Recommended Posts
jfields 0
QuoteExactly, registration is the first law to enable to seizure of firearms. It's not merely paperwork.
We'll just have to disagree. The registration itself in no way hampers either your alleged right to own a weapon or the legality of owning a weapon. It is merely a list. Just like the Motor Vehicle Administration, the Selective Service, Social Security, or any other list.
QuoteYou have no constitutional right to own a piece of property.
Correct.
QuoteI have the right to bear arms.
Debateable. If it were clear cut, the Supeme Court wouldn't have seen so many cases, with results in both directions.
Quote
You have a right to due process of law and fair compensation.
As do you, whether we are talking about guns, cars or property.
QuoteWe'll just have to disagree. The registration itself in no way hampers either your alleged right to own a weapon or the legality of owning a weapon.
But it is a catalyst, and every seizure of weapons in every democratic nation that's ever taken place began with this step. If that step was not allowed to happen, it would have been much more difficult.
Here's another one for you, currently ongoing. FBI is confiscating all of a certain make of gun.
http://www.komotv.com/stories/26049.htm
How would you like your car to be seized and held as evidence for an indeterminate period of time because the same model was used in a hit and run?
http://www.komotv.com/stories/26049.htm
How would you like your car to be seized and held as evidence for an indeterminate period of time because the same model was used in a hit and run?
QuoteWe'll just have to disagree. The registration itself in no way hampers either your alleged right to own a weapon or the legality of owning a weapon. It is merely a list. Just like the Motor Vehicle Administration, the Selective Service, Social Security, or any other list.
Lets give you a little different comparison viral -vs- political:
Gun registration, its the first step of a process that may or may not take away your right to own a gun, but likely will.
= HIV, its the first step of a process that may not kill, but likely will.
Gun Confiscation, happens after registration. It may take decades, or it may take months to kill your right to bear arms
= AIDS, happens after HIV infection. It may take decades, or it may take months to kill a person.
Now if HIV doesn't actually cause problems, just begins a process that may... IS IT OK?
Jib 0
[replyThe registration itself in no way hampers either your alleged right to own a weapon or the legality of owning a weapon. It is merely a list. Just like the Motor Vehicle Administration, the Selective Service, Social Security, or any other list.
With one difference, it identifies me by my exercise of constiutional rights as a member of a group. Driving a car is a privilege. Taxes are to be paid by all. It's not like any other list and Big Brother has no legitimate reason to keep it.
QuoteI have the right to bear arms.
QuoteDebateable. If it were clear cut, the Supeme Court wouldn't have seen so many cases, with results in both directions.
No, the Supreme Court doesn't have decisions going both ways. They haven't really spoken directly on the issue on a long time. The primary decision that you are talking about is from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which are the most reversed judges in the country. They just can't seem to follow the law or accurately quote the opinions of the founding fathers. The opinion was issued in response to the 5th Circuit's opinion that there is an individual right to bear arms.
--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt
jfields 0
QuoteBut it is a catalyst, and every seizure of weapons in every democratic nation that's ever taken place began with this step. If that step was not allowed to happen, it would have been much more difficult.
Mostly true. But as we progressed from colonial days, through the western expansion, industrialization and other phases to where we are today, things have changed. It is simply a fundamental process of cultural evolution. We are more crowded, more diverse, more prosperous and more interconnected than ever before. Those changes come with associated prices. Some level of oversight for the common good is one of those prices. There were days before we had police. Before we had an Army. Those groups, like a registration list, can be either used or misused.
The list is not the spark that prompts gun confiscation. The list is admittedly an accellerant (sp).
1. Certain weapon gets outlawed.
2. List is used to help confiscate weapons mentioned in 1.
If you hold the line on number 1, then number 2 is moot. We are debating a subtlety. You are against both. I am generally against the 1, but not 2. I can see the occasional positive uses of a registry making it worthwhile, since it does not actually hinder your right to own a legal weapon responsibly. It only hinders your right to own an illegal weapon. I'm not debating the decision to make a weapon legal or illegal. The registry does not effect that.
Quotesince it does not actually hinder your right to own a legal weapon responsibly. It only hinders your right to own an illegal weapon.
You're still missing the point. The point is that these weapons should not be made illegal in the first place because it is a constitutional violation.
Please tell me what good has come from banning "assault style weapons"? Because they look scary? Because they have a pistol grip? Because you can mount a bayonette on the end? Yeah, lots of bayonette attacks these days.
Then there's the ban on mags w/ more than 10 round capacity. What's the point? How many crimes are being prevented by that? How many people have been shot, or even shot at by the 11th round in a mag?
The banning that's taken place so far has been useless, feel good, measures to make Sarah Brady feel all warm and fuzzy. Much like a lot of the patriot act measures that have the same effect of restricting us without doing anything to protect us.
If someone could show a measurable justification or improvement for any of the bans that have taken place, I'd reconsider my stance. Until then, I will adamantly oppose any effort toward that end.
In fact, when not comparing numbers from other countries or places with disparaging cultures or laws, the loosening of gun restrictions for non-criminals has had a positive effect on crime rates. Philly is a perfect example. In 1995 they were forced by the state to issue carry permits which they didn't do up to that point. The gun crime and murder rate has dropped steadily in the city ever since.
jfields 0
Kevin,
I'm not arguing with you on what is or isn't made illegal, or whether it even makes sense.
I'm just saying that, for good or bad, sensible or not, AFTER something has been made illegal, I have no objection to enforcement of the law. I'm not saying the laws are perfect, or even always sensible, just that once the law is passed, it is past the point of most functional debate. At that time, lawful (by the books, etc.) enforcement can commence. I'm not saying storm trooopers ought to be brought in to terrorize people. Once again, of whatever functional value, a law is useless if not enforced. After a law is passed, the logical subsequent step is enforcement. That is all.
I'm not arguing with you on what is or isn't made illegal, or whether it even makes sense.
I'm just saying that, for good or bad, sensible or not, AFTER something has been made illegal, I have no objection to enforcement of the law. I'm not saying the laws are perfect, or even always sensible, just that once the law is passed, it is past the point of most functional debate. At that time, lawful (by the books, etc.) enforcement can commence. I'm not saying storm trooopers ought to be brought in to terrorize people. Once again, of whatever functional value, a law is useless if not enforced. After a law is passed, the logical subsequent step is enforcement. That is all.
Justin:
Trust me. I in no way advocate violating laws. To do so would be a violation of my oath. I dont' break my word.
We both agree that laws should be followed. Those that don't keep me employed. And I wouldn't want to pay me!
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Trust me. I in no way advocate violating laws. To do so would be a violation of my oath. I dont' break my word.
We both agree that laws should be followed. Those that don't keep me employed. And I wouldn't want to pay me!
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteI'm not saying the laws are perfect, or even always sensible, just that once the law is passed, it is past the point of most functional debate.
I understand what you're saying. But what I'm saying is that these laws aren't sensible, and shouldn't be passed. And without registration preceding them, they wouldn't be passed. That is why I oppose registration.
jfields 0
QuoteAnd without registration preceding them, they wouldn't be passed.
This puzzles me. I've never claimed to be as knowledgeable about gun laws as you, but doesn't it seem a bit odd to say that the ban was put into place because they can know who it applies to?
That is like saying, "Because we can see who is tall, we are initiating a fee for everyone who exceeds 5'6".
I don't see the cause and effect working in that direction.
Zenister 0
QuoteQuoteThe one thing I disagree with you about is the "suck up and deal. That is a democracy." Remember, we are not a democracy. We are a republic. And our job, if we do not like the law, is to either challenge the law in court, or fire the legislature and bring in others.
By "Suck up and deal", I mean, "Obey the law." That isn't saying you shouldn't object in court, demonstrate, vote, boycott and use every other lawful persuasion you can. But disagreement with a law does not grant exemption from it. We have the freedom to vote on issues, but then the obligation to abide by the results.
Hell No! Conscience Objection to a law that you feel unjust is meaningless unless you say 'No!' and will not obey any law you feel is unjust or unwarranted. Social disobedience means making your ‘elected leaders’ aware that certain actions are intolerable and will not be obeyed, it means taking a stand whenever your 'elected leaders' pass laws you find intolerable.
Gun registration and confiscation is an important example. I know many LEOs who have personally told me they would never enforce laws that take away an average citizens ability to defend themselves, or laws that lead to such and end (registration)
The willingness to break laws that you feel unwarranted is one of the balances to keep government in check. Far to many people roll over like sheep and say “well it’s a law it must be right” instead of fighting for their fundamental freedoms.
the ability to say "fuck you i wont do what you tell me" is an important distinction between america and other countries
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
jfields 0
Quotethe ability to say "fuck you i wont do what you tell me" is an important distinction between america and other countries
No, really, it isn't.
People in other countries can do that too. Here, like there, if you do that, you can be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to jail time. Being an American doesn't give an exemption from our own laws.
Where America is different is that you have a right to a fair trial to determine guilt or innocence.
Zenister 0
say "fuck you" to a german cop sometime, see what happens
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
QuoteWhere America is different is that you have a right to a fair trial to determine guilt or innocence.
Where the constitutionality of a law can be challenged. That's the point of civil disobedience and why it works in this country.
QuoteThis puzzles me. I've never claimed to be as knowledgeable about gun laws as you, but doesn't it seem a bit odd to say that the ban was put into place because they can know who it applies to?
That is like saying, "Because we can see who is tall, we are initiating a fee for everyone who exceeds 5'6".
I don't see the cause and effect working in that direction.
But that's exactly how it does work. Banning follows registration. Without registration, there can be no ban. Personally, I'd rather stop the process where banning and confiscation is made possible at the point before I have to excersise civil disobedience and become a criminal.
If you don't know who is tall, why would you initiate a fee that you could never collect? You won't. And if you don't know who has weapons that you'd like to confiscate, there's no point in passing a law that bans them.
I'll state right now, that if registration of existing weapons is ever instituted, there will be "people" who won't comply. Weapons will be socked away and unregistered so that noone knows where they are when the inevitable ban is passed. And at that point an otherwise law abiding citizen, who legally posessed a legal item has suddenly been institutionally criminalized.
Oh yeah...and give me one of those tickets
Quotesay "fuck you" to a german cop sometime, see what happens
Is there a story that you should be sharing?
Why the fuck should we pay the fucking U.N. for anything ? We need to get the fuck out of the U.N. . All the U.N. is there for is to push us towards a one world government and I for one don't want to be a part of that . If you like the thought of a gun free society that is free of crime feel free to move to Europe and see what it is really like .QuoteOr maybe, just maybe, the UN actually has some good ideas.
Perhaps one of the problems in their effectiveness is that some major countries (including the United States) don't even pay the dues they've promised. So much for our reputation and the honor of a country's word.
Perhaps another reason we are having so many "issues" with the UN is that we are shirking our self-proclaimed duty to be a thoughtful world leader, and instead are taking the role of playground bully. If we acted responsibly in the first place, perhaps we find ourself less conflicted with the UN.
I'm not getting into the gun issue, since we've been over it a thousand times and I have a busy day. But I do think it is a stretch to go from disagreements about gun ownership to discussion of withdrawing funding from the UN (already essentially done) and bombings.
If the whole world thinks you are a jerk, it might be time to consider that the whole world isn't wrong, and you are acting like a jerk.
It sounds like you are just the kind of subject the one world government is looking for . " You are going to take my land to build a road , that annoys me but I guess there is nothing I can do about it so pay less than what it's worth and I will accept it " . Hire a fucking lawyer and fight the sons of bitches . Grow some balls between your legs people . The gated community I lived in was having this problem with the city and we sued and we won . People in this country are spineless whimps and THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT US TO BE .QuoteQuoteWhat purpose do you suppose that serves? I may consider a scheme where manufacturers and sellers are required to keep records that can they only be accessed via a valid search warrant. But what usefullness would come from a centralized database?
What good comes from a centralized database of car ownership? Recovery of stolen property and assistance in identifying people who habitually violate the law. As a driver that obeys the law, I have nothing to fear from the database. It can actually help me.QuoteThis statement, "see registration as a good thing. It helps us keep track of the weapons, and who their rightful owners are. If a particular type of weapon is outlawed, registration aids in the efficient enforcement of the law.", scares the hell out of me.
Is registering with the selective service bad, because that is the list that would be used in the event they ever started up a draft? Or is it part of our civic duty, to both register, and to challenge the need to use the list on any given occasion?QuoteBecause that's exactly what it's been used for. People in Cali were forced to register specific weapons because they looked similar to (but did not have the same function as) military arms. Then they were forced to turn them in, without sufficient compensation. And if they didn't, they were arrested.
Lets focus on the problem here. I don't know the details about the incident.
1. Did a law get passed that said certain guns were illegal?
2. Did the law itself allow for confiscation?
3. Did it specify a compensation for confiscated weapons?
4. Is the compensation fair?
If 1, but not 2, then I have an equal problem if they went ahead and did it anyway. The police, like the citizens, must obey the law.
If 1,2 & 3, but not 4, then you have a gripe against your lawmakers, but not against registration itself. The registration isn't what hurt you.
In all these cases, the item that allowed the chain of events to begin is the law. That is where the battle should be, not over subsequent paperwork, which is all a registration is, in essence.QuoteDo you really support the notion that a legally purchased and owned item can be deemed illegal later and then seized from you? How would you like to lose your posessions that you worked and paid for?
Yes, I a sense, I do support that. Can you build a road, a stadium, a post office or an airport without getting the land? Do our laws allow for people to be forced to sell their land to the government so a municipal project can be undertaken? Yes.
How would I feel? I'd be annoyed. If they didn't give me a fair value for my property, I'd be really pissed off. Does it happen? Yes. The system isn't perfect. To be somewhat hypothetical for just for a moment, isn't the very land your house is built on confiscated property if you look back far enough?
As for the California gun registration it did happen and people were made criminals just for owning a gun that was legal a month before . You want to hear the real kicker , guns that were turned in were sold by the state for a profit . I have a contract with L.A. county and several other counties to buy turned in assault weapons and confiscated handguns . I thought they were trying to save lives .
The machine gun ban was thought up by a group of assholes from capitol hill that invested very heavily in the gun market . You think they did it to save lives , bullshit they did it for PROFIT . The best part of the ban was as soon as the guns doubled in price the dipshits from D.C sold and guys like me and a few others bought and sat on them for 15 years and doubled our money twice .
QuoteThen there's the ban on mags w/ more than 10 round capacity. What's the point? How many crimes are being prevented by that? How many people have been shot, or even shot at by the 11th round in a mag?
Perhaps an ill-disguised attempt to reduce our ability to combat a tyrannical government? I mean really, none of the bans that are in place deter crime in the least, but they do tip the odds in favor of the military/police should an uprising occur.
Given the right to keep and bear arms is for the security of a free state, shouldn't the arms we're allowed to bear match up reasonably against the weapons of potential opponents? Obviously the average citizen can't afford an Abrams, but what's the legal justification given for banning the ownership of a few LAWs?
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
A) Driving is not a constitionally guaranteed right
B) There is not a large movement afoot to take away your car
I don't get the correlation.
First #1 was passed, that's it. Later #2 was passed along with #3 and it did not meet #4.
The chain of events began with #1. Without that, the rest could not have taken place.
This is an entirely different issue. The point that I think you are missing is that cars and land are not the very things that were guaranteed in the constitution in order to protect you from the people who want to take them away.
If the government decides to start confiscating land and possessions without due process or confiscation (they already do because of drug law forfeiture), and because of a corruption of those in power the laws cannot be peacefully reformed to protect ourselves, how are we supposed to do it?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites