• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

Yeah, that would be ok. And maybe a way for the People to call for the removal of a Justice. It would have to be a large barrier so you couldn't do it willy nilly; but maybe something. That way if the SCOTUS really f's up; they can be held accountable by the People.

But we do have a way if we ever decide to do this it's called the 1st Adm "The Right to petition the government"
 
LiveLeak.com - Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?



Hahah. Of course, I don't really agree with databasing and registering...well most anyone. So I really wouldn't support something like this. But I like the idea of it, makes me laugh. Why should the gun owners be the one's to register, we're just exercising a right. It's much better to register non-gun owners as they're the one's refusing to do their duty to the Republic and will be useless in a zombie fight.

Umm...I also don't know why there's a video with that link, there's other links

A Novel Idea. Register non-gun owners - Patriotic Resistance

Why should demolition experts register with the state?

Or pilots?

Or commercial drivers?

Or people who handle dangerous chemicals?

Or pharmacists?

Or people who breed deadly snakes? Or tigers?

Or people who sell alcohol?

Think of all the paperwork we'd save, if we would just leave those folks alone and let them do whatever they want?:roll::roll::roll::roll:

Think, Ikari. Think.
 
Why should demolition experts register with the state?

Depends on what they are demolition. Anything that can be entirely contained to private property, the government can piss off on.

Or pilots?

In so much as licensing goes, but that's probably it.

Or commercial drivers?

Same as above

Or people who handle dangerous chemicals?

Why?

Or pharmacists?

No, why should they register that they're a pharmacist? They had to go through a lot of school to get their license for that.

Or people who breed deadly snakes? Or tigers?

Why? Are these people running around turning snakes and tigers into weapons? What business is it of government?

Or people who sell alcohol?

Not at all.

Think of all the paperwork we'd save, if we would just leave those folks alone and let them do whatever they want?:roll::roll::roll::roll:

Paperwork is the least of the concerns. The primary is the databasing, information gathering, and expansion of power over the People which comes with increasing, more aggressive government.

Think, Ikari. Think.

Take your own advice. Also, I stated "most", it's not an absolute. Maybe in addition to you thinking, you should also read.
 
Why should demolition experts register with the state?

They do both State and Federal if they handle explosives

Or pilots?

We do it's Federal (FAA)

Or commercial drivers?

They do all CDL are now Federal Issue. (DOT)
Or people who handle dangerous chemicals?

They do both Local/State and Federal
Or pharmacists?

Both Federal and State

Or people who breed deadly snakes? Or tigers?

Some States do have this requirement

Or people who sell alcohol?

All Local and States have this also it's part of the Federal Drinking Age Act
 
Last edited:
I'm not. As I've repeatedly stated, I disagree with much of government registration and databasing.

You yourself have made a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions: People without guns will be able to get them when demand is high, that people who don't have guns will even go through the process of being able to fight despite having hamstrung themselves by not having been prepared, that people with guns will give up their guns to those without, etc.

But since I am the one arguing AGAINST the registration, the burden of proof is on YOU to show that those assumptions are incorrect.

Ikari said:
I have the ability to understand arguments and where they come from even if I disagree in the base. Also, stupid arguments annoy me and I oft argue against them regardless of position. I'm not one with a high tolerance for stupidity.

And yet you're defending one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard - that this is somehow necessary for a properly functioning militia - and then retreating behind "I'm not ACTUALLY defending this argument" whenever it's pointed out how retarded this argument is. Make up your mind.

Ikari said:
No it's not. You're taking all MY information. For myself and my property, without due cause. You're not registering the gun, the gun is linked to ME. Thus it's registering ME. You have my personal information tied up in the lot of crap you think the government should have. The gun can't register itself, I or the gun store would have to do it. And it would be linked to address/name, etc. That's registering the person and their property without due cause or warrant.

No, that's registering your property. The gun is linked to you in case of a crime. If, on the other hand, the police wanted a database of everyone in the area who owned a gun, and wanted to search it for possible suspects, I would be opposed to that.
 
Last edited:
Actually, they want to publish the list of people who DON'T own guns so the criminals will know who it's safe to rob.

Uh huh. And why is making things easier for robbers a compelling interest of the state? Did you have anything useful to say, or were you just trolling?
 
Can the State regulate it? There's always freedom of assembly and association. The only legitimate claim I could think of by the government is if they deem them some form of revolutionary army as they are allowed to put down revolution. Meh, that's an aside anyway.

As for the National Guard, I can see where and why you are deriving your definition, however, I would say that ideally they were to act as some form of State "militia" in some sense. But the Federal govenrment has usurped it well and now functionally it's basically an arm of the federal standing army. In which case makes it not a militia at all.
Careful of the context in which you say they have power to put down revolutions.
 
That is fricken hilarious. I love it!

I especially love this:

For what reason? It seems to be selective incorporation of raw data that doesn't analyze the multiple variables that could alter crime rates and therefore doesn't actually measure the connection between firearm prevalence and crime. To do that, you'd need something like Duggan's More guns, more crime:

This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one‐third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993.

:shrug:
 
Well Vermont is sounding better and better than. Register non-gun owners and low crime!

The registry should be open to the public, so neighbors know who among them is dangerously unarmed.
 
Can the State regulate it? There's always freedom of assembly and association. The only legitimate claim I could think of by the government is if they deem them some form of revolutionary army as they are allowed to put down revolution. Meh, that's an aside anyway.

As for the National Guard, I can see where and why you are deriving your definition, however, I would say that ideally they were to act as some form of State "militia" in some sense. But the Federal govenrment has usurped it well and now functionally it's basically an arm of the federal standing army. In which case makes it not a militia at all.

No, the Federalist Papers explicitly state that the reason the people are free to own guns is that a tyrant may rise among them and command the militia to end their liberty, and the people will then have the means at hand to defend themselves and hopefully overthrow the would-be tyrant. Federalist 28, I think.

Not to mention the fact that owning property is a basic human right, the freedom to choose, and firearms are nothing but a class of property.
 
Uh huh. And why is making things easier for robbers a compelling interest of the state? Did you have anything useful to say, or were you just trolling?

It would encourage more people to exercise their constitutional right to own guns.

Gee, you're not arguing that if the criminals suspect a home owner is armed they move on to someone else's house, are you?
 
For what reason? It seems to be selective incorporation of raw data that doesn't analyze the multiple variables that could alter crime rates and therefore doesn't actually measure the connection between firearm prevalence and crime. To do that, you'd need something like Duggan's More guns, more crime:



:shrug:

Hmmm...the facts contradict poor Duggan.

More guns, especially, CCW, less crime. Seems that criminals don't like being afraid of their possible victims. Clearly that's unfair and we should ban guns to make things easier on the poor hardworking thief.
 
It would encourage more people to exercise their constitutional right to own guns.

And why is encouraging people to exercise their constitutional right a compelling interest of the state? Aren't you supposedly a libertarian?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Gee, you're not arguing that if the criminals suspect a home owner is armed they move on to someone else's house, are you?

Then they can put a sign on their front door that says "I'm armed." :roll:
 
And why is encouraging people to exercise their constitutional right a compelling interest of the state?

That would lower the crime rate.

Hey, abortion is a right, so we should fine women who don't abort.
 

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636]Amazon.com: More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics) (9780226493633): John R. Lott Jr.: Books[/ame]

I thought you were opposed to abortion.

I'm opposed to forced-UHC, too, but apparently the left has no issue with forcing people to exercise their rights.

If there's nothing wrong with forcing people to get insurance, then there's nothing wrong with forcing people to get a firearm.

Maybe we should follow Obama's example and force people to practice a religion, too.
 

OK, let's temporarily accept the thesis that more guns means less crime:

That's still very different from what is being proposed here. This is proposing to register non-gun owners. So how would this lower the crime rate? It would just direct the crime to the places where the criminals are the safest. What is the reasoning behind the argument that more guns means less crime: Isn't it the belief that more guns serve to dissuade criminals through the fear of getting shot by their would-be victims? If that is the case, this would actually RAISE crime, because it would completely eliminate that fear.

Or are you suggesting that this will encourage more people to own guns? If that is the case, would the original thesis still hold? Is the mere act of owning a gun (even if you only own it because the state forces or "encourages" you to do so) enough to reduce crime? I would contend that the people on the margins, who would only own a gun with the government's "encouragement," are probably less likely than the average gun owner to confront a criminal with their gun.

Jerry said:
I'm opposed to forced-UHC, too, but apparently the left has no issue with forcing people to exercise their rights.

That isn't a matter of forcing you to exercise your rights, it's a matter of correcting an economic externality. I don't give two ****s if you choose to be irresponsible and not get health care when it's available to you...except you'll make the public and/or the hospital foot the bill when you get sick. Furthermore, ending price discrimination based on pre-existing conditions needs to be coupled with a mandate to prevent people from gaming the system and only signing up when they get sick. Anywho, let's stay on topic.
 
Last edited:
OK, let's temporarily accept the thesis that more guns means less crime:

That's still very different from what is being proposed here. This is proposing to register non-gun owners. So how would this lower the crime rate? It would just direct the crime to the places where the criminals are the safest.

Or are you suggesting that this will encourage more people to own guns? If that is the case, would the original thesis still hold? Is the mere act of owning a gun (even if you only own it because the state forces or "encourages" you to do so) enough to reduce crime? I would contend that the people on the margins, who would not own a gun without the government's "encouragement" but would own a gun with the government's "encouragement," are probably less likely to confront a criminal with it...thus negating the entire point that guns reduce crime.



That isn't a matter of forcing you to exercise your rights, it's a matter of correcting an economic externality. I don't give two ****s if you choose to be irresponsible and not get health care when it's available to you...except you'll make the public and/or the hospital foot the bill when you get sick. Furthermore, ending price discrimination based on pre-existing conditions needs to be coupled with a mandate to prevent people from gaming the system and only signing up when they get sick. Anywho, let's stay on topic.

Well that's the point: not owning a gun costs the public more in combating crime.

Since not doing something will cost everyone a little more, you should therefore be forced to do it.
 
Well that's the point: not owning a gun costs the public more in combating crime.

If that's true, is it mere OWNERSHIP of a gun that reduces crime? Or is it the fear of someone USING the gun that reduces crime?

The kind of people who don't want guns - but would get one at the government's "encouragement" - are probably the kind of people who will never fire it once in their life, will keep it locked in some inaccessible place, and may as well not have it at all. That doesn't do much to reduce crime. Government may be able to force/encourage someone to buy a gun, but they can't change their basic behavior.

In fact, directing criminals to the homes where they're the safest would likely have the exact OPPOSITE effect on the crime rate.

Jerry said:
Since not doing something will cost everyone a little more, you should therefore be forced to do it.

Except this bill doesn't force anyone to own a gun. It just helps criminals find the easiest targets. Thus having the exact opposite effect of what you claim to want.
 
Last edited:
If that's true, is it mere OWNERSHIP of a gun that reduces crime? Or is it the fear of someone USING the gun that reduces crime?

Yes.

Ownership instills a fear in others that you will use it, and that is a deterrent.

The kind of people who don't want guns - but would get one at the government's "encouragement" - are probably the kind of people who will never fire it once in their life, will keep it locked in some inaccessible place, may not even own any ammo for it, and may as well not even have it at all. That doesn't do much to reduce crime.

They also sound like the kind of folks who would move away. I'm fine with that.

In fact, directing criminals to the homes where they're the safest would likely have the exact OPPOSITE effect on the crime rate.

Narrowing the list can only be a good thing.

Except this bill doesn't force anyone to own a gun. It just helps criminals find the easiest targets. Thus having the exact opposite effect of what you claim to want.

Crimes-of-opportunity bro, not some mastermind. Increasing the % of gun carrying citizens repels opportunistic criminals in general.

The left has established the premise that forcing people to exercise rights is acceptable if not exorcising those rights would cost the general population a tiny little bit more. Therefore we can substitute any right and apply the logic.
 
Yes.

Ownership instills a fear in others that you will use it, and that is a deterrent.

So hypothetically, if I buy a gun because of government prodding and bury it in the backyard of my apartment building because I don't actually want it, that's a deterrent? It's quite a logical leap from "People choosing to own guns deters criminals" to "Government prodding non-gun owners to buy guns deters criminals." Because it assumes that the kind of people who choose to own guns and the kind of people who need to be prodded will behave exactly the same...a highly dubious assumption.

Jerry said:
They also sound like the kind of folks who would move away. I'm fine with that.

And this is exactly what I suspect is the root of your argument: You don't really care about lowering the crime rate, you just want to stick it to people who don't own guns because you don't like them.

Jerry said:
Narrowing the list can only be a good thing.

If you're a criminal, yes. Narrowing the list would be great. I'm hard-pressed to see what compelling public interest is being served by "narrowing the list" for criminals though.

Jerry said:
Crimes-of-opportunity bro, not some mastermind.

I don't think you'd have to be a mastermind to go online and see who the registered non-gun owners were in your neighborhood, if you wanted to rob a house.

Jerry said:
Increasing the % of gun carrying citizens repels opportunistic criminals in general.

What is the REASON that increasing the percentage of gun-carrying citizens repels opportunistic criminals? Because the criminals are worried that those gun carrying citizens might actually use their guns.

I think that argument has some merit when you're talking about eliminating government restrictions...but when you're talking about active government prodding, that's a different matter entirely. Someone who didn't get a gun on their own probably doesn't WANT a gun...and therefore is less likely to use it or threaten to use it.

Jerry said:
The left has established the premise that forcing people to exercise rights is acceptable if not exorcising those rights would cost the general population a tiny little bit more. Therefore we can substitute any right and apply the logic.

What you imagine "the left" believes is irrelevant to whether or not this bill actually makes any sense. Hint: It doesn't.
 
Last edited:
So hypothetically, if I buy a gun because of government prodding and bury it in the backyard of my apartment building because I don't actually want it, that's a deterrent?

No, that's a felony.

And this is exactly what I suspect is the root of your argument: You don't really care about lowering the crime rate, you just want to stick it to people who don't own guns because you don't like them.

No I want to stick it to people who support UHC. This gun law is exactly, literary what you are doing to me right now.

If you're a criminal, yes. Narrowing the list would be great. I'm hard-pressed to see what compelling public interest is being served by "narrowing the list" for criminals though.

It lowers the crime rate.

I don't think you'd have to be a mastermind to go online and see who the registered non-gun owners were in your neighborhood, if you wanted to rob a house.

You certainly don't have to be a mastermind to safely assume the owners of the home you want to rob don't own a firearm.

What is the REASON that increasing the percentage of gun-carrying citizens repels opportunistic criminals? Because the criminals are worried that those gun carrying citizens might actually use their guns.

Yup.

I think that argument has some merit when you're talking about eliminating government restrictions...but when you're talking about active government prodding, that's a different matter entirely. Someone who didn't get a gun on their own probably doesn't WANT a gun...and therefore is less likely to use it or threaten to use it.

Let the criminal roll the dice. Increasing the odds that the criminal will die reduces the frequency of those crimes. It's a pro-active death penalty.

***
Someone who didn't get medical insurance on their own probably doesn't WANT a medical insurance...and therefore is less likely to use it.
 
No I want to stick it to people who support UHC. This gun law is exactly, literary what you are doing to me right now.

So just to be clear: Do you actually support this bill, or are you just being contrary for the sake of being contrary? How does your advocacy of this bill "stick it to people who support UHC" anyway, other than your assumption that some of the same people who support UHC don't own guns?

Jerry said:
It lowers the crime rate.

Only if one assumes that people who CHOOSE to own guns and people who have to be PRODDED to buy a gun will behave the same way when confronted by a criminal. A highly dubious assumption.

Jerry said:
You certainly don't have to be a mastermind to safely assume the owners of the home you want to rob don't own a firearm.

Exactly. So why should the government be making it easier for criminals? And how would that not RAISE the crime rate, as it would completely ELIMINATE the criminal's fear of the victim's gun?

Jerry said:
Let the criminal roll the dice. Increasing the odds that the criminal will die reduces the frequency of those crimes. It's a pro-active death penalty.

Except you are advocating making it EASIER for the criminal to identify easy targets, thus accomplishing the exact opposite. It will decrease the odds that the criminal will die, and by the same logic, increase the frequency of those crimes.

Jerry said:
Someone who didn't get medical insurance on their own probably doesn't WANT a medical insurance...and therefore is less likely to use it.

The difference is that eliminating the market externality in the case of health insurance is not necessarily dependent on your conscious choice to use the service or not (e.g. most people probably aren't concerned about their political philosophy when they've just been hit by a bus). Whereas in this case, it's ENTIRELY dependent on your behavior. It isn't the guns themselves that reduce the crime rate; it's the criminals' fear of their use. And if people who are forced to buy guns are not especially likely to use them, it won't do anything to reduce crime. It's ESPECIALLY stupid to point out the easy targets to the criminals; that will INCREASE crime and the cost to the public.
 
Last edited:
Owning a gun has absolutely nothing to do with being a member of a militia. Someone who knows how to accurately call in artillery is far more useful than someone who can shoot cans with a 10/22.

You can't call in artillery when you're being overrun by infantry.
 
Back
Top Bottom