billvon 3,110
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Quote
>a gun registry simply provides cetralization of data of who to confiscate
>them from once that law is passed.
Do you believe that requiring cars to be registered is really a plot started by those who wish to confiscate everyone's cars?
It's hard to ignore the one registration example in CA that lead exactly to confiscation.
It's not relevant to this topic, which is making the information that exists available to every stalker, burglar, and anti gun nut out there.
Quote
Also agreed. But then again, you have the right to get around. And most people do so in cars, even though they must be registered, and you must have a driver's license to operate one.
You know that driving is NOT a right, merely a priviledge.
So we're back to my unanswered question - what gain is there in this opening of information? And how can it possibly outweigh all the negative consequences. And while we're at it, do you reject the right to privacy as expressed in Roe v Wade?
billvon 3,110
>what gain is there in this opening of information?
There is certainly potential gain in knowing whether a given person has a gun if the police are about to arrest him for murder - they will know that they must be extremely cautious.
Now, you will answer "well, that's too hard to do, criminals won't register guns, guns don't commit crimes people do, cops should be careful anyway" etc etc etc. And you have every right to that viewpoint. So does everyone else, even if they disagree with you. And in local cities and states, all those people have a right to decide for their own communities if they want registration.
There is certainly potential gain in knowing whether a given person has a gun if the police are about to arrest him for murder - they will know that they must be extremely cautious.
Now, you will answer "well, that's too hard to do, criminals won't register guns, guns don't commit crimes people do, cops should be careful anyway" etc etc etc. And you have every right to that viewpoint. So does everyone else, even if they disagree with you. And in local cities and states, all those people have a right to decide for their own communities if they want registration.
normiss 892
we already have those in most states
either a concealed carry permit, or a gun registration.
not including the sale documentation that the state requires. private sales are not required to do this.
so umm....what's the original question again???
see, we already have this registration system. it just isn't national yet.
Quote>what gain is there in this opening of information?
There is certainly potential gain in knowing whether a given person has a gun if the police are about to arrest him for murder - they will know that they must be extremely cautious.
This discussion is about making this information available to anyone, not just cops. So answer the question being asked.
Do you honestly think the police would need to know this information before they arrest a person for murder? Their procedure isn't going to change a single bit.
mnealtx 0
QuoteThat's an original line.Quoteas some guns registries have been used in the past:
once guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.Quote
The government will have a list of who to visit to collect guns from.
I will not register my guns. None ya.
and regarding the plane registry, my guns do not pose a public sector safety issue. my guns do not fall from the sky and kill hundreds of people at a time.
Guns kill far more people than planes every year, both in the USA and worldwide.
Cars kill even more - your point is?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteit was at least as original as your recent comment regarding nothing to worry about if we're not doing anything illegal. how people forfeit their rights so quickly amazes and disappoints me.
Where is your right to confidentiality in gun ownership stated?
Everything else in your post is moot.
Let's see...WHO was it that mentioned rights that didn't need to be explicitly stated in the Constitution? Oh, that's right...it was YOU... I suppose that only goes for the liberal cause-of-the-week, then?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
Quote>you missed the second half of my line...if you make things illegal,
>purchasing goes underground.
Agreed. Guns should be legal for every sane law-abiding adult to own if they so choose. (At least in the US.)
>a gun registry simply provides cetralization of data of who to confiscate
>them from once that law is passed.
Do you believe that requiring cars to be registered is really a plot started by those who wish to confiscate everyone's cars?
>i believe i have the human right to protect and defend myself and my
>family. what gives you the right to take that away from me?
Also agreed. But then again, you have the right to get around. And most people do so in cars, even though they must be registered, and you must have a driver's license to operate one.
Registrations can and HAVE been used to take guns from law abiding owners - see NYC, Chicago, California et al... your comparison to cars in this instance is trumped.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteThat's an original line.Quoteas some guns registries have been used in the past:
once guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.Quote
The government will have a list of who to visit to collect guns from.
I will not register my guns. None ya.
and regarding the plane registry, my guns do not pose a public sector safety issue. my guns do not fall from the sky and kill hundreds of people at a time.
Guns kill far more people than planes every year, both in the USA and worldwide.
Cars kill even more - your point is?
My point is that he made a silly argument.
BTW car ownership records are not secret, cars must be registered and drivers licensed. You are not helping your case here.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteQuoteit was at least as original as your recent comment regarding nothing to worry about if we're not doing anything illegal. how people forfeit their rights so quickly amazes and disappoints me.
Where is your right to confidentiality in gun ownership stated?
Everything else in your post is moot.
Let's see...WHO was it that mentioned rights that didn't need to be explicitly stated in the Constitution? Oh, that's right...it was YOU... I suppose that only goes for the liberal cause-of-the-week, then?
Can you tell me where the right to keep gun ownership secret has ever been established by any court as an inalienable right that does not need to be explicitly stated?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteit was at least as original as your recent comment regarding nothing to worry about if we're not doing anything illegal. how people forfeit their rights so quickly amazes and disappoints me.
Where is your right to confidentiality in gun ownership stated?
Everything else in your post is moot.
Let's see...WHO was it that mentioned rights that didn't need to be explicitly stated in the Constitution? Oh, that's right...it was YOU... I suppose that only goes for the liberal cause-of-the-week, then?
Can you tell me where the right to keep gun ownership secret has ever been established by any court as an inalienable right that does not need to be explicitly stated?
According to you, it doesn't need to be. Where is the right to marry listed? (one of your inalienable examples). Are you SURE you want to head down *THAT* road, Doc?
As I noted above, I would think that it would (also) qualify under the 4th.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteit was at least as original as your recent comment regarding nothing to worry about if we're not doing anything illegal. how people forfeit their rights so quickly amazes and disappoints me.
Where is your right to confidentiality in gun ownership stated?
Everything else in your post is moot.
Let's see...WHO was it that mentioned rights that didn't need to be explicitly stated in the Constitution? Oh, that's right...it was YOU... I suppose that only goes for the liberal cause-of-the-week, then?
Can you tell me where the right to keep gun ownership secret has ever been established by any court as an inalienable right that does not need to be explicitly stated?
According to you, it doesn't need to be. Where is the right to marry listed? (one of your inalienable examples). Are you SURE you want to head down *THAT* road, Doc?
As I noted above, I would think that it would (also) qualify under the 4th.
Are you saying now that there exists an absolute right to privacy, or just a right to privacy for the things that you support.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteit was at least as original as your recent comment regarding nothing to worry about if we're not doing anything illegal. how people forfeit their rights so quickly amazes and disappoints me.
Where is your right to confidentiality in gun ownership stated?
Everything else in your post is moot.
Let's see...WHO was it that mentioned rights that didn't need to be explicitly stated in the Constitution? Oh, that's right...it was YOU... I suppose that only goes for the liberal cause-of-the-week, then?
Can you tell me where the right to keep gun ownership secret has ever been established by any court as an inalienable right that does not need to be explicitly stated?
According to you, it doesn't need to be. Where is the right to marry listed? (one of your inalienable examples). Are you SURE you want to head down *THAT* road, Doc?
As I noted above, I would think that it would (also) qualify under the 4th.
Are you saying now that there exists an absolute right to privacy, or just a right to privacy for the things that you support.
You tell me, Doc... you seem to be putting yourself forward as an expert in regards to what is protected information or not.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteit was at least as original as your recent comment regarding nothing to worry about if we're not doing anything illegal. how people forfeit their rights so quickly amazes and disappoints me.
Where is your right to confidentiality in gun ownership stated?
Everything else in your post is moot.
Let's see...WHO was it that mentioned rights that didn't need to be explicitly stated in the Constitution? Oh, that's right...it was YOU... I suppose that only goes for the liberal cause-of-the-week, then?
Can you tell me where the right to keep gun ownership secret has ever been established by any court as an inalienable right that does not need to be explicitly stated?
According to you, it doesn't need to be. Where is the right to marry listed? (one of your inalienable examples). Are you SURE you want to head down *THAT* road, Doc?
As I noted above, I would think that it would (also) qualify under the 4th.
Are you saying now that there exists an absolute right to privacy, or just a right to privacy for the things that you support.
You tell me, Doc... you seem to be putting yourself forward as an expert in regards to what is protected information or not.
I've already told you - based on existing laws concerning any number of things (explosives, vehicles, pharmaceuticals, hazardous chemicals, radioactive materials...) I don't see possession of any article in secret as being a protected right either impicilty or explicitly in the USA.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteI don't see possession of any article in secret as being a protected right either impicilty or explicitly in the USA.
Let us get back to the actual point of the OP - which is OWNERSHIP of the weapon, not whether or not it is carried.
Perhaps you would be in favor of banks publicizing withdrawals of large amounts of money? How about the purchase of precious gems or other commodities?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteI don't see possession of any article in secret as being a protected right either impicilty or explicitly in the USA.
Let us get back to the actual point of the OP - which is OWNERSHIP of the weapon, not whether or not it is carried.
Perhaps you would be in favor of banks publicizing withdrawals of large amounts of money? How about the purchase of precious gems or other commodities?
Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought the thread title was "BATFE Gun Trace Data". So discussing the availability (or otherwise) of the data seems appropriate.
Anyway, now we've established the legality of it (it clearly is legal) you can get on to discuss the wisdom of it.
If it comes to pass, I hope you legal gun owners(TM) will not flout the law by refusing to comply.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteIf it comes to pass, I hope you legal gun owners(TM) will not flout the law by refusing to comply.
So now you're against civil disobedience as well?
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteIf it comes to pass, I hope you legal gun owners(TM) will not flout the law by refusing to comply.
So now you're against civil disobedience as well?
Only by those who trumpet their "law abiding" status.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
unjust laws don't get to enjoy respect.
>prove it's bloodlines - i do not however agree with state farm insurance
>being able to cancel my home owners poilcy based on those same records.
OK. So we agree.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites