• 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!

The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22:654]***

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

Do you realize that "anyone who opposes confiscation should oppose registration" is not the same as "A person can support registration without confiscation", right?

I never said otherwise. I was making the argument that his "should" comment doesn't make sense, which is why I gave the voter ID law analogy.

If we let the government have a military they could use that military to impose martial law and install a dictator, therefor anyone against having a dictator should oppose having a standing military.

See how that logic doesn't make sense?
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

I never said otherwise. I was making the argument that his "should" comment doesn't make sense, which is why I gave the voter ID law analogy.

If we let the government have a military they could use that military to impose martial law and install a dictator, therefor anyone against having a dictator should oppose having a standing military.

See how that logic doesn't make sense?

On its own, the logic holds. When we bring the P's and Q's into the real world, we know that countries have used mandatory registration to confiscate firearms. We know that states here in the US have banned ownership of common firearms, and if they had comprehensive registration their confiscation efforts would be more effective, which is why Connecticut and New York implements mandatory registration for those banned firearms.

We trust the system checks and balances to prevent our standing military from being use to install or support a dictator; we don't trust the system under a possible Democratic majority not to use registration to aid in confiscating firearms, especially when the law requiring registration can't be used to arrest or prosecute felons with guns.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

False. If I can show that some or "enough" republicans want voter ID laws in order to reduce the minority vote turnout does it mean that I therefor should no longer support reasonable voter ID laws?

It's a ****ty argument. A person can support registration without confiscation.


why would anyone support a law that cannot even be used to prosecute criminals? why would anyone who opposes confiscation support the law that is the single best tool to confiscate firearms?
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

On its own, the logic holds. When we bring the P's and Q's into the real world, we know that countries have used mandatory registration to confiscate firearms. We know that states here in the US have banned ownership of common firearms, and if they had comprehensive registration their confiscation efforts would be more effective, which is why Connecticut and New York implements mandatory registration for those banned firearms.

We trust the system checks and balances to prevent our standing military from being use to install or support a dictator; we don't trust the system under a possible Democratic majority not to use registration to aid in confiscating firearms, especially when the law requiring registration can't be used to arrest or prosecute felons with guns.

Ok. Hypothetical and let me know if you would agree to such a proposal.

Constitutional amendment laying out clearly and concisely that all firearms of any kind must be registered in a private registry and that the act of registering the gun can't be prohibitively expensive. With the registry, any time a firearm is being transferred, a quick background check taking less than a day or two at the very most must be performed before transfer. The transfer can be stopped only if there is an extensive history of mental illness or retardation or if the person is a convicted felon with a history of abusing his rights to own a gun IE: armed robbery, shot someone illegally etc.). There must also be a quick and effective way for a person falsely turned down of a back ground check to show or prove that he was a mistake was made. The amendment also lays out that any firearm ban including magazine size limits, limits on ammo, automatic weapons, "assault" weapons, hand guns etc will be completely and utterly illegal. Anyone that accesses or distributes/publishes the registry in an illegal manner will spend a decade in prison.

Could you ever support such a thing? Would it be unreasonable for someone to support such a thing?
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

why would anyone support a law that cannot even be used to prosecute criminals?

Why wouldn't we be able to prosecute a criminal in possession of an unregistered firearm?
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

Why wouldn't we be able to prosecute a criminal in possession of an unregistered firearm?

he can be punished for being a felon in possession

you might want to do some research starting with US V Haynes-USSC 1968 about punishing him for failing to register a weapon which would violate the fifth amendment

registration is worthless for punishing criminals

why do gun banners support laws that only restrict the rights of honest people?
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

Ok. Hypothetical and let me know if you would agree to such a proposal.

Constitutional amendment laying out clearly and concisely that all firearms of any kind must be registered in a private registry and that the act of registering the gun can't be prohibitively expensive. With the registry, any time a firearm is being transferred, a quick background check taking less than a day or two at the very most must be performed before transfer. The transfer can be stopped only if there is an extensive history of mental illness or retardation or if the person is a convicted felon with a history of abusing his rights to own a gun IE: armed robbery, shot someone illegally etc.). There must also be a quick and effective way for a person falsely turned down of a back ground check to show or prove that he was a mistake was made. The amendment also lays out that any firearm ban including magazine size limits, limits on ammo, automatic weapons, "assault" weapons, hand guns etc will be completely and utterly illegal. Anyone that accesses or distributes/publishes the registry in an illegal manner will spend a decade in prison.

Could you ever support such a thing? Would it be unreasonable for someone to support such a thing?

nope-because we know from the recent equifax debacle, that secure data bases can be hacked and there is no reason why I want the government (and any hacker) to know all the guns honest Americans own

there is no real value to that and lots of possible negative ramifications

in other words, the alleged good it would promote is minimal at best but the harm is immense
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

Ok. Hypothetical and let me know if you would agree to such a proposal.

Constitutional amendment laying out clearly and concisely that all firearms of any kind must be registered in a private registry and that the act of registering the gun can't be prohibitively expensive. With the registry, any time a firearm is being transferred, a quick background check taking less than a day or two at the very most must be performed before transfer. The transfer can be stopped only if there is an extensive history of mental illness or retardation or if the person is a convicted felon with a history of abusing his rights to own a gun IE: armed robbery, shot someone illegally etc.). There must also be a quick and effective way for a person falsely turned down of a back ground check to show or prove that he was a mistake was made. The amendment also lays out that any firearm ban including magazine size limits, limits on ammo, automatic weapons, "assault" weapons, hand guns etc will be completely and utterly illegal. Anyone that accesses or distributes/publishes the registry in an illegal manner will spend a decade in prison.

Could you ever support such a thing? Would it be unreasonable for someone to support such a thing?

For one, this hypothetical would require an unassailable Democratic majority in Congress, a Democratic president and a liberal majority to pass the registration requirement; given that, there is no way they would include the terms from your last two sentences in the first paragraph. Rather, they would be just the opposite, dictating bans on on "assault weapons" and if possible, rejecting Heller and banning handguns, too. The registration would also have to be free. Any charge at all is unacceptable and would actually work against comprehensive registration.

I also have a problem with "any time a firearm is being transferred, a quick background check taking less than a day or two at the very most must be performed before transfer". "Any transfer" includes handing a newly purchased firearm to a friend to admire in the privacy of my own home. It would be ludicrous to wait two days for a background check and another two days for the owner to pass a background check to get it back. Background checks on lawful gun owners who are CCW holders are not valuable, as are background checks on lawful gun owners who already own guns, as the acquisition of another firearm doesn't increase the risk to society.

It shouldn't take two days for a background check. The "I" in NICS stands for "Instant", and I've had NICS checks take as little as five minutes.

Criminals still won't register their guns, straw purchases will continue unabated, corrupt FFLs will continue to divert firearms and illegal street sellers won't have their products tied to them in any way. What exactly is the purpose of registration?
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]


Left wing gun control supporters always claim its about crime yet they spend most of their propaganda churning attacking the NRA with crap like that

wonder why? because gun control is not about crime control. Its about the left trying to weaken the political power of a group that has been rather effective in calling BS over the lies of gun control and voting gun control advocates out of office
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

Left wing gun control supporters always claim its about crime yet they spend most of their propaganda churning attacking the NRA with crap like that

wonder why? because gun control is not about crime control. Its about the left trying to weaken the political power of a group that has been rather effective in calling BS over the lies of gun control and voting gun control advocates out of office

My point was that the NRA is a defacto political organization (lobbyist group), that benefits the gun manufacturing industry. Crime is irrelevant to the point.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

1.For one, this hypothetical would require an unassailable Democratic majority in Congress, a Democratic president and a liberal majority to pass the registration requirement; given that, there is no way they would include the terms from your last two sentences in the first paragraph. Rather, they would be just the opposite, dictating bans on on "assault weapons" and if possible, rejecting Heller and banning handguns, too. The registration would also have to be free. Any charge at all is unacceptable and would actually work against comprehensive registration.

2. I also have a problem with "any time a firearm is being transferred, a quick background check taking less than a day or two at the very most must be performed before transfer". "Any transfer" includes handing a newly purchased firearm to a friend to admire in the privacy of my own home. It would be ludicrous to wait two days for a background check and another two days for the owner to pass a background check to get it back. Background checks on lawful gun owners who are CCW holders are not valuable, as are background checks on lawful gun owners who already own guns, as the acquisition of another firearm doesn't increase the risk to society.

It shouldn't take two days for a background check. The "I" in NICS stands for "Instant", and I've had NICS checks take as little as five minutes.

Criminals still won't register their guns, 3. straw purchases will continue unabated, corrupt FFLs will continue to divert firearms and illegal street sellers won't have their products tied to them in any way. What exactly is the purpose of registration?
1. Hence the word hypothetical. I get that it's extremely unlikely to be something that could get passed. But it was simply a hypothetical. No need to explain that it's unlikely. Term limits on senators is also damn near impossible, but it doesn't mean I cant discuss the idea.

2. Good points. If you are a CCW permit holder, your permit can be used rather than a background check. And back ground checks can be made to where you get one done and at that point it can be used to purchase any firearm for a given length of time, say months or a year or two etc. And reduce a day or two to ten minutes.

Transfer means the transfer of ownership. We would word this to mean that if someone is in possession of a firearm and the owner is not in the same vicinity of the person using the gun. So if you are hunting with your buddy or in your house, you can hand him the gun with no trouble. You can't give him the gun and let him leave your house with it without you. Certain exceptions could be made for family members where a son is taking his fathers gun to the shooting range.


3. And can you please explain how straw purchases will continue unabated?
 
Last edited:
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

My point was that the NRA is a defacto political organization (lobbyist group), that benefits the gun manufacturing industry. Crime is irrelevant to the point.

part of it is-and that was caused SOLELY by the Democrat party adopting gun control as a way of pretending it was doing something about crime (without actually upsetting a major constituency group)

the NRA is the leading firearms safety organization in the world and runs thousands of training seminars for private citizens and cops. In most states that require a permit to carry a firearm your training has to be by an NRA certified instructor. The NRA also sponsors thousands of organized target competitions including the over a century old national championships for rifle and pistol (most of the time held in Camp Perry Ohio) Through 1992, the NRA was the National Governing Body for Olympic shooting as well.

the "benefit" to the gun makers is making sure gun banners don't win
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

nope-because we know from the recent equifax debacle, that secure data bases can be hacked and there is no reason why I want the government (and any hacker) to know all the guns honest Americans own

there is no real value to that and lots of possible negative ramifications

in other words, the alleged good it would promote is minimal at best but the harm is immense

Disagree.

And it's very telling that I'm offering an amendment that would outlaw any and all of the current gun bans in place and would destroy any chance that people would have to try to confiscate guns and you are acting as though it's just utterly ridiculous because someone could possibly find out that you own a bunch of guns. I get that any breach of data is troublesome, but much more important data about you is somewhere on a server right now. I don't want anything released either, but at the same time it's the 21st century and a reality of life at this point.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

Disagree.

And it's very telling that I'm offering an amendment that would outlaw any and all of the current gun bans in place and would destroy any chance that people would have to try to confiscate guns and you are acting as though it's just utterly ridiculous because someone could possibly find out that you own a bunch of guns. I get that any breach of data is troublesome, but much more important data about you is somewhere on a server right now. I don't want anything released either, but at the same time it's the 21st century and a reality of life at this point.

I don't see it doing any good to deter criminals and having spent 30 years as a prosecutor, I think your proposal has no chance of really doing anything worthwhile. Its also beyond fictional because those who favor registration would never support an amendment striking down all the other laws harassing gun owners and those who oppose registration won't support it

in other words its about as realistic as saying-lets wave a wand and all the criminals will be permanently disarmed
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

Transfer means the transfer of ownership. We would word this to mean that if someone is in possession of a firearm and the owner is not in the same vicinity of the person using the gun. So if you are hunting with your buddy or in your house, you can hand him the gun with no trouble. You can't give him the gun and let him leave your house with it without you.

Why is this an issue? Has there been a rash of killings by guys loaning hunting rifles and shotguns to friends? Is a game warden supposed to check the serial number of every gun held by every hunter in the field to see if that gun is registered to them? This stops what crimes? Of course, if everyone has background checks that are good for a year, the LEO's won't find anyone who isn't already pre-cleared, and thus no real probable cause to stop anyone. Except gang looking people, and that's profiling.

And can you please explain how straw purchases will continue unabated?

A straw purchase already de facto registers the gun to the buyer via the Form 4473, which contains the name, address, phone number and signature of the buyer, and description and serial number of the gun. Those straw purchasers, even though those guns are registered to them, still have no problem selling those guns to criminals.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

On its own, the logic holds. When we bring the P's and Q's into the real world, we know that countries have used mandatory registration to confiscate firearms.
Sorry, but your slippery slope argument doesn't work.

Numerous nations require registration, and that hasn't resulted in confiscation. Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Honduras, Argentina, Brazil to name just a few. I.e. there is absolutely no evidence that mandatory registration necessarily results in total confiscation.

Nor does it really matter. If a democratic nation tips into autocracy, and the autocratic government decides to confiscate firearms, they won't need a central registry. They will have plenty of mechanisms to handle that issue. I'd discuss them, but I don't want you to get all paranoid. :mrgreen:


We trust the system checks and balances to prevent our standing military from being use to install or support a dictator; we don't trust the system under a possible Democratic majority not to use registration to aid in confiscating firearms, especially when the law requiring registration can't be used to arrest or prosecute felons with guns.
Uh, hello? We've had strong Democratic control of the federal government many times, which hasn't wound up with federal laws confiscating all firearms. Lots of Democrats are on the take from the NRA, too.

And while the legal rationales have changed recently, SCOTUS rulings have also been very clear for decades that there are limits to firearm regulations.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

Disagree.

And it's very telling that I'm offering an amendment that would outlaw any and all of the current gun bans in place and would destroy any chance that people would have to try to confiscate guns and you are acting as though it's just utterly ridiculous because someone could possibly find out that you own a bunch of guns. I get that any breach of data is troublesome, but much more important data about you is somewhere on a server right now. I don't want anything released either, but at the same time it's the 21st century and a reality of life at this point.

You're offering an unrealistic hypothetical. We'd reduce crime more by enforcing the laws now that we don't: Form 4473 related felonies, stop dropping gun charges, punishing straw purchasers.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

he can be punished for being a felon in possession

you might want to do some research starting with US V Haynes-USSC 1968 about punishing him for failing to register a weapon which would violate the fifth amendment

registration is worthless for punishing criminals

why do gun banners support laws that only restrict the rights of honest people?

Nope. Because registration could help us find out where the gun came from and how he got it.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

You're offering an unrealistic hypothetical.

It's not unrealistic because its all things that could happen in reality. If you're complaint is that you can't consider anything thats unlikely then I don't think it's worth my time for us to discuss the topic. Thanks anyways.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

Typical of turtledude gun control posts. A whole lot of attacking people more than ideas. No possibility at all of any rational debate.

:lamo

He LITERALLY posed a discussion question inviting rational debate and you and others LITERALLY **** yourself over Turtle and oh noes another gun debate thread that you don't give a **** about yet can't help yourself from reading it and posting on it. Not the actual topic mind you...just the poster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

Nope. Because registration could help us find out where the gun came from and how he got it.

And how does that help prosecute the criminal? If the crime is murder then, at most, you would get an additional charge if the weapon was obtained illegally.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

I don't see it doing any good to deter criminals and having spent 30 years as a prosecutor, I think your proposal has no chance of really doing anything worthwhile. Its also beyond fictional because those who favor registration would never support an amendment striking down all the other laws harassing gun owners and those who oppose registration won't support it

in other words its about as realistic as saying-lets wave a wand and all the criminals will be permanently disarmed

You're comparing something that is completely possible though extremely unlikely to magic. When you do that you lose my interest and don't help the discussion.

I'm giving you a hypothetical of something that needs further consideration but that I think is a very reasonable compromise. And your argument is "it wouldn't do anything and can't happen because magic wands and ****". I swear, it's impossible to have any discussion in this forum where it's not just a constant regurgitation of talking points. It's so bad that numerous people are pretending like a hypothetical is evil because it's an unlikely hypothetical. That's the point of hypotheticals. To provoke thought and discussion.

I also love how you argue that no body could ever support it because gun control is all about harassing gun owners therefor no one would allow the striking down of current laws harassing gun owners ad yet there's someone right in front of you that is supporting striking those laws down. It's laughable.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

Sorry, but your slippery slope argument doesn't work.

Numerous nations require registration, and that hasn't resulted in confiscation. Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Honduras, Argentina, Brazil to name just a few. I.e. there is absolutely no evidence that mandatory registration necessarily results in total confiscation.

We do know that Democrats want to confiscate guns here in the US: they've already passed laws in Connecticut, New York, Maryland and California. If those same Democrats held power in Congress, they would absolutely ban the ownership and possession of "assault weapons" and any magazine with a capacity of 11 or more rounds. And it doesn't have to be "total confiscation" - any confiscation of 2A protected firearms is to be fought.

Nor does it really matter. If a democratic nation tips into autocracy, and the autocratic government decides to confiscate firearms, they won't need a central registry. They will have plenty of mechanisms to handle that issue. I'd discuss them, but I don't want you to get all paranoid. :mrgreen:

There aren't enough federal agents to do so, and not only would local law enforcement refuse to help, they'd actively resist such efforts to enforce an unconstitutional law. As would millions of heavily armed citizens. And the military would refuse to attack citizens over 2A issues, even without posse comitatus limitations.

Uh, hello? We've had strong Democratic control of the federal government many times, which hasn't wound up with federal laws confiscating all firearms. Lots of Democrats are on the take from the NRA, too.

I didn't say strong - I said unassailable. That requires a supermajority in Congress and a blind SCOTUS.

And while the legal rationales have changed recently, SCOTUS rulings have also been very clear for decades that there are limits to firearm regulations.

Which are habitually ignored. From Shew v Malloy, the court case that upheld the "assault weapon" bans in New York and Connecticut:

"In the absence of clearer guidance from the Supreme Court or stronger evidence in the record, we follow the approach taken by the District Courts and by the D.C. Circuit in Heller II and assume for the sake of argument that these “commonly used” weapons and magazines are also “typically possessed by law‐abiding citizens for lawful purposes. In short, we proceed on the assumption that these laws ban weapons protected by the Second Amendment."

That should have been the end of it. Yet the bans were upheld.
 
Re: The new Charade: ITS GUN SAFETY not GUN BANS[W:22]

The criminal that illegally sold a gun to a person that shouldn't have been sold a gun?

A registry wouldn't help in prosecuting a person who legally purchased and registered a gun and then used in in a crime. But that's not the point of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom