[Oldpsufan]

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."

 

[DontTreadOnI]

Kick rocks, that's what I would say.

I know my rights and don't have to qualify them to anyone.

 

[Jab73180]

What logic do you speak of?

-Jason

 

[ANGLICO]

What logic do you speak of?

-Jason

Using Roberts Rules of Order - I Second the above statement!

 

[ntkb]

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.

 

[Badey]

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...

 

[GeorgiaDawg]

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.

 

[OldVet]

His logic relies on the way he wants it to work, not the way it will work.

 

[ninjahippie]

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"

 

[phreddy]

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.

 

[ChadliusNH]

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:

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.

 

[HotGuns]

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.

 

[Bardo]

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?

 

[Bardo]

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.

 

[BadgerJ]

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/uc...11/violent-crime/violent-crime-offense-figure

 

[TX expat]

His logic relies on the way he wants it to work, not the way it will work.

Funny how that works!

 

[Oldpsufan]

Thank you all for your input, I will use a few of these (without names of course).

 

[Stevew]

Ask him when does he reckon the criminals will start registering their guns. That is what this is about, right, crime. Most likely the criminals will not fill out the registration forms for the guns they steal, even if we are required to keep blank forms with our guns at all times. What problem will gun registration solve? Mass shootings? Not. Crime? Don't think so.
The only reason to need to know where the guns are is so the government knows where to go when they get ready to consficate guns.

 

[Pistology]

Most despicable to me is his using the statement, "ANY unregistered handgun (the kind used in 87% of all firearm related crime) could be confiscated and the holder charged with felony possession". We are becoming to desensitized to citations of statistics to lead us to an "obvious" social solution that is ineffective at best and often touted by tyrants, lesser power mongers, and self-promoting pigs with their snouts in the trough. But I digress.
What he's saying is that since 87% ( ) of firearms crime involves an unregistered handgun, then a law to address that statistic solves the problem. Yeah, on paper in a classroom. We need more people who study the gritty side of history, who train a plan of action to overpower the potential threats most likely, and fewer pseudo intellectuals.

 

[Snub44]

...Mr. Always-Right's fulla cwap on this one...crime has never gone down due to gun laws being passed...the FEW criminals dissuaded by the "wonder legislation" are off-balanced by the honest citizens now made criminal by the new laws...
...the number of guns on the streets doesn't drop...the price just goes up...
...this fella sounds like he gets all his experience sittin' on his duff...


...ask him to research the HISTORICAL FACTS about what happens to every country's citizen right to own guns once there is a national registry...that oughta keep him busy for awhile...