$5 Million Fine in Floirda

[billvon 3,119]

>The problem is that any list of legal gun owners, compiled for
>whatever arbitrary reason, could be used to aid in confiscating
>weapons...

I agree; it's a risk we have to take if we believe in free speech. Just as guns can be used by unscrupulous people to commit murder. It's a risk we have to take if we believe in private gun ownership.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>Now you're being silly. And that's a sign of a weak argument.

I find it absolutely fascinating that you call arguments that you yourself make 'silly' when they do not support your position. I agree; they are silly. So is the "knives kill people; should we ban knives?" argument that you yourself have made.

>So to answer your question; No, all lists are not bad. Only some of
>them, and some of the people that act upon them.

Lists are as evil as guns i.e. they are not evil at all. A gun is just a machine, a list is just names. You cannot make an argument for banning one without applying it to the other. Either things are be evil because of how they _might_ be used or they are not. Which will it be?

I understand the parallel that you are trying to draw. But I'm not buying it. The issue here is one of privacy. The government shouldn't go around making lists of law-abiding people in different categories. We got over that practice after the McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover days.

If you allow lists of gun owners as "harmless", then you might as well also make lists of all women who have had abortions, and all people who purchase alcohol, and all people who take prescription drugs, and people who visit psychiatrists, and... Where would it end?

The bottom line for me is, if you aren't breaking the law, then the government doesn't have any business tracking anything you're doing.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

And if certain people have no intention of killing people, there is no need for them to own handguns.

Ah yes, the old "guns are only made to kill" argument. I think we've thoroughly de-bunked that one in other threads here in the past.

Quote

And you are trying to tell a housing development that they CANNOT protect themselves in that way.

If they want to solicit volunteers to respond with their arms to neighborhood threats, that's fine with me. But they shouldn't have a right to access a government mandated list of armed homeowners.

Such lists would be real handy for criminals looking for good burglary targets.

Quote

You seem to get irate when someone tells you you can't protect yourself by having a dozen guns; yet you propose a law that would prevent someone from picking up a phone and calling a few people for help?

People can call anyone they want. It's okay with me. But if some stranger was to pick my name off a government list and call me to come help them, and bring my gun with me... Well, I'm not responding. That's the job of the police. If they need a gun to defend themselves, then they should have bought one.

Quote

Until now, I wasn't sure if your adamant stand on gun rights was indicative of your personal philosophy of keeping the government out of our private lives or just a "I want my guns; nothing else matters" kind of thing.

This is an extreme over-reaction to my position here. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms. I believe in personal freedom and choice. I believe in a right to privacy. Not wanting the government to maintain lists of law-abiding gun owners has nothing to do with me being selfish at everyone else's expense. Sheesh.

[billvon 3,119]

>The government shouldn't go around making lists of law-abiding
> people in different categories. We got over that practice after the
> McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover days.

Uh, they do, bigtime. Ever had a job? Ever paid taxes? Ever bought property? Ever registered for the draft? Ever applied for a building permit, a car registration, a public school? The government have literally thousands of lists. The lists aren't the problem. It's what people do with them.

>If you allow lists of gun owners as "harmless", then you might as well
>also make lists of all women who have had abortions, and all people
> who purchase alcohol, and all people who take prescription drugs,
> and people who visit psychiatrists, and... Where would it end?

There already are lists of people who buy alcohol with credit cards. Supermarkets track purchasing habits very closely with computers and target their ads accordingly. Anti-abortion groups make lists of doctors who perform abortions. Pharmacies keep _very_ detailed records of people who buy drugs. HMO's keep track of who visits psychiatrists, how long they go and how much they pay for them. Do you propose making any of these lists illegal? Or do guns represent a special 'untouchable' category?

>The bottom line for me is, if you aren't breaking the law, then the
> government doesn't have any business tracking anything you're
> doing.

The government is already tracking much of your life, from what you drive to how much you make to how many children you have to what charities you donate to. None of that is the problem. It is how they USE that information.

[billvon 3,119]

>Ah yes, the old "guns are only made to kill" argument. I think we've
>thoroughly de-bunked that one in other threads here in the past.

Seems like you've added a "lists are only intended to confiscate guns" argument. I am merely in the process of thoroughly debunking that one.

>But they shouldn't have a right to access a government mandated
>list of armed homeowners.

If you support this bill, you are saying they can't even make their own list of who to call.

>Such lists would be real handy for criminals looking for good burglary targets.

But your IRS records telling people exactly how much you make, and your DMV records telling people what kind of car is in your garage and how old it is - that's OK?

>Not wanting the government to maintain lists of law-abiding gun
>owners has nothing to do with me being selfish at everyone else's
> expense.

Hmm. You seem to be supporting a law that prevents _anyone_ from making or maintaining any sort of list they choose, while simultaneously stating that you are against any law that prevents you from owning any weapons you want, no matter how dangerous or unneccesary they are. Seems like a bit of a contradiction.

[vonSanta 0]

Hm, kinda hard to ar4gue against BillVon's logic here - if you adhere to the "it ain't the tool, it's the man" philosophy.

And I don't think his use is far stretched. It's the same kind of argument; just one word has been changed.

This thread just handed the gun control people an effective reply to the "guns don't kill people..." 'infallible' line.

Gonna be interesting to see what responses there'll be and how it'll be used.

In the words of the British sitcom "Red Dwarf:
Get outta this one, you smeghead!"

Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

>Ah yes, the old "guns are only made to kill" argument. I think we've
>thoroughly de-bunked that one in other threads here in the past.

Seems like you've added a "lists are only intended to confiscate guns" argument. I am merely in the process of thoroughly debunking that one.

Bill, for the umpteenth time, every time a government created a list of gun owners, it proceeded to confiscate their firearms. Why is this a hard concept for you to believe?

It happened in NYC, it happened in California, it happened in DC. It happened after the October Revolution. It happened in Germany in the late 1930s.

Guatemala
Uganda
China
Zimbabwe
Cambodia
Turkey

Boy, practicing gun control and gun owner lists would sure put the US government in good company, huh?

So how are you going to debunk a historical fact? Do you have one example of past registration of gun owners that has not led to confiscation?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

For an example of how seemingly harmless lists can be abused, just look at the Talkback thread titled: "High Electric Bill = Drug User?"

The police have managed to get the electric company to allow them to peruse their private billing records. From there, the police look for people in a neighborhood whose electric bills are higher than average. And that makes them illegal drug suspects.

With examples like that, you wonder why gun owners would be suspicious of government that wants to make lists of gun owners?

[kallend 2,150]

Seems to me that making it illegal for a private citizen to make any kind of a list at all is a violation of that citizen's First Amendment rights.

Preventing the government from making a list is fine with me.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

That's the law in PA already. Recently strengthened by the State Supreme Court. When you buy a handgun, a notice goes to the state police so that they can follow up in case the instant background check missed something. They are required to destroy that info I believe within 60 days. They were keeping the list forever and the Supreme Court ordered them to stop. There's a specific statute that no list or registration may be kept.

Most people including cops are ignorant about it. When a cop recently asked me if my gun was registered and I told him no, he just about freaked out.