Federal Gun Registration

Federal Gun Registration

This is a discussion on Federal Gun Registration within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I am on another (non gun) forum and there is a person there who is always right, please respond to his logic below. "I guess ...

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 89
Like Tree104Likes

Thread: Federal Gun Registration

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array Oldpsufan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,263

    Federal Gun Registration

    I am on another (non gun) forum and there is a person there who is always right, please respond to his logic below.

    "I guess I just don't get the refusal to register a gun. You already have a registered car. You file taxes every year. If you have a cell phone, it's monitored. You're on a traffic cam almost every time you go on a highway. If you bought your gun with a credit or debit card OR in Pennsylvania, it's trackable. In PA, you had to pass a background check, regardless of whatever bill is passed or fails in the senate, we already HAVE that rule here. If you buy ammo with your CC/DC, it's trackable.

    The benefit of a gun registry, to me, is that if registration of legal handguns were required, then in urban areas, ANY unregistered handgun (the kind used in 87% of all firearm related crime) could be confiscated and the holder charged with felony possession. If this happens, gun crime WILL go down. Illegal owners AND illegal guns will come off the streets. Gun advocates WILL be able to trumpet the "law-abiding gun owner" argument even louder. The second amendment will become even MORE iron-clad than it already is.

    The text of the amendment is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is, the ONLY amendment in the ENTIRE constitution to have a qualifying phrase. "A WELL REGULATED militia being necessary to the security of a free state...." No other amendment is qualified. They are straightforward rights. No reason given. No "regulation" is stated RIGHT THERE IN THE AMENDMENT. Anyone trying to use the 2nd amendment to fight regulation, when the second amendment uses fully HALF of it's words to require regulation, is simply not paying attention.

    And a registration does not, in any way, infringe the right to keep and bear. There is no reason not to have a registry except for the "slippery slope" argument which is a red herring argument. You can use it for ANY proposed law. If they can do THIS, why can't the do THAT??!??! Well, because that's not how it works. To do THAT, they need to pass ANOTHER law. Especially in this legal and political climate, any law passed will likely specifically REJECT any "slippery slope" possibility from coming to fruition."
    “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
    ― Edward R. Murrow


  2. #2
    Distinguished Member Array DontTreadOnI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,442
    Kick rocks, that's what I would say.

    I know my rights and don't have to qualify them to anyone.
    CIBMike likes this.
    If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

  3. #3
    Member Array Jab73180's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    100
    What logic do you speak of?

    -Jason

  4. #4
    VIP Member
    Array ANGLICO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    I'm the guy next door that is polite, but does not tell you crap.
    Posts
    3,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Jab73180 View Post
    What logic do you speak of?

    -Jason
    Using Roberts Rules of Order - I Second the above statement!
    msgt/ret likes this.
    Socialism Kills! Time proven, with a very large body count! We are a Constitutional Republic....... not a Democracy, get it correct!

    Don't be mistaken for a Gecko45: http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/

    Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14qTdp-Dd30

    ANGLICO Images

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array ntkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    679
    Because there is no evidence that gun registration is an effective tool to prevent crime or solve it. However it's most useful for confiscation of things like guns.
    Last edited by ntkb; June 25th, 2013 at 11:03 PM.
    1911 when a follow up shot just isn't an option

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,096
    He is making several mistakes in his "logic"

    How will registration lead to the discovery that the guns possessed by BGs are illegal?

    How has registration (in states that mandate it) helped to lower crime (think NY, DC, Chicago - yes, I know its not a state)?

    How has registration/confiscation reduced overall crime in other countries (gun crime, yes, overall violent crime, no)?

    If handguns in PA are already registered, why is Philly so rife with gun crime?

    Just because something can be traced doesn't mean that it should be...
    Oldpsufan, BadgerJ and ccw9mm like this.
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array GeorgiaDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,153
    1. A gun registry would not reduce crime: if a criminal is using an unregistered gun to kill someone, the lack of registration is the least of his worries.
    2. A registry would only apply to law-abiding citizens: criminals aren't going to pay money to register a gun that they are probably going to use for criminal behavior.
    3. A registry would be a waste of time and money: it would be a registry of law-abiding citizens, not criminals, yet it would take millions if not billions of dollars to create and maintain
    4. A registry could potentially put forth undue hardship on those who can't afford to register their guns
    5. A registry would not apply to the phrase "a well regulated militia": the phrase is talking about people who know what they are doing with firearms. It has nothing to do with the firearms, themselves, such as whether they are of a certain length, caliber, or if they have a serial number.
    6. A registry would be a necessary prerequisite to confiscation: if the government doesn't know how many guns are really out there, they can't realistically know who has what.

    A registry would do nothing to reduce crime, yet it would add undue burdens to the people and allow the government to confiscate firearms with greater ease if it should so choose to do so.
    Badey, Oldpsufan, phreddy and 8 others like this.
    "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

    “The purpose of the law is not to prevent a future offense, but to punish the one actually committed” - Ayn Rand

  8. #8
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,617
    His logic relies on the way he wants it to work, not the way it will work.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  9. #9
    New Member Array ninjahippie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    WY
    Posts
    21
    The phrase "well regulated" also had a different colloquial definition at the time the 2a was written. Today we read it as "legally controlled". In those days (in this context) it would have meant something more like "well trained and capable".

    For an example of definitions from the dictionary of the time see this link:Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
    "I have plenty of liberal and conservative friends. I take them as the individuals they are." - Chris Hernandez

  10. #10
    Distinguished Member Array phreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spartanburg, SC
    Posts
    1,967
    It is already illegal to commit a crime with a gun. Crime with guns still exist. Therefore, gun laws don't stop crime. How's that for logic?

    Per his arguement about tracking via debit cards or credit cards. I can choose to pay cash. Even if I do use a dc/cc, the only information that is trackable is how much I spent, nit what I spent it on. For all the governemtn knows, I could have bought a camping toilet on that trip to Acadamy.
    BadgerJ and hammer2213 like this.

  11. #11
    Member Array ChadliusNH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgiaDawg View Post
    1. A gun registry would not reduce crime: if a criminal is using an unregistered gun to kill someone, the lack of registration is the least of his worries.
    2. A registry would only apply to law-abiding citizens: criminals aren't going to pay money to register a gun that they are probably going to use for criminal behavior.
    3. A registry would be a waste of time and money: it would be a registry of law-abiding citizens, not criminals, yet it would take millions if not billions of dollars to create and maintain
    4. A registry could potentially put forth undue hardship on those who can't afford to register their guns
    5. A registry would not apply to the phrase "a well regulated militia": the phrase is talking about people who know what they are doing with firearms. It has nothing to do with the firearms, themselves, such as whether they are of a certain length, caliber, or if they have a serial number.
    6. A registry would be a necessary prerequisite to confiscation: if the government doesn't know how many guns are really out there, they can't realistically know who has what.

    A registry would do nothing to reduce crime, yet it would add undue burdens to the people and allow the government to confiscate firearms with greater ease if it should so choose to do so.
    ^ This!

    But Add:

    Quote Originally Posted by ninjahippie View Post
    The phrase "well regulated" also had a different colloquial definition at the time the 2a was written. Today we read it as "legally controlled". In those days (in this context) it would have meant something more like "well trained and capable".
    To #5.

  12. #12
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,935
    The guy is an idiot.

    He doesn't understand history.
    He doesn't understand the context of "regulation" as it was used.
    He doesn't understand human nature.
    He doesn't understand logic.

    Nothing you can say on the internet will make him understand.
    He is a waste of time.

    Wash your hands of him and be done with it.
    TX expat, phreddy, mg27 and 9 others like this.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  13. #13
    Member Array Bardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Oldpsufan View Post
    The text of the amendment is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is, the ONLY amendment in the ENTIRE constitution to have a qualifying phrase. "A WELL REGULATED militia being necessary to the security of a free state...." No other amendment is qualified. They are straightforward rights. No reason given. No "regulation" is stated RIGHT THERE IN THE AMENDMENT. Anyone trying to use the 2nd amendment to fight regulation, when the second amendment uses fully HALF of it's words to require regulation, is simply not paying attention.
    I can't speak to the issue of a federal registration because I'm not sufficiently paranoid to worry about that. I agree, we've already lost so many battles against our freedoms and rights. The only good argument I can give against that is that at some point, a line must be drawn in the sand. Auto registration, cameras everywhere, these are all *already* infringements against being "free men".

    That said, I can definitely speak to the question of the "well-regulated militia":

    This is actually a trickier turn of phrase than you may think. The first 10 amendments were restrictions placed on the constitution by the states in order for them to ratify the constitution. (See the preamble to the bill of rights here: Bill of Rights Transcript Text)

    The restrictions given were to prevent the powers of the federal government from getting out of hand. The federal government had the power to call up a militia, and the states were afraid of that power, so they added the 2nd amendment to explicitly show that the *PEOPLE* of the state had the power to keep and bear arms in the event the militia were used against them.

    The qualifying statement in the 2nd amendment "a well regulated militia" means: "A restricted militia."

    Hence, the core meaning of the 2nd amendment is *not* about the militia, but the right of the people.

    For additional context: Article 1, section 8 of the constitution defines the militia. The preamble to the amendments talks about the fact that they were written by the states to amend the articles of the constitution.

    To put it another way... the states were saying:

    "We acknowledge that you must have a militia to defend the country, BUT... the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed EVEN THOUGH you have a militia."

    Had the framers intended for the 2A to apply to the militia itself, it would have read:

    "A well armed Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the ability of members of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Which is absurd, since by definition, a militia wouldn't be denied the ability to bear arms. Why would they write that?

  14. #14
    Member Array Bardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Oldpsufan View Post
    It is, the ONLY amendment in the ENTIRE constitution to have a qualifying phrase.
    BTW, his misunderstanding of the 2A tends to tell me he hasn't actually READ the ENTIRE constitution. ;)
    phreddy likes this.

  15. #15
    Distinguished Member Array BadgerJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic
    Posts
    1,498
    Crime rate is already going down especially in areas where private LAC carry permits are going through the roof. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...offense-figure

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •