• 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!

Hawaii gun confiscation, we knew it! [W:357]

roughdraft274 said:
No, it really couldn't have.

I don't think this is a rational argument you are having. That, and you are arguing as if this is all of hawaii. It's one area that sent a letter to 30 people. This is not a statewide thing in any sense. But the fact that seems to escape all of the posts that I've responded to is that they sent the letter to people they interpreted of breaking the law. You can't own a gun and be using illegal narcotics. Now, I agree that weed shouldn't be an illegal narcotic. But at the same time, I agree that you shouldn't own a firearm if you are using illegal narcotics. The purpose of a gun registry is to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them. The problem here is the way they are defining who shouldn't have a gun, not the registry.
Click to expand...

its a good argument against registries though

its why I oppose registration and anyone who supports being able to own firearms should as well
 
TurtleDude said:
its a good argument against registries though

its why I oppose registration and anyone who supports being able to own firearms should as well
Click to expand...

Not to me. This is a dumb action by a single person that will probably be nullified just based on the political blowback alone, much less how it will likely be easily defeated in court. Anyone who supports firearm ownership should support a registry (and most do!) for the simple fact that its a gun control measure that could have a significant impact on gun violence and crimes. If gun violence and crimes continue shocking the country then it's only a matter of time before the huge swath of people want a full out gun ban, not just a common sense measure that tells us who owns guns and who gave guns to criminals.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I never claimed that it was impossible to use it for another purpose. And american did not give an example of another purpose. They have a law stating that you can't use illegal drugs and own a firearm. They are enforcing it (all be it in a district that only affects about 30 people). As I've pointed out, there are easy fixes to this. Change the state laws, change the federal laws on weed, bring this to court to tell the cop pushing this that it's not a correct interpretation etc.
.
Click to expand...

American did give an example of it being used for another purpose! Otherwise the law wouldn;t have to be changed.

People always complain "problems" with analogies. They are analogies to help people with the logic. They don't need to be perfectly identical. That's the point of an analogy. But regardless, my position is that a registration would be extremely helpful to keep guns out of the hands of people like this. And very obviously so. I take it you disagree.
Click to expand...

People complain about analogies when they are not equivalent or even close... as in this case.

There is already a law that states that a felon may not own a firearm.

Yes..your position is that registration would be extremely helpful.. but that position is completely devoid of any supporting evidence.

Studies show that registration does not work to deter criminals from firearms. Case in point.. Canada has registration for handguns. the weapon that criminals use most? Handguns.

Canada tried registration of long guns. They gave it up because they found that it did little to nothing to curb crime and was rarely if ever used to get a conviction.

Common sense dictates it. I'll give you a scenario. When you buy a gun from any gun dealer, the dealer files all of the paperwork and registration info. That gun is registered to the buyer. If that buyer transfers that gun to anyone or if it is lost or stolen he needs to give immediate notice. If he transfers it to someone, he can't transfer it out of his name unless the new person fills out the paperwork to register the firearm. If I catch a criminal with a firearm registered under your name, you're ****ed.
Click to expand...

Answer me this.. when I or my fellow criminal take the serial numbers off the firearm with a file.. how do you know who that gun was registered to when and if you find it "left at the scene of a crime"?

To say that a full stop registry would do NOTHING to help with crime is a statement that screams "I won't listen to common sense
Click to expand...

Actually it screams.. :I HAVE COMMON SENSE". All it takes is a file to render your precious registration completely useless for catching criminals. Not to mention all evidence points to the fact that criminals do not get their firearms from legal channels, thus avoiding registration, and that criminals will not register the firearms that they have.

Yes, a felon doesn't have to register because of the 5th, but it would tell you where he got it.
Click to expand...

no it won't.

Again.. its called a file.
 
jaeger19 said:
American did give an example of it being used for another purpose! Otherwise the law wouldn;t have to be changed.



People complain about analogies when they are not equivalent or even close... as in this case.

There is already a law that states that a felon may not own a firearm.

Yes..your position is that registration would be extremely helpful.. but that position is completely devoid of any supporting evidence.

Studies show that registration does not work to deter criminals from firearms. Case in point.. Canada has registration for handguns. the weapon that criminals use most? Handguns.

Canada tried registration of long guns. They gave it up because they found that it did little to nothing to curb crime and was rarely if ever used to get a conviction.



Answer me this.. when I or my fellow criminal take the serial numbers off the firearm with a file.. how do you know who that gun was registered to when and if you find it "left at the scene of a crime"?



Actually it screams.. :I HAVE COMMON SENSE". All it takes is a file to render your precious registration completely useless for catching criminals. Not to mention all evidence points to the fact that criminals do not get their firearms from legal channels, thus avoiding registration, and that criminals will not register the firearms that they have.



no it won't.

Again.. its called a file.
Click to expand...

I love guys that think a file breaks registration. LOL
 
roughdraft274 said:
Not to me. This is a dumb action by a single person that will probably be nullified just based on the political blowback alone, much less how it will likely be easily defeated in court. Anyone who supports firearm ownership should support a registry (and most do!) for the simple fact that its a gun control measure that could have a significant impact on gun violence and crimes. If gun violence and crimes continue shocking the country then it's only a matter of time before the huge swath of people want a full out gun ban, not just a common sense measure that tells us who owns guns and who gave guns to criminals.
Click to expand...

most gun owners oppose a national registry gun crime is going down. leftwing gun haters try to convince the sheeple that gun crime is going up which is-like almost everything else told by gun haters, is a complete lie

full out gun ban would be the end of the USA as we know it based on what I know about this and I believe most Americans wouldn't put up for any politician who calls for such a thing.

and after the dust had settled, I suspect it would be the end of the gun ban movement as well. but who knows. Dumb people are breeding faster than smart ones and the bannerrhoid movement might increase despite the facts.
 
TurtleDude said:
most gun owners oppose a national registry gun crime is going down. leftwing gun haters try to convince the sheeple that gun crime is going up which is-like almost everything else told by gun haters, is a complete lie

full out gun ban would be the end of the USA as we know it based on what I know about this and I believe most Americans wouldn't put up for any politician who calls for such a thing.

and after the dust had settled, I suspect it would be the end of the gun ban movement as well. but who knows. Dumb people are breeding faster than smart ones and the bannerrhoid movement might increase despite the facts.
Click to expand...

Dumb people were numerous enough to get Trump elected. So, yes. There is no shortage of stupid in America. Of course, giving them all guns may solve that problem in due time.
 
Grand Mal said:
Lemme guess, you double-dosed just before you wrote that the left are lying sacks of ****.
Click to expand...

Nope, they've said for years that confiscation wasn't their goal, but when the first loophole in the law reared its head.....................there they were sending out letters for people to turn in their guns; just as we predicted.
 
TurtleDude said:
most gun owners oppose a national registry gun crime is going down. leftwing gun haters try to convince the sheeple that gun crime is going up which is-like almost everything else told by gun haters, is a complete lie

full out gun ban would be the end of the USA as we know it based on what I know about this and I believe most Americans wouldn't put up for any politician who calls for such a thing.

and after the dust had settled, I suspect it would be the end of the gun ban movement as well. but who knows. Dumb people are breeding faster than smart ones and the bannerrhoid movement might increase despite the facts.
Click to expand...

Right now I agree. In the future, with more mass shootings and more publicized gun violence in the streets I'm no so sure. A sure fire way to increase the odds of a gun ban is to oppose vehemently any form of gun control in my honest opinion.

And though this isn't a problem specifically for you, because it's a problem that affects everyone, you are in a bubble with die hard 2A activists that eat sleep and breath opposition to gun control. I'm deep in the heart of Louisiana and have almost exclusively gun owning Republicans as friends and family. The majority of them (not a huge majority, but still most) would absolutely support universal background checks on all private transfers etc and a gun registry. A number of them support the assault rifle ban bills. Their position is that noone needs them for hunting or for self protection. Now I know you disagree, but it is what it is. And this group of people includes my father in law whom is handing down to me an extensive gun collection he's built up over the years. Now, none of these people support a full on gun ban, but they are not as close to you on the spectrum as you seem to think.
 
roughdraft274 said:
No, it really couldn't have.

I don't think this is a rational argument you are having. That, and you are arguing as if this is all of hawaii. It's one area that sent a letter to 30 people. This is not a statewide thing in any sense. But the fact that seems to escape all of the posts that I've responded to is that they sent the letter to people they interpreted of breaking the law. You can't own a gun and be using illegal narcotics. Now, I agree that weed shouldn't be an illegal narcotic. But at the same time, I agree that you shouldn't own a firearm if you are using illegal narcotics. The purpose of a gun registry is to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them. The problem here is the way they are defining who shouldn't have a gun, not the registry.
Click to expand...

They used the gun registration to confiscate guns. Everything else is irrelevant here.
 
jonny5 said:
They used the gun registration to confiscate guns. Everything else is irrelevant here.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'd like for the details to be irrelevant. All I'm saying is that the detail that they used the registry to send out letters to gun owners who are currently breaking the state law by doing illegal drugs while owning a firearm. Not a gun confiscation at large. This was a very narrow, very limited scope though I still very much agree it was a dumb thing that serves no purpose and makes no one safer. I just want to specify the difference between "we are taking everyones guns" and "these people are breaking the law and by according to the law hey aren't allowed to own guns so we are going to confiscate them."

If you can't debate on the details of what is actually going on it points to a blaring character flaw on your part. I think you should take some time to ponder on that. If you think someone who is merely providing the full details is somehow your enemy then you need to reevaluate your purpose for debating.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I'm sure you'd like for the details to be irrelevant. All I'm saying is that the detail that they used the registry to send out letters to gun owners who are currently breaking the state law by doing illegal drugs while owning a firearm. Not a gun confiscation at large. This was a very narrow, very limited scope though I still very much agree it was a dumb thing that serves no purpose and makes no one safer. I just want to specify the difference between "we are taking everyones guns" and "these people are breaking the law and by according to the law hey aren't allowed to own guns so we are going to confiscate them."

If you can't debate on the details of what is actually going on it points to a blaring character flaw on your part. I think you should take some time to ponder on that. If you think someone who is merely providing the full details is somehow your enemy then you need to reevaluate your purpose for debating.
Click to expand...

The details are irrelevant whether Id like them to be or not.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I'm sure you'd like for the details to be irrelevant. All I'm saying is that the detail that they used the registry to send out letters to gun owners who are currently breaking the state law by doing illegal drugs while owning a firearm. Not a gun confiscation at large. This was a very narrow, very limited scope though I still very much agree it was a dumb thing that serves no purpose and makes no one safer. I just want to specify the difference between "we are taking everyones guns" and "these people are breaking the law and by according to the law hey aren't allowed to own guns so we are going to confiscate them."

If you can't debate on the details of what is actually going on it points to a blaring character flaw on your part. I think you should take some time to ponder on that. If you think someone who is merely providing the full details is somehow your enemy then you need to reevaluate your purpose for debating.
Click to expand...

gun registration does nothing good for gun owners

gun registration lists can be hacked and used by corrupt cops/criminals to target owners for theft, robbery or murder

every group that wants to ban guns supports registration

lots of them know the level of compliance is low and they hope to use that to turn gun owners who refuse into "felons"

I have shot competitively all over the USA-California (Olympic Trials) Ga (Olympic Trials and NSSA World Shoot) Colorado Springs (US JO nationals which I won), Intercollegiate nationals (Peoria), St Louis, (NSSA International Worlds), New Hampshire (Eastern Collegiate shotgun Championships, CT (college events) New York (USMA invitational), Illinois (USA-USPSA Nationals), KY, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wyoming, Texas among others meaning just about every region of the Continental USA. and Skeet shooters are a different breed than say USPSA action pistol guys and I have rarely met anyone who was in favor of registration.

Now my main gun club had a few trap shooters (single barrel break action Perazzis and Browning shotguns-probably the last guns to be targeted for bans) who thought if we gun owners compromised with gun banners and agreed to "assault weapon bans" and registration, gun banners would stop with that. They believed that crap until the City of Cincinnati's "assault weapon ban" included some pump action shotguns that many other trap shooter own
 
calamity said:
Dumb people were numerous enough to get Trump elected. So, yes. There is no shortage of stupid in America. Of course, giving them all guns may solve that problem in due time.
Click to expand...

if you claim voting for Trump means someone shouldn't own guns, that proves how your idiotic anti gun arguments are not based on valid concerns to increase public safety but rather because you are pushing gun control for a political payback

which, more than anything else, justifies lawful citizens being well armed
 
TurtleDude said:
if you claim voting for Trump means someone shouldn't own guns, that proves how your idiotic anti gun arguments are not based on valid concerns to increase public safety but rather because you are pushing gun control for a political payback

which, more than anything else, justifies lawful citizens being well armed
Click to expand...

That's not my claim. In fact I want Trump voters to have guns. The more the merrier. Read my post again.
 
TurtleDude said:
gun registration does nothing good for gun owners
Click to expand...
Does not matter. Registering my vehicle doesn't really help me at all, but I understand the purpose and the benefit to society. Even if you don't feel a gun registry would be good for you, that means precisely dick, to be blunt. The effect on society at large is what matters. That's like saying that the company that dumps toxins in to the drinking water sees nothing good for itself with a law that requires them to keep track of how much and where they dump their chemicals. It's not for their sake. It's for society at large.

TurtleDude said:
gun registration lists can be hacked and used by corrupt cops/criminals to target owners for theft, robbery or murder
Click to expand...
A broad argument that could be used against literally everything that you use in your life. Your bank account, internet shopping, saving your passwords, your tax information is probably on some database somewhere. If you want to argue against technology at large and want society to go back to just keeping a stack of paper somewhere for everything, you do that. But you don't get to bring up a random problem that applies to literally everything and act like it's only a problem for this one thing. And also, you live in a first world country with a court system. If anything illegal were ever to happen with a gun registry there's a fix for it. Take them to court. The corrupt cops problem is yet another one that is a problem in general, not one that means that we can't accomplish this fairly simple goal. You constantly pretend that a gun registry has special problems yet in reality these are common problems for nearly everything we deal with and most of the time when they arise they have fairly simple resolution processes.

TurtleDude said:
every group that wants to ban guns supports registration
Click to expand...
Well that's damn near a tautology. And means nothing. The idea is either good or bad on it's merits. If I were to find a survey of white supremacists and it showed they all support Donald Trump, that doesn't mean that Trump is a white supremacist or that they support him cause they think he will further the white cause. Those conclusions don't follow. And while I agree, a registry would be a tool for someone wanting to ban all guns, you have said so yourself that the country would never come to that. Even if you were to pass a law confiscating all weapons they had a 100% accurate registry of all guns and gun owners, you would need an army to carry it out. You are talking about apocalyptic scenarios. It's just not based in reality. The only kind of gun ban that would even be remotely possible would be the kind where they stop the creation and manufacture and shipping of any new firearms in the country. Because you simply aren't going to get compliance for the army and all of the police to go out and grab guns. It's a fairytale.
 
calamity said:
That's not my claim. In fact I want Trump voters to have guns. The more the merrier. Read my post again.
Click to expand...

your post is silly no matter how it is interpreted. Its based on pavlovian Trump hate and has nothing to do with this issue in this thread
 
jonny5 said:
False choices. Sometimes they are irrelevant, and sometimes when its inconvenient for me. You left out two choices.
Click to expand...

I left the only two plausible choices for you. But no worry, it was rhetorical. I already know the answer.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Does not matter. Registering my vehicle doesn't really help me at all, but I understand the purpose and the benefit to society. Even if you don't feel a gun registry would be good for you, that means precisely dick, to be blunt. The effect on society at large is what matters. That's like saying that the company that dumps toxins in to the drinking water sees nothing good for itself with a law that requires them to keep track of how much and where they dump their chemicals. It's not for their sake. It's for society at large.
Click to expand...

Exactly what does a registry do for society at large?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom