet seem to give The Community boundless authority to pass anything they please that citizens must obey.
-
You keep saying the Constitution will protect us, yet seem to give The Community boundless authority to pass anything they please that citizens must obey.
It's the fatal conceit in the argument. Gun grabbers are 100% sure the "constitution" will protect "them," because they are confident they will get to be the ones interpreting it. The rest of us are just too stupid, and need guidance from the annointed.
-
I give no credit to slippery slope arguments.
@Jazzhead
Of course not, liberals have used this approach for decades with great success, why on earth would you want to change it.
-
Sorry Pope Jazzhead, this is nothing but empty moralizing and pontificating, and convoluted logic.
Licensing and registration will not affect 'to lift more gun transactions out of the shadows and off of the back of trucks' because those aren't sold legally to begin with. If they are breaking the law now, they won't obey the new one.
By your logic if 'the community' (which is not how our govt works) decides that the rural areas must be cleared of all people for the sake of the environment and moved to the cities or camps en masse, then they must comply or they have ' lost your moral authority, in the eyes of man and of God'.
You keep saying the Constitution will protect us, yet seem to give The Community boundless authority to pass anything they please that citizens must obey.
Private gun sales not involving dealers or government approval are legal today and should always remain so.
I have bought a gun from a co-worker. We met at his truck as we saw no reason to bring the gun into the office. Don't legitimize his attempt to demonize private sales. They are legal, just like cars.
-
It's the fatal conceit in the argument. Gun grabbers are 100% sure the "constitution" will protect "them," because they are confident they will get to be the ones interpreting it. The rest of us are just too stupid, and need guidance from the annointed.
Its like saying "its the law" when they want it, but ignoring the law when they are trying to bring in illegals or something else on their agenda.
-
Registration doesn't keep guns out of people's hands so it is a useless gesture if you feel there are too many guns. Registering cars did not keep cars out of people's hands nor did registering bicycles or pets. So what is the point of doing it from a gun control aspect?
-
So what you're saying is the Constitution's just a worthless scrap of paper? I disagree. It is the foundation by which our individual rights are protected against the abuse of law by the community. I trust the checks, balances and protections against tyranny the Founders put in place; you prefer to be a self-appointed lone ranger.
But whether you like it or not, the community - by which I mean your town, state or nation of which you are a part - still has the ability to pass laws - by means of its elected representatives - to address such problems as gun violence and gun trafficking. No, such laws cannot infringe the RKBA, but neither do you have the right to be a law unto yourself.
Like I said, if you refuse to comply, you risk the law's sanction. That's your choice, but don't give me this crap about moral virtue. You will just be another criminal, taking the law into your own hands.
-
Registration doesn't keep guns out of people's hands so it is a useless gesture if you feel there are too many guns. Registering cars did not keep cars out of people's hands nor did registering bicycles or pets. So what is the point of doing it from a gun control aspect?
The grabbers want a record of who has them, and they are trying (and failing) to convince us it's not so they'll know where they are when it comes to confiscating them, a process already started in California and Hawaii, and other select "communities."
-
So what you're saying is the Constitution's just a worthless scrap of paper? I disagree. It is the foundation by which our individual rights are protected against the abuse of law by the community. I trust the checks, balances and protections against tyranny the Founders put in place; you prefer to be a self-appointed lone ranger.
But whether you like it or not, the community - by which I mean your town, state or nation of which you are a part - still has the ability to pass laws - by means of its elected representatives - to address such problems as gun violence and gun trafficking. No, such laws cannot infringe the RKBA, but neither do you have the right to be a law unto yourself.
Like I said, if you refuse to comply, you risk the law's sanction. That's your choice, but don't give me this crap about moral virtue. You will just be another criminal, taking the law into your own hands.
As I said, you believe the Constitution will protect us, but seem to give The Community boundless powers to pass any laws they please. You have two concepts in direct opposition to each other.
Of course you rely on the 'interpretation' patsy, but if you have a document that can be 'interpreted' by those with the power then you really have no protection at all, just a flimsy pretense.
-
As I said, you believe the Constitution will protect us, but seem to give The Community boundless powers to pass any laws they please. You have two concepts in direct opposition to each other.
Of course you rely on the 'interpretation' patsy, but if you have a document that can be 'interpreted' by those with the power then you really have no protection at all, just a flimsy pretense.
It's all about who gets to interpret it. Activist lawyers arrogate all that power to themselves because they know they are so much smarter than the rest of us. It's why we're called "laymen." Of course our friend is happy to rely on the constitution to protect him: His like-minded friends believe they control the meaning of it with clever wordplay.
-
It's all about who gets to interpret it. Activist lawyers arrogate all that power to themselves because they know they are so much smarter than the rest of us. It's why we're called "laymen." Of course our friend is happy to rely on the constitution to protect him: His like-minded friends believe they control the meaning of it with clever wordplay.
:thumbsup:
-
It's all about who gets to interpret it. Activist lawyers arrogate all that power to themselves because they know they are so much smarter than the rest of us. It's why we're called "laymen." Of course our friend is happy to rely on the constitution to protect him: His like-minded friends believe they control the meaning of it with clever wordplay.
Kinda like "I don't care who votes I care who counts the votes!"
-
"I believe no Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner but I believe the community should determine whether the owner's consent is necessary. "
-
Registration doesn't keep guns out of people's hands so it is a useless gesture if you feel there are too many guns. Registering cars did not keep cars out of people's hands nor did registering bicycles or pets. So what is the point of doing it from a gun control aspect?
@Restored
For the control of course. To further train the subjects that all power comes from the govt, and its only with govt approval that you can defend yourself. and since that will be taken next so the govt has sole discretion on the use of force.
-
The notion that a "community" outweighs the "individual" is repulsive to me. There's an Ayn Rand quote about the smallest minority.
I don't think "licensure" is something the grabbers are going to allow to be decided at the local level.
Quite correct. Just as.... the Democrats pushed through ObamaCare .... against the will of most Americans....
they will (no doubt about it), some day, attempt to push through their gun-grabbing moist-dream legislation.
It's how the radical left rolls, after all. Well, that is... as long as they are up against a well-armed populace. If not, they just swarm in and execute anyone not in complete submission, compliance or agreement.
-
Kinda like "I don't care who votes I care who counts the votes!"
It's not "kinda like." It's "perzackly like." :beer:
-
Registration doesn't keep guns out of people's hands so it is a useless gesture if you feel there are too many guns.
That's not the point. The purpose of registration is not to limit the number of guns you can own or provide information for unconstitutional confiscation. Its purpose is very simple - to identify a gun with the owner who is legally responsible for it. Guns are useful but dangerous implements - what is unreasonable about expecting the gun's owner to be responsible for its use, and its lawful transfer or disposition? In that sense, the purpose for registration of firearms is very similar to the purpose for registration of cars (although the liability regimes will, of course, differ).
-
Its purpose is very simple - to identify a gun with the owner who is legally responsible for it.
And how does that prevent crime?
-
That's not the point. The purpose of registration is not to limit the number of guns you can own or provide information for unconstitutional confiscation. Its purpose is very simple - to identify a gun with the owner who is legally responsible for it. Guns are useful but dangerous implements - what is unreasonable about expecting the gun's owner to be responsible for its use, and its lawful transfer or disposition? In that sense, the purpose for registration of firearms is very similar to the purpose for registration of cars (although the liability regimes will, of course, differ).
But the gun problem in this country is due to people who don't obey laws in the first place, not to the people you describe in your post. You seem to have this tinfoil conspiracy that somehow registration is going to out some nefarious activity on otherwise lawful gun purchases by otherwise law abiding citizens.
-
That's not the point. The purpose of registration is not to limit the number of guns you can own or provide information for unconstitutional confiscation. Its purpose is very simple - to identify a gun with the owner who is legally responsible for it. Guns are useful but dangerous implements - what is unreasonable about expecting the gun's owner to be responsible for its use, and its lawful transfer or disposition? In that sense, the purpose for registration of firearms is very similar to the purpose for registration of cars (although the liability regimes will, of course, differ).
@Jazzhead
The purpose of registration is control of law abiding citizens. It does nothing to hinder the criminals who commit the crimes.
A knife is a dangerous implement.
A table saw is a dangerous implement.
Heck a pillow can be dangerous.
-
But the gun problem in this country is due to people who don't obey laws in the first place, not to the people you describe in your post. You seem to have this tinfoil conspiracy that somehow registration is going to out some nefarious activity on otherwise lawful gun purchases by otherwise law abiding citizens.
It appears the purpose is to make many current lawful gun purchase illegal, making law abiding citizens into criminals.
At that point, you have laws to take their guns away.
-
It appears the purpose is to make many current lawful gun purchase illegal, making law abiding citizens into criminals.
At that point, you have laws to take their guns away.
You're 'smellin' what I'm steppin' in' as the say. That's what it's really about - criminalizing private transfers and the 'gun show loophole,' neither of which seem to contribute to the gun crime problem, but rather are on the Lefty laundry list of things they don't like because they can't control.
-
But the gun problem in this country is due to people who don't obey laws in the first place
And just who are they? A number of folks on this board have declared they won't comply with licensure or registration requirements for firearms, notwithstanding that such laws are Constitutional and would be enacted by the peoples' elected representatives.
-
And just who are they? A number of folks on this board have declared they won't comply with licensure or registration requirements for firearms, notwithstanding that such laws are Constitutional and would be enacted by the peoples' elected representatives.
@Jazzhead
Who commits gun crime? FBI data tells us. 80% of the people are already convicted felons
-
And just who are they? A number of folks on this board have declared they won't comply with licensure or registration requirements for firearms, notwithstanding that such laws are Constitutional and would be enacted by the peoples' elected representatives.
You are equating the members of this forum with MS-13 gang-bangers. You are worse than Nancy Pelosi.
-
And just who are they? A number of folks on this board have declared they won't comply with licensure or registration requirements for firearms, notwithstanding that such laws are Constitutional and would be enacted by the peoples' elected representatives.
And you're willing to pass the laws to make them the criminals v. the MS-13 gang banger types, who already are criminals?
You seem to harbor some hate for people who would only become crimimals by refusing to license/register their guns, and resist the Govt trying to enforce a law that created that new class of criminal.
-
You are equating the members of this forum with MS-13 gang-bangers. You are worse than Nancy Pelosi.
That is absurd. We live in a nation where the laws are determined by the peoples' elected representatives, under the aegis of a Constitution that protects individuals against the abrogation of their rights by majorities. The laws we are discussing are reasonable, Constitutional and (as the study suggests) efficacious to reduce gun crime, and do not affect your right to own as many guns as you want or need. Yet you still lack any sort of trust or faith in this nation or its foundational principles. You reject the proposition that you be legally responsible, in accordance with the community's laws, for the dangerous implements you choose to possess. You refuse to comply.
So be it. Your non-compliance means you are not a law abiding citizen and risk the law's sanction. You are not a law unto yourself.
-
That is absurd. We live in a nation where the laws are determined by the peoples' elected representatives, under the aegis of a Constitution that protects individuals against the abrogation of their rights by majorities. The laws we are discussing are reasonable, Constitutional and (as the study suggests) efficacious to reduce gun crime, and do not affect your right to own as many guns as you want or need. Yet you still lack any sort of trust or faith in this nation or its foundational principles. You reject the proposition that you be legally responsible, in accordance with the community's laws, for the dangerous implements you choose to possess. You refuse to comply.
So be it. Your non-compliance means you are not a law abiding citizen and risk the law's sanction. You are not a law unto yourself.
And you do not adjust the law as it fits to your moral sensibilities. This is not a theocracy, and we have separation of church and state in this nation.
-
That is absurd. We live in a nation where the laws are determined by the peoples' elected representatives, under the aegis of a Constitution that protects individuals against the abrogation of their rights by majorities. The laws we are discussing are reasonable, Constitutional and (as the study suggests) efficacious to reduce gun crime, and do not affect your right to own as many guns as you want or need. Yet you still lack any sort of trust or faith in this nation or its foundational principles. You reject the proposition that you be legally responsible, in accordance with the community's laws, for the dangerous implements you choose to possess. You refuse to comply.
So be it. Your non-compliance means you are not a law abiding citizen and risk the law's sanction. You are not a law unto yourself.
@Jazzhead
The law changes you keep pushing are neither reasonable nor effective. In fact they have been proven time after time to increase crime, theft, injury and death.
Yet you and your kind will not quit, just like you wouldn't quit with a host of other leftist agenda items.
You are ok with ignoring the law if you think it unjust, take illegal immigration as an example. You are also ok with using judicial activism to push through an agenda, gay marriage.
No, we will not trust your kind with this.
-
That's not the point. The purpose of registration is not to limit the number of guns you can own or provide information for unconstitutional confiscation. Its purpose is very simple - to identify a gun with the owner who is legally responsible for it. Guns are useful but dangerous implements - what is unreasonable about expecting the gun's owner to be responsible for its use, and its lawful transfer or disposition? In that sense, the purpose for registration of firearms is very similar to the purpose for registration of cars (although the liability regimes will, of course, differ).
Registering cars has done nothing to prevent car wrecks. There have even been those who intentionally drove into pedestrians. There are a host of unlicensed (unregistered) vehicles on our highways, despite the law, often driven by people who started their tenure here by ignoring immigration laws, although hardly limited to that group. The fleets of stolen vehicles on the highway would dwarf those of Halliburton and the US Army, combined.
If (ignoring momentarily 4th, 5th, 2nd and other Amendment issues) registering cars had really done nothing to reduce the number of fatalities on the highways, despite the increase in safety gadgets in automobiles, them kindly explain how registering a gun is going to reduce the amount of criminal activity conducted, often by people who obtained their firearms outside the law.
All I see is an attempt to provide personal injury attorneys a means to sue people who had nothing to do with that crime, and who may have been victims of theft, themselves.
Go find a different ambulance to chase, counselor.
-
That is absurd. We live in a nation where the laws are determined by the peoples' elected representatives, under the aegis of a Constitution that protects individuals against the abrogation of their rights by majorities. The laws we are discussing are reasonable, Constitutional and (as the study suggests) efficacious to reduce gun crime, and do not affect your right to own as many guns as you want or need. Yet you still lack any sort of trust or faith in this nation or its foundational principles. You reject the proposition that you be legally responsible, in accordance with the community's laws, for the dangerous implements you choose to possess. You refuse to comply.
So be it. Your non-compliance means you are not a law abiding citizen and risk the law's sanction. You are not a law unto yourself.
I will not be compelled to follow a law which is illegal. When Martin Luther King Jr and Ghandi did this it was called "Civil Disobedience". It's only a bad thing when a Conservative threatens to do it.
Passing illegal laws (in violation of the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments) does not make the law something to be followed. Resistance in the face of even budding tyranny is about as patriotic as it gets.
“The wisest thing in the world is to cry out before you are hurt. It is no good to cry out after you are hurt; especially after you are mortally hurt. People talk about the impatience of the populace; but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible because men moved too late. it is often essential to resist a tyranny before it exists.â€
― G.K. Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils: An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State
We are trying to head this nonsense off at the pass, before it becomes an issue for bloodshed and the destruction of the lives of honest and moral people.
-
I will not be compelled to follow a law which is illegal. When Martin Luther King Jr and Ghandi did this it was called "Civil Disobedience". It's only a bad thing when a Conservative threatens to do it.
Passing illegal laws (in violation of the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments) does not make the law something to be followed. Resistance in the face of even budding tyranny is about as patriotic as it gets.
We are trying to head this nonsense off at the pass, before it becomes an issue for bloodshed and the destruction of the lives of honest and moral people.
Oh, stop it with the virtue-signaling and the phony calls for revolution. Your idea of patriotism is warped by your selfishness. Honest and moral people are willing to obey the laws of a constitutional republic derived from the consent of the governed. It is one thing to refuse to obey the laws of Stalin, and quite another to bluster defiance of your fellow citizens and their desire to do something simple and reasonable to help law enforcement get a handle on gun-facilitated murder and violence.
-
Oh, stop it with the virtue-signaling and the phony calls for revolution. Your idea of patriotism is warped by your selfishness. Honest and moral people are willing to obey the laws of a constitutional republic derived from the consent of the governed. It is one thing to refuse to obey the laws of Stalin, and quite another to bluster defiance of your fellow citizens and their desire to do something simple and reasonable to help law enforcement get a handle on gun-facilitated murder and violence.
@Jazzhead
So many fallacies.
Gun crime has gone down and stayed down. Well except is areas with heavy gun control.
The handle is in hand.
-
Gee, I take off a few hours and he's still calling Briefers violent criminals. :smokin:
-
Oh, stop it with the virtue-signaling and the phony calls for revolution. Your idea of patriotism is warped by your selfishness.
I not only did not make a call for revolution, I specifically stated that the idea was to ward off tyranny by not providing the tools to implement it.
You are right in one sense. I am very selfish, in that I deeply desire to finish my days as a free man in the most free country on the planet, and to pass that legacy on to my great grandchildren!
If that's SELFISH, I hope there are legions of other SELFISH people out there who not only want to retain their property, but the rights and freedom that property ensures.
As for accusations of "virtue signalling", save that crap for the tourists. Kindly don't try to bullshit me or anyone else here with some pantload about how altruistic you are for wanting to take away our rights. You are the one embracing concepts which hold the potential to destroy this country. It isn't "virtue signalling" to demand that your rights be left unmolested. To even suggest such about me in the future will be taken as a personal insult, and an attempt to insult the intelligence of all who gather here and read these postings..
Honest and moral people are willing to obey the laws of a constitutional republic derived from the consent of the governed.
We do not consent. Having trouble with that? Simply put, NO. My fellow citizens didn't want Obamacare, either, and what difference did that make? It is one thing to refuse to obey the laws of Stalin, and quite another to bluster defiance of your fellow citizens and their desire to do something simple and reasonable to help law enforcement get a handle on gun-facilitated murder and violence.
Stalin is irrelevant unless he's passing laws here (from beyond the grave) but modelling American legal schemes on those of past dictators has provided us with a pretty good idea of what results to expect. No matter who does this stuff, the result is the same, historically, and in this day and age of efficiency, those seeking a "final solution" to gunowners need only have the lists. (IIRC, not only Jews but Homosexuals, Gypsies, and a host of other 'type' folks were registered in Europe in the 30s and 40s, and that result alone should give you and anyone else considering such a scheme pause. Unless they're in agreement with those sort of results).
I have stood against consensus before, and know the loneliness of being the only person in the room who is right, and arguing that point. When successful, I saved clients millions of dollars, and made them millions more.
In this I am not so lonely: there is a multitude who agree.
If you want law enforcement to get a handle on murder and violence, kindly don't tie them up with useless schemes to create criminals over paperwork.
Because gun owners, following the model of our peaceful neighbors to the North (who were not subject to your hyperbole about wanting to have a revolution or any of that other nonsense you are spewing), will simply not comply. That doesn't imply murder or violence, unless people start kicking down doors and shooting at people who have not bothered to file unconstitutional paperwork. Kick down doors and start shooting, I'm going to return fire if I can. I don't know you from any other violent home invasion.
So, the implementation of such a scheme, even among Canadians, who would simply not comply with the law, proved to be neither simple nor easy.
Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry)
Canada discarded this scheme, in a less freedom oriented society, without our Constitution or Second Amendment. They could not get it to work, and most essentially, the attempts at registration did nothing to improve Public Safety:
Former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino opposed the gun registry, stating in a press release in 2003:
We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry)
It was a failure there and it isn't going to work here, either. That resistance was a peaceful endeavor, as I have embraced in the event it become necessary here, unless the wannabe tyrants want to take it to another level.
But, like full blown and oft failed Socialism, maybe the "right people" haven't tried it yet. Maybe they didn't try "hard enough"--another way of saying throw enough money at it.
In Canada, the means employed at thwarting this initiative were simple, and what have been embraced as the preferred course of action here should it become necessary: NONCOMPLIANCE.
It is estimated that the long guns in Canada which went unregistered in five years handily outnumbered those which were registered. The expense of continuing the registration scheme ballooned from the original cost of a couple million CAD to more like a billion. Finally, the government threw in the towel, unwilling to attack gun owners to force them to comply or to prosecute noncompliance.
No bloodshed. No war.
Now, If that is to be avoided here, not only should the idea of forcible compliance be discarded, but the whole scheme could be similarly tossed out and save the money and the diversion of law enforcement personnel and resources to a scheme which WILL FAIL, not only to prevent crime, but to achieve its primary goal of assembling a database of guns and owners (and collecting all those nominal fees).
Just forget it, and not only will people not be needlessly turned into felons by edict and decree for doing nothing which was criminal last year, but you will save a lot of money, too!
As a bonus, the investigative and other law enforcement abilities of all those personnel could be used to pick up and prosecute all the drug dealers, murderers, and other nasty criminals out there. Maybe even send some of those (additionally) criminal illegal aliens out of the US, too!
If, however the objective is so ingrained that you control people, that the government begins assaulting those it has decreed to be criminals for not complying with unconstitutional paperwork requirements, that escalation of force will predictably be seen as an attack on the fundamental Civil Rights of the People who own guns and appropriate levels of force used in response. Not always, but often enough that either the government will back down, or the tyranny will spiral upward, with responses becoming more common, necessary in the eyes of the public, and brutal. You have the option as was pointed out by all here of not advocating instigating/initiating hostilities.
It isn't assault for telling you that if you hit me, I'm going to hit back. I'm just saying "Don't even think about it!"
You are the aggressor, here, calling for diminishing the fundamental Civil Rights of the individual American and an entire class of people based on devices they legally own today, and then trying to say those who are calling for resistance to the idea, resistance to the implementation of the idea, and even resistance to the forcible implementation of the idea (should it be implemented and that forcible action be taken against gun owners) are somehow calling for "revolution" in trying to preserve the status quo. What an impeccable logical fallacy!
When we say that we will not be a party to that theft of our Rights, we will not aid it in any way, and we will resist, you say people are calling for revolution and blood in the streets. Nope. Actually, we are the ones who have looked at the big picture and are trying to avoid blood in the streets. Those who seek to implement fundamental changes are the revolutionaries, not those who seek to keep things the same.
So, who, counselor, is the revolutionary *(as in Mao, Che, Castro, Lenin) but those calling for the blatant subversion of our Constitution through incremental programs establishing the means for the Government to wage war against its own people?
We don't have to be PhD's in History to see that a registry leads to confiscation leads to subjugation and worse. Ultimately, that is what disarmament permits, and there is no other reason to disarm the population in general. Registration just facilitates that.
So, NO. We will not comply.
That is Civil Disobedience.
No broken windows or burned neighborhoods or looted liquor stores, just quiet people saying "no" and not complying. Not even blocking traffic.
I also see you haven't addressed the demonstrated inability of the government, which cannot even keep high level probes secure (leaks!), which can be defeated in its own security by a cross-dresser pretending to listen to Lady Gaga, to keep secure the information which would in this case, if established, provide lists of firearms owned and the addresses of the owners to any criminal element which hacked it. I wouldn't trust that lot to pull off a surprise party without information security leaks, much less keep secure a list of items which might be in my possession which would be of particular interest to criminals.
The Canadian database was easy to hack, (see the Wiki article I linked).
-
Gee, I take off a few hours and he's still calling Briefers violent criminals. :smokin:
Criminals for laws that do not exist.
-
Criminals for laws that do not exist.
Beyond the Minority Report/Bill of Attainder attitude is being accused of a crime that isn't a crime (yet) because they might pass that law when people get stupid enough to be manipulated into letting them.
-
What we need are more studies that can differentiate between bad gun laws and those which are actually efficacious. No one wants gun laws that penalize lawful gun ownership and use.
Horseshit. All this DOES is penalize lawful gun owners. While doing nothing at all to the criminal.
-
Horseshit. All this DOES is penalize lawful gun owners. While doing nothing at all to the criminal.
Ah, but you see, Rearden...that problem goes away as soon as we define "criminal" broadly enough to sweep everybody in.
-
Its purpose is very simple - to identify a gun with the owner who is legally responsible for it. Guns are useful but dangerous implements - what is unreasonable about expecting the gun's owner to be responsible for its use, and its lawful transfer or disposition?
Because I have guns I haven't seen in years. How am I supposed to know their disposition?
If someone were to steal those guns, I wouldn't even know it happened.
-
The laws we are discussing are reasonable, Constitutional and (as the study suggests) efficacious to reduce gun crime,
No, they are not.
and do not affect your right to own as many guns as you want or need.
Yes they do.
Yet you still lack any sort of trust or faith in this nation or its foundational principles. You reject the proposition that you be legally responsible, in accordance with the community's laws, for the dangerous implements you choose to possess. You refuse to comply.
This country is founded in distrust of government. This country is founded in the idea that tyranny must be overturned as a matter of duty.
So be it. Your non-compliance means you are not a law abiding citizen and risk the law's sanction. You are not a law unto yourself.
Big deal. There are so many laws now that one cannot make it through a day without breaking some law or another.
-
It is one thing to refuse to obey the laws of Stalin, and quite another to bluster defiance of your fellow citizens and their desire to do something simple and reasonable to help law enforcement get a handle on gun-facilitated murder and violence.
They are one and the same. The very same thing.
You are not 'getting a handle' on anything. What you propose will not stop ME, not to mention someone of a rougher sort.
In what way does this bullcrap stop any crime, or effect criminals in the least?