• 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!

An examination of the NRA's argument against registering guns

Xelor

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I created a thread to discuss a proposal to codify the nature of accountability for gun ownership and maintenance: A legislation proposal on accountability. As a result of an exchange with another member, I refined the proposal. (See posts 77, 80 & 81 and 85.) All the same, reviewing the thread, I noticed that several members objected to the gun registration provision in the proposal. I read an article that presents the NRA's argument for objecting to gun registration. This thread's topic/purpose is to examine and discuss the logical soundness/cogency of the argument against gun registration.

What is the NRA's argument? Briefly, this:
  • Premise: Gun registration will not stop any unlawful gun use.
    • This is a true statement.
  • Premise: Gun registration would make it easier to confiscate all of people's guns were ordinances prohibiting gun ownership passed.
    • In the abstract, this is true; however, the premise assumes be extant an event that is all but impossible to effect: absent repealing the 2nd Amendment, it's not possible to pass and have stand laws that generally prohibit gun ownership among the citizenry. That the argument against registration relies in part on such an assumption subjects the argument to counterfactual illogic, thus making the argument invalid.
      • "All" is important because the 2nd Amendment prevents states from can abstractly denying one's 2nd Amendment rights, but they can limit and/or regulate them. The way most states regulate guns is through licensing requirements and bans on certain guns within a given class. Those kinds of limits have generally been upheld by courts and Heller doesn't stop them. It's important to note that a limit and a ban are different things.

        To wit, the limits on the ownership of machine guns....Machines guns aren't banned in the U.S. -- Heller disallows it -- but they are subject to regulation. The National Firearms Act requires prospective owners to apply for permission to own machine guns whereafter, if granted, one must register the weapon. The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 prohibits civilian ownership of machine guns predating the act's passage. Unless the SCOTUS says otherwise, this kind of regulation is a legitimate limit on the 2nd's rights. While a ban isn't legal, regulatory and procedural requirements are.
  • Premise: Gun registration bolsters the public's perception of gun owners.
    • This element of the argument suffers from logical flaw of ambiguity. The premise not only (1) doesn't specify what be the public's perception of gun owners, but also (2) it doesn't establish that whatever be that perception, the perception itself is mostly (or more) inaccurate.
  • Sub-argument "A" ("A" is my nomenclature) used as a premise in the overall argument: New York's registration initiative allowed public access to the information in the registry. Gun registry records can be used, as occasionally were driver's license records, by ne'er do wells to select targets against whom or whose property they'd commit crimes. Additionally, non-criminals may obtain and review gun registry information to form opinions about the specific gun owners and use that information/opinion(s) in making adverse decisions with regard to a specific gun owner. Assumption --> Gun registry information must be made available to the public. Consequently, guns should not be registered because doing so abets criminals and partisans.
    • Hypothesis contrary to fact: Gun registry information need not be made public. Governments have all sorts of information about each of us, and some of that information is publicly accessible and some is not. For instance, members of the public cannot obtain another private citizen's tax returns. There's nothing stopping gun registry info from being among the non-publicly disclosed information.
  • Premise: Gun registration is a step in the sequence of events that enables and necessarily leads to (1) the confiscation of all guns such that laymen citizens will be unable to lawfully own a gun and (2) repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
    • This is a textbook slippery-slope line of argument. This particular premise's flaws are:
      • Repeal of the 2nd in no way depends on the existence of a gun registry. That repeal can occur whether there is or is not a gun registry.
      • Absent repealing the 2nd, laws prohibiting the ownership of any gun are unenforceable.
  • The NRA's Conclusion: In light of the premises above, registration of guns should be opposed, etc.
 
Last edited:
Courts continue to ignore 2A protections and ban ownership of protected firearms and accessories. Registration enables confiscation.
 
Rucker61 said:
Courts continue to ignore 2A protections and ban ownership of protected firearms and accessories. Registration enables confiscation.
Click to expand...

Confiscation of any guns is to be opposed.
 
Resolved: It's none of the government's damn business. This is true.
 
Xelor said:
What is the NRA's argument? Briefly, this:

[*]Premise: Gun registration will not stop any unlawful gun use.

[*]This is a true statement.
Click to expand...

Since you admit this as a given, one could stop right there and state that since it serves no purpose vis a vis criminal usage, then there is no need for gun registration at all.

The only real purposes would then be:

1. Identify every legal owner of a firearm;
2. Identify the type and number of firearms owned;
3. Set up taxes and fees for said owners to pay for the regulatory agencies required to handle registration;
4. Use the list to confiscate any/all weapons which would eventually be determined not covered by the Second Amendment.

We already see examples of #4 in regards to the AR-15, simply because it looks "dangerous" and certain citizens believe it should be exempt from Second Amendment protections.

Xelor said:
[*]Premise: Gun registration would make it easier to confiscate all of people's guns were ordinances prohibiting gun ownership passed.
Click to expand...

The article did not say all guns, although it did mention all handguns.

Gun control advocates constantly argue over what the 2A covers. Some actually argue it only applies to muskets available back then. Other's that it is limited to bolt action rifles, single-shot shotguns, or only certain handguns. One Forum member argued that as future "energy weapons" would not use bullets, they are not "guns" protected by the 2A and could be forbidden to the public. (I pointed out that the 2A does not use the term gun, it uses the term "Arms.")

Their argument (which you seem to support) is that as long as people have some form of weapon, then the 2A is still in force. That the Government can regulate any weapons it deems "too dangerous" out of the public sphere.

Registration serves the purposes I listed above. Primarily the efficient collection of any weapons prohibited by Government. This FACT has been exemplified time and again in just about every society that currently has, or ever had gun registration. There are examples of gun confiscation currently being attempted now in locales throughout the USA. The push for registration is based on trying to make such confiscations easier.

Xelor said:
[*]Premise:Gun registration bolsters the public's perception of gun owners.
Click to expand...

No, the article said "gun registration is ideal to bolster the quickly growing public persecution of gun owners."

I think this is partly referencing all the taxes, fees, paperwork, storage, inspections, and other burdens gun owners would have to deal with in a registration process. Think of all the hoops one has to go through merely owning a registered car. Tags, stickers, documents, parking regulations, etc.. Now imagine all the hoops the government could make you jump through in order to maintain a registered weapon. Partly your next point:

Xelor said:
[*]Sub-argument "A"... New York's registration initiative allowed public access to the information in the registry...Consequently, guns should not be registered because doing so abets criminals.
Click to expand...

...And yet it has been already. That's because most public records are available to the public. That's why they are called "PUBLIC" records. Meanwhile, once information about you is in the government system, data miners can eventually get it by hook or crook.

Xelor said:
[*]Premise: Gun registration is a step in the sequence of events that enables and necessarily leads to (1) the confiscation of all guns such that laymen citizens will be unable to lawfully own a gun and (2) repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

There are arguments/efforts to repeal (didn't someone quote a retired Justice arguing for it?), and I believe the NRA argument is that with the existence of gun registration control advocates seek to effect a paradigm shift in our social conscious.

When you establish registration requirements to keep and bear arms, you inculcate the idea that gun ownership is not really a right, but just a regulated privilege. Once this mindset exists, the efforts to convince people to repeal are greatly enhanced.

The push is to eliminate private gun ownership completely over time. First by establishing registration requirements which allow government all the administrative methods used control access to anything they don't think people can "handle." Then to use those controls to whittle away at guns they don't want people to have...as long as they let them have a few non-threatening token weapons. Registration allows collection of weapons the government has decided "don't fit the 2A" requirements.

This final effect is to convince people since it is not really a right needing Constitutional protection, but rather a privilege government can regulate, that we don't need the 2A and it can be repealed.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Since you admit this as a given, one could stop right there and state that since it serves no purpose vis a vis criminal usage, then there is no need for gun registration at all.

The only real purposes would then be:

1. Identify every legal owner of a firearm;
2. Identify the type and number of firearms owned;
3. Set up taxes and fees for said owners to pay for the regulatory agencies required to handle registration;
4. Use the list to confiscate any/all weapons which would eventually be determined not covered by the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

The reason the proposal I and linked in the OP contains a gun registration provision is to facilitate knowing whom to hold accountable for inadequately maintaining their firearm(s) as described in the proposal. Read the provisions of the registration I stipulated in the proposal; facilitating one's doing so is why I provided in the OP a link to the proposal.

If you care to offer an alternative means of achieving the end I above describe, by all means, do share.
 
Xelor said:
The reason the proposal I and linked in the OP contains a gun registration provision is to facilitate knowing whom to hold accountable for inadequately maintaining their firearm(s) as described in the proposal. Read the provisions of the registration I stipulated in the proposal; facilitating one's doing so is why I provided in the OP a link to the proposal.

If you care to offer an alternative means of achieving the end I above describe, by all means, do share.
Click to expand...

1. I responded to your comments/arguments listed in the OP. We are only allowed 5000 characters to post including quoting the OP reference.

2. I am not interested in any proposals to alienate a RIGHT. It is my position that you don't "alienate" Rights. I am only interested in holding those who abuse their Rights by intentionally or negligently harming others or the property of others responsible for such harms.

Gun registration serves no purpose other than those I listed. None of those purposes prevent anything, they only burden gun owners. I will never accede to such alienation of my Rights, not in this or any other regard.

I will only accept punishment if I abuse my rights and cause actual harm to others when I do so.

I don't agree with such proposals. The right to keep and bear arms does not need "infringing."
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
1. I responded to your comments/arguments listed in the OP. We are only allowed 5000 characters to post including quoting the OP reference.

2. I am not interested in any proposals to alienate a RIGHT. It is my position that you don't "alienate" Rights. I am only interested in holding those who abuse their Rights by intentionally or negligently harming others or the property of others responsible for such harms.

Gun registration serves no purpose other than those I listed. None of those purposes prevent anything, they only burden gun owners. I will never accede to such alienation of my Rights, not in this or any other regard.

I will only accept punishment if I abuse my rights and cause actual harm to others when I do so.

I don't agree with such proposals. The right to keep and bear arms does not need "infringing."
Click to expand...
Re: your ordered comments highlighted in red:
  1. ...And yet for all that you wrote, you did not show the inaccuracy of my assertions about the logical insufficiency of the various premise-to-conclusion lines found in the NRA's overall argument against gun registration proposals.

    For any important policy, gun control/rights legislation is one such policy, my approbation for or against it depends only on the soundness/cogency of the arguments favoring or opposing the policy being considered.

    For each logical flaw I asserted exists in the NRA's argument, I provided reference links that show/explain the accuracy of my assertions about the logical failing of each premise in the NRA's argument. The soundness/cogency of an argument depends on a few things, but one of those things is that each and every premise-to-conclusion line of the overall argument be bereft of logical flaws. Any argument having logical flaws in any such line is an unsound/incogent argument. (The OP contains a link to content that explains the requirements for an argument, any argument, to be sound/cogent.) The NRA's argument consists primarily of four flawed premise-to-conclusion lines, thus the argument is illogical, flawed, invalid, incogent, and/or unsound...which term one uses to describe the quality of the argument is really not the point.

    I chose to refer to natural language (easily read and comprehended) explications of the illogical elements. Perhaps you prefer more rigorously presented explications (proofs) of what makes them illogical?
  2. A. The gun registry provision I presented in my accountability proposal aims to prevent nothing. As I noted earlier, registry proposal exists in the proposal to facilitate identifying who is the current lawful owner of guns used unlawfully and hold that person criminally accountable for inadequately maintaining their firearm. The proposal of which the registry provision is a part aims to deter/reduce the incidence of the behavior of inadequate gun maintenance. Put another way, the proposal aims to inspire lawful gun owners to adequately maintain their firearms.

    B. Neither my proposal, nor the registry provision in it, alters one's right to keep or bear arms. Read the proposal that gives rise to this thread and you'll see as much.
 
Xelor said:
Re: your ordered comments highlighted in red:
  1. ...And yet for all that you wrote, you did not show the inaccuracy of my assertions about the logical insufficiency of the various premise-to-conclusion lines found in the NRA's overall argument against gun registration proposals.

    For any important policy, gun control/rights legislation is one such policy, my approbation for or against it depends only on the soundness/cogency of the arguments favoring or opposing the policy being considered...
Click to expand...


  1. I am satisfied with my original response.

    What you think of it is of course entirely up to you. :coffeepap:
 
Xelor said:
Re: your ordered comments highlighted in red:
  1. ...And yet for all that you wrote, you did not show the inaccuracy of my assertions about the logical insufficiency of the various premise-to-conclusion lines found in the NRA's overall argument against gun registration proposals.

    For any important policy, gun control/rights legislation is one such policy, my approbation for or against it depends only on the soundness/cogency of the arguments favoring or opposing the policy being considered.

    For each logical flaw I asserted exists in the NRA's argument, I provided reference links that show/explain the accuracy of my assertions about the logical failing of each premise in the NRA's argument. The soundness/cogency of an argument depends on a few things, but one of those things is that each and every premise-to-conclusion line of the overall argument be bereft of logical flaws. Any argument having logical flaws in any such line is an unsound/incogent argument. (The OP contains a link to content that explains the requirements for an argument, any argument, to be sound/cogent.) The NRA's argument consists primarily of four flawed premise-to-conclusion lines, thus the argument is illogical, flawed, invalid, incogent, and/or unsound...which term one uses to describe the quality of the argument is really not the point.

    I chose to refer to natural language (easily read and comprehended) explications of the illogical elements. Perhaps you prefer more rigorously presented explications (proofs) of what makes them illogical?
  2. A. The gun registry provision I presented in my accountability proposal aims to prevent nothing. As I noted earlier, registry proposal exists in the proposal to facilitate identifying who is the current lawful owner of guns used unlawfully and hold that person criminally accountable for inadequately maintaining their firearm. The proposal of which the registry provision is a part aims to deter/reduce the incidence of the behavior of inadequate gun maintenance. Put another way, the proposal aims to inspire lawful gun owners to adequately maintain their firearms.

    B. Neither my proposal, nor the registry provision in it, alters one's right to keep or bear arms. Read the proposal that gives rise to this thread and you'll see as much.
Click to expand...

What you're proposing is far more insidious than I realized, at first. It's not this innocuous thing at all. You want registration to hold gun owners criminally liable for crimes they didn't even commit. If that isn't a big red flag to the potential dangers of gun registration, I don't know what is.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
I am satisfied with my original response.

What you think of it is of course entirely up to you. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

Are you seeing what he's advocating like it's no big deal? I missed it initially because he doesn't speak very directly. It's absolutely intended to be a deterrent to gun ownership by making gun owners guilty of crimes they didn't commit. Someone burglarizes your house, steals your gun uses it in an armed robbery and he wants the gun owner to do the time for the robbery. Or maybe a gun that's no longer yours, but you did have at one point, is used in a crime, it becomes your fault. Goodness, you're not even going to get the same benefit of due process that actual criminal gets because he's proposing, basically, strict liability. But naw, nothing to worry about with gun registration. :lol:
 
X Factor said:
Are you seeing what he's advocating like it's no big deal? I missed it initially because he doesn't speak very directly. It's absolutely intended to be a deterrent to gun ownership by making gun owners guilty of crimes they didn't commit. Someone burglarizes your house, steals your gun uses it in an armed robbery and he wants the gun owner to do the time for the robbery. Or maybe a gun that's no longer yours, but you did have at one point, is used in a crime, it becomes your fault. Goodness, you're not even going to get the same benefit of due process that actual criminal gets because he's proposing, basically, strict liability. But naw, nothing to worry about with gun registration. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes, I saw it and was going to write a detailed response to it...until I realized this whole thread was a hook to discuss something he was apparently not getting much response to in another thread.

I am not interested in his proposal to use gun registration to identify original owners of lost or stolen guns and then hold them criminally liable for the acts of the person who used it illegally.

As I already pointed out that the bad actor is wholly responsible for the harms he causes in post #7, I did not feel a need to go down his new rabbit-hole. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
What you're proposing is far more insidious than I realized, at first. It's not this innocuous thing at all. You want registration to hold gun owners criminally liable for crimes they didn't even commit. If that isn't a big red flag to the potential dangers of gun registration, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

Actually the OP didn't stop at criminally liable. He extended that to adequately maintained.

Which is why you need the fine print in anything a banner proposes.

"The reason the proposal I and linked in the OP contains a gun registration provision is to facilitate knowing whom to hold accountable for inadequately maintaining their firearm(s)"
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
Are you seeing what he's advocating like it's no big deal? I missed it initially because he doesn't speak very directly. It's absolutely intended to be a deterrent to gun ownership by making gun owners guilty of crimes they didn't commit. Someone burglarizes your house, steals your gun uses it in an armed robbery and he wants the gun owner to do the time for the robbery. Or maybe a gun that's no longer yours, but you did have at one point, is used in a crime, it becomes your fault. Goodness, you're not even going to get the same benefit of due process that actual criminal gets because he's proposing, basically, strict liability. But naw, nothing to worry about with gun registration. :lol:
Click to expand...

The idea seems to be to make citizen X responsible for registered gun Y until the state declares another person to be officially responsible for paying fees for registered gun Y. A possible exception would be to report gun Y as lost/stolen (or face a fine for not having done so?).

Necessary for enforcement (to compel compliance?), of course, is that possession of any unregistered gun would become a crime only for those legally able to have registered that gun.

This concept differs greatly from current motor vehicle registration (control of vehicles driven on public roadways?) in that one can legally own (have title to or legal possession of) a vehicle that is not currently registered (in any state) and transport that vehicle (on a trailer) or sell that vehicle (even to a convicted felon) freely.

It is also currently impossible to register a motor vehicle that is not covered by a state mandated liability insurance policy yet one can have title to (maintain legal possession of) uninsured (and even non-street legal) motor vehicles.
 
CLAX1911 said:
gun registry serves no purpose, that should be the NRA argument.
Click to expand...

It serves the purpose of forcing a gun possessor to pay a registration fee (special 2A exercising tax?) or face criminal charges for non-compliance.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It serves the purpose of forcing a gun possessor to pay a registration fee (special 2A exercising tax?) or face criminal charges for non-compliance.
Click to expand...

Outside of making it more difficult to exercise your rights it serves no purpose.

I would say making it more difficult to exercise ones rights is not a legitimate reason.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Outside of making it more difficult to exercise your rights it serves no purpose.

I would say making it more difficult to exercise ones rights is not a legitimate reason.
Click to expand...

One could logically call that infringement. The argument, of course, will be that paying property taxes is not denying anyone the right to own property even when failure to do so results in confiscation of that property.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
One could logically call that infringement. The argument, of course, will be that paying property taxes is not denying anyone the right to own property even when failure to do so results in confiscation of that property.
Click to expand...

you pay sales taxes on fire arms.
 
CLAX1911 said:
We arent subjects to the state.
Click to expand...

Sure we are - in order to own property (real estate mainly) one must pay for that "right" and, in order to have the (legal?) means to do so, pay taxes on "income from all sources".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom