California: Gun Registration

[rhaig 0]

Quote

It's always easy to quote dead men to support your case.

you DO realize that's what you've been doing with "The pen is mightier than the sword"... don't you??

--
Rob

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

"The pen is mightier than the sword"

The sword is still winning in China. It won in the Soviet Union - it was only at the very very end did all the people in the FSU nations find out how badly they had been fucked by Moscow and the Cold War.

For the US, the pen was useless until the sword forced out the Brits. The VC certainly didn't fight off the French and then Americans with a pen.

The pen only has greater value in a relatively free society, where heretical ideas aren't met with executions.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It's always easy to quote dead men to support your case.

Oh the irony. Your quote was from a dead man.

What's even more lame is your method of argument, like this one, attacking the life status of the people who made the quotes, rather than the logic contained in them. For example, your argument seems to imply that all quotes from dead men are worthless, and that includes the large majority of well-respected, time-tested material, and leaves very little modern else to go on. It's quite obvious that you are an amateur in this game, both in your knowledge of guns, and in debate.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

It's always easy to quote dead men to support your case.

Oh the irony. Your quote was from a dead man.

What's even more lame is your method of argument, like this one, attacking the life status of the people who made the quotes, rather than the logic contained in them. For example, your argument seems to imply that all quotes from dead men are worthless, and that includes the large majority of well-respected, time-tested material, and leaves very little modern else to go on. It's quite obvious that you are an amateur in this game, both in your knowledge of guns, and in debate.

You guys are brilliant. Thanks for the personal attack.



Anyway ... I believe I used an aphorism rather than a quotation.

[rhaig 0]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pen_is_mightier_than_the_sword

Quote

"The pen is mightier than the sword" is a metonymic adage coined by English author Edward Bulwer-Lytton in 1839 for his play Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy.

The Author died 18 January 1873.

You quoted a dead man.

--
Rob

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I believe I used an aphorism rather than a quotation.

When caught with your pants down, you resort to word games, and finger-pointing accusations of personal insults. Next up, I predict, you'll have nothing left in your tool box of tricks, and will resort to personal insults. Amateurish... If you want to play here, you better grow some thick skin, presto-chango.

If you're going to debate, do some thinking, and actually come up with something factual and/or logical on-point to the issue. For example, tell us how you think gun registration stops criminals from committing gun crimes. Can you do that?

Call it an aphorism or a quote, it doesn't matter. They represent ideas, and ideas aren't invalid just because they're old. Otherwise our Constitution would be worthless, and the Magna Charta. Shakespeare, Dante, Einstein, Plato and Socrates - do you consider all of their ideas unworthy of our time also?

But hey, I give you a little credit for knowing the big word "aphorism".

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

The government has the right to regulate guns.

yeah, so tell again how you support individual rights ....

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

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Please tell us in which ruling of the Supreme Court that can be found.

And "ban" is not the same as "regulation".

so now the supreme court is your guide on respecting rights? Funny, but that's not what you said in another recent thread. So tell me again how you think rights should automatically be in efffect at all times, and not depend on saying or doing extra things. Hypocritical much?

Tell me again which of us believes in the full spectrum of individual rights.

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

[billvon 3,132]

Your one warning. Cut it out.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Please tell us in which ruling of the Supreme Court that can be found.

And "ban" is not the same as "regulation".

so now the supreme court is your guide on respecting rights? Funny, but that's not what you said in another recent thread. So tell me again how you think rights should automatically be in efffect at all times, and not depend on saying or doing extra things. Hypocritical much?

Tell me again which of us believes in the full spectrum of individual rights.

The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, NOT what you say it means.

"Regulation" does not equal "ban".

And on the subject of individual rights, do YOU think felons and loonies have a right to own guns?

...

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

[Kennedy 0]

Funny how when they limit rights you don't like, you say that they are the final authority, but when they limit rights you don't like, they are a bunch of political cronies who wouldn't know juris prudence from stare decisis. So which is it?

As to felons owning firearms, no I don't think that should be allowed. I recognize the importance of individual rights and I recognize that rights have limits. But at least I'm consistent (both across the spectrum and across time). More than I can say for you, professor.

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

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Funny how when they limit rights you don't like, you say that they are the final authority, but when they limit rights you don't like, they are a bunch of political cronies who wouldn't know juris prudence from stare decisis. So which is it?

As to felons owning firearms, no I don't think that should be allowed. I recognize the importance of individual rights and I recognize that rights have limits. But at least I'm consistent (both across the spectrum and across time). More than I can say for you, professor.

Please provide a link to a single post where I have denied the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the meaning of the Constitution.

...

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

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Funny how when they limit rights you don't like, you say that they are the final authority, but when they limit rights you don't like, they are a bunch of political cronies who wouldn't know juris prudence from stare decisis. So which is it?

Please provide a link to a single post where I have denied the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the meaning of the Constitution.

In this post you state that a person should have "rights by default", contrary to what the supreme court said.

Then anytime someone disagrees with the SCOTUS about a particular facet of firearms law or other right you don't care for, you state that the issue is settled by SCOTUS and folks should shut up.
(Of course it's more likely you state their position is contrary to SCOTUS, even when that isn't the case without your particular talent for ignoring tracts of text and twisting the meaning of the ones you do read)

So care to address the apparent discrepancy, or are you going to ignore this, too?

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

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Funny how when they limit rights you don't like, you say that they are the final authority, but when they limit rights you don't like, they are a bunch of political cronies who wouldn't know juris prudence from stare decisis. So which is it?

Please provide a link to a single post where I have denied the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the meaning of the Constitution.

In this post you state that a person should have "rights by default", contrary to what the supreme court said.

Then anytime someone disagrees with the SCOTUS about a particular facet of firearms law or other right you don't care for, you state that the issue is settled by SCOTUS and folks should shut up.
(Of course it's more likely you state their position is contrary to SCOTUS, even when that isn't the case without your particular talent for ignoring tracts of text and twisting the meaning of the ones you do read)

So care to address the apparent discrepancy, or are you going to ignore this, too?

Did you hurt your shoulder with that reach? (Good line that, I borrowed it).

If you can't tell the difference, take a civics class.

...

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In this post you state that a person should have "rights by default", contrary to what the supreme court said.

Good luck with that. He won't even explain his 'rights by default' mantra versus his desire to make sure that potentially, but not proven, crazy people can't buy guns.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

License the individual, not the inanimate object.

If someone who is NOT licensed is caught with a firearm, then throw the book at them. But stop this nonsense of registering inanimate objects. When will you Liberals ever accept the fact that "Criminals do not register their weapons". There is a reason why they are referred to as criminals. Law abiding, responsible, licensed firearms owners should not subjected to confiscation from the state. Gun Registries have nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with confiscation sometime in the future.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Kennedy 0]

The funny thing is that (in the USA) a convicted felon cannot be prosecuted under a "failing to register" charge. Because registering a weapon they are banned from possessing would qualify as being ompelled to give evidence of one's guilt, convicted felons are the only people not required to register their guns.

They can be charged under felon in possession of a firearm charges, but those work whether there is a registry or not. So why would anyone want a registry. We can look to our northern neighbors, your home, and see just how big a waste a gun registry really is.

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

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

We can look to our northern neighbors, your home, and see just how big a waste a gun registry really is.

It is a 2+ billion dollar waste (and counting) and it has done absolutely nothing towards stopping criminals from using firearms in their crimes.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

In this post you state that a person should have "rights by default", contrary to what the supreme court said.

Good luck with that. He won't even explain his 'rights by default' mantra versus his desire to make sure that potentially, but not proven, crazy people can't buy guns.

If there is a set of people that have a certain right, and another set of people that don't have that right, then determining which set a person belongs to is perfectly appropriate.

If you're determined to have a certain right, then you shouldn't then have to explicitly ask for it in order for it to apply to you and be told that if you don't ask you don't get it.

...

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

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

The funny thing is that (in the USA) a convicted felon cannot be prosecuted under a "failing to register" charge. Because registering a weapon they are banned from possessing would qualify as being ompelled to give evidence of one's guilt, convicted felons are the only people not required to register their guns.

They can be charged under felon in possession of a firearm charges, but those work whether there is a registry or not. So why would anyone want a registry. We can look to our northern neighbors, your home, and see just how big a waste a gun registry really is.

What if they go from "law abiding citizen" to felon by committing a crime AFTER registering the gun? Or do you share the naive belief that legal gun owners never commit crimes?

...

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

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

License the individual, not the inanimate object.

If someone who is NOT licensed is caught with a firearm, then throw the book at them. But stop this nonsense of registering inanimate objects. When will you Liberals ever accept the fact that "Criminals do not register their weapons". There is a reason why they are referred to as criminals. Law abiding, responsible, licensed firearms owners should not subjected to confiscation from the state. Gun Registries have nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with confiscation sometime in the future.

Fine with me.

...

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

What if they go from "law abiding citizen" to felon by committing a crime AFTER registering the gun?

What about it? Then they're a criminal and should be prosecuted. So what's your point?

Until you invent your future crime prediction machine, we don't know who might do that.

And we shouldn't have a society where nobody is allowed to have any firearm freedoms because of the possibility that they might do something bad in the future. Because that's a hell of slippery slope that could grow to encompass a whole bunch of other things.

[skypuppy 1]

in canada all guns are supposed to be registered, a law which is totally ineffective and has ended up costing well over $1 billion dollars since it went into effect (it was supposed to pay for itself through registration fees).

Just recently the rcmp began confiscating some rifles that had been legally bought and registered, after which they decided they were not legal.

And it is actually quite common here for police to confiscate weapons from someone's estate, and has been a source of grief for some families who have had entire collections taken without compensation.

There are places in this province where you can't go to the dump without seeing bears, and where bears freely roam. And bears do cause a lot of property damage, livestock kills and do attack humans (one a couple of weeks ago in my county). Foxes and other small animals get rabies and attack pets and children in yards. Guns are tool to enable you live safely in rural areas, and making it harder to get or use them is not the way to go.

Hopefully, in the very near future the long gun registry will be repealed. It is an affront to honest, rural canadians, not to mention first nations people (who incidently have claimed not to be subject to canadian laws as they are their own 'sovereign' nation). Shootings will go on in the city anyway.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

What if they go from "law abiding citizen" to felon by committing a crime AFTER registering the gun? Or do you share the naive belief that legal gun owners never commit crimes?

Then like John said, try them for the offense committed.

I answered yours, let's see if you'll answer mine.
What purpose does a registry serve? Why do you want to drop all that money into a new federal program? You do know that NICS has been up an running for a long time, right?

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

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

What if they go from "law abiding citizen" to felon by committing a crime AFTER registering the gun? Or do you share the naive belief that legal gun owners never commit crimes?

Then like John said, try them for the offense committed.

I answered yours, let's see if you'll answer mine.
What purpose does a registry serve? Why do you want to drop all that money into a new federal program? You do know that NICS has been up an running for a long time, right?

Don't you think it would be handy to KNOW that the new FELON has a gun, and what it is?

...

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