• 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!

Reason why a gun registration will not happen.

CLAX1911 said:
a gun registration is not going to happen.
Click to expand...
1) Repetition is not an argument.
2) Registration is happening, in a few states, right now. Unpossible?!? Nope, it's real.
3) Again, we see multiple instances where something that seemed utterly impossible wound up happening. Thus, merely saying "it's not gonna happen!" especially when it's already happening is not persuasive. At all.


Besides a registration is unenforceable.
Click to expand...
Oh, really? I guess states should stop requiring car registrations then.


there still are hundreds of millions of guns already owned by the populist and I will not register mine and nobody else is going to either.
Click to expand...
And yet, people who live in states that require gun registration continue to live in those states. Some of those residents even legally purchase firearms!!! Who'da thunk it?


how are you going to know who has them?
Click to expand...
How does New York State enforce its handgun registration laws?


but if I'm not an FFL why should I do it?
Click to expand...
Autos, unlike guns, are not designed specifically to kill. Thus, the state doesn't require auto dealers to run background or license checks on purchasers. It makes no sense to have separate requirements for individuals than for retailers.

Further, your moral abdication on this point is... how should I put this... rather revealing. At a bare minimum, it shows the need for a universal background check -- because someone like you apparently doesn't care if he or she sells firearms to someone who shouldn't have one, such as a juvenile without a guardian present; someone convicted of a violent felony, who has not gone through a process to regain their right to bear arms; or a domestic abuser.

Maybe, just maybe, you should think about the implications of your position.
 
TurtleDude said:
both of those are designed for revenue-there is a 11% or so excise tax on firearms and ammunition already. Last I checked, neither dogs nor cars are constitutionally protected either. But thanks for admitting that registration does nothing positive for gun owners.
Click to expand...
Understanding the subtle difference between admitting and acknowledging, as I’m certain you are and deliberately used in framing your response, no, I don’t admit squat.

Registering a vehicle is not just a revenue scheme. It also (and importantly) a method by which a state can determine who is the rightful owner of a vehicle, where the vehicle is kept, and where the vehicle is primarily driven. I don’t consider those reasons very important to me, but do understand the state's use for the information.

As for Constitutional protections, please show me anywhere in the Constitution that says a state or the federal government cannot require registration. Registration certainly does not infringe on anyone’s rights “to bear arms”.
 
CLAX1911 said:
correct it would be unconstitutional because it violates the Constitution. Just because it hasn't been challenged in the federal court doesn't mean it's constitutional.
Click to expand...
Your proclamation that "it's unconstitutional WAAAHHH!!!" is not an argument.


false see the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
You mean, ignore the first half of the 2nd Amendment, along with about 150 years of jurisprudence? Pass.


the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Scalia went against the Constitution if he indeed said that.
Click to expand...
lol... He definitely said it.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Of course, quite a bit of what he wrote in Heller is a gross distortion of the Constitution and the subsequent jurisprudence, but he got this part right. That's one reason why almost none of the hundreds of challenges to gun laws after Heller were *cough* shot down by the courts.


registration infringes. It doesn't matter no one's going to do it anyway. You would be an idiot if you did.
Click to expand...
And yet, millions of gun owners in states like New York and Hawaii register their guns -- and despite those laws being on the books for years, their firearms weren't seized. Go figure.
 
Lursa said:
Your arguments are not convincing and your claim that registration would be Constitutional is still without foundation.
Click to expand...
No, actually, it's based in decades of actual jurisprudence, including Scalia's own statements in Heller, as well as the logic of the relevant laws.

Let us know when you can actually construct a substantive argument, rather than declarations which display your own preferences.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
It won’t go anywhere in the Senate, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

And it shouldn't.

So the government fails to do its job in a timely manor and someone buys a gun that shouldn't have gotten one. And the solution is to further inconvenience lawful gunowners.

Why not address the real problem? Government often screws up. Government employees go unscathed.
 
jimbo said:
And it shouldn't.

So the government fails to do its job in a timely manor and someone buys a gun that shouldn't have gotten one. And the solution is to further inconvenience lawful gunowners.

Why not address the real problem? Government often screws up. Government employees go unscathed.
Click to expand...
“Timely manner” according to you. Making up scapegoats, asserting that any delays are based on government screwups and underperforming employees is bs. Any large system, including NICS, won’t be 100% perfect. There’s never been a perfect large scale system and there’s no reason to believe there ever will be. The NICS system is actually pretty damned fast, and accurate considering how many checks are run, with the average turnaround on a firearms purchase check of less than 3 minutes. So what if, on a rare occasion, a potential purchaser has to wait 10 whole days? What’s the big ****ing deal? Isn’t possibly saving some lives worth the chance of a rare inconvenience?
 
RaleBulgarian said:
“Timely manner” according to you. Making up scapegoats, asserting that any delays are based on government screwups and underperforming employees is bs. Any large system, including NICS, won’t be 100% perfect. There’s never been a perfect large scale system and there’s no reason to believe there ever will be. The NICS system is actually pretty damned fast, and accurate considering how many checks are run, with the average turnaround on a firearms purchase check of less than 3 minutes. So what if, on a rare occasion, a potential purchaser has to wait 10 whole days? What’s the big ****ing deal? Isn’t possibly saving some lives worth the chance of a rare inconvenience?
Click to expand...

It's pretty damn fast. In Virginia the max wait is 3 days. The average wait time is less than an hour. Anything past 3 days means somebody is sitting on it.
 
Visbek said:
Does registering your car prevent you from driving it?
Click to expand...

They are not remotely comparable. Keeping and bearing is a fundamental right. Auto registration is solely a tax collection mechanism. It serves no other purpose.

I don't get your point.
 
I buy my firearms from either private individuals or private businesses at gun shows. I do not suffer background checks or registration. The less government knows about the firearms I own, the better. I don't know a single gun owner with an IQ above room temperature that would ever register their firearms. That is a clear sign of stupidity.

Anyone who thinks it is a good idea to register firearms with government should never be allowed to own a firearm.
 
jimbo said:
It's pretty damn fast. In Virginia the max wait is 3 days. The average wait time is less than an hour. Anything past 3 days means somebody is sitting on it.
Click to expand...
I live in Va Beach, VA, and have bought 2 firearms from FFL’s in the last couple of years. Both times the check was complete in less than 5 minutes.

You’re probably right that, at 3 days, somebody’s probably sitting on it for some reason. It’s worth remembering that at the 3 day point, the FFL can sell the firearm, but can also refuse the sales, which is what I would do. I’d rather lose a customer than possibly sell a firearm to someone who shouldn’t have it. If the FFL in SC had done that, 9 good people would still be with us.

Bottom line for me (just speaking for me), I’d rather act on the side of caution. A rare possible 10 day delay isn’t a problem and my 2nd Amendment right is still fully intact.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
I live in Va Beach, VA, and have bought 2 firearms from FFL’s in the last couple of years. Both times the check was complete in less than 5 minutes.

You’re probably right that, at 3 days, somebody’s probably sitting on it for some reason. It’s worth remembering that at the 3 day point, the FFL can sell the firearm, but can also refuse the sales, which is what I would do. I’d rather lose a customer than possibly sell a firearm to someone who shouldn’t have it. If the FFL in SC had done that, 9 good people would still be with us.

Bottom line for me (just speaking for me), I’d rather act on the side of caution. A rare possible 10 day delay isn’t a problem and my 2nd Amendment right is still fully intact.
Click to expand...

If I felt that a prospective customer seemed suspicious, I, like you. would not proceed, But that would be at any point in the sale, not just at 3 or 10 days. I think the law makes the dealer the first line of defense.

Increasing the allowable government time frame threefold seems like an invitation for the government to sit on their hands.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
See my response to TurtleDude.
Click to expand...

I dont understand the practical purpose of the state needing to know who owns a firearm or how it's used or where it's used. It prevents nothing (nor does car registration that I can think of). It does affect the sale of cars, that might be one.

How does the national bureaucratic time and $$ outweigh the lack of usefulness of gun registration? (my presumption until provided with true useful purposes)
 
jimbo said:
If I felt that a prospective customer seemed suspicious, I, like you. would not proceed, But that would be at any point in the sale, not just at 3 or 10 days. I think the law makes the dealer the first line of defense.
Click to expand...
^^ 100% agree.

jimbo said:
Increasing the allowable government time frame threefold seems like an invitation for the government to sit on their hands.
Click to expand...
For some anti-gunner legislators, you could be right. Sometimes a proposed measure like the one being discussed can be a “slippery slope” to even more restrictive gun ownership laws, but from what I’ve read on this one it doesn’t appear that way. The wait time where there is a question/concern about a potential buyer does increase, but the FFL still retains the right to sell at the end of 10 days. If that part were removed, I might then have a problem with it.
 
Lursa said:
I dont understand the practical purpose of the state needing to know who owns a firearm or how it's used or where it's used. It prevents nothing (nor does car registration that I can think of). It does affect the sale of cars, that might be one.

How does the national bureaucratic time and $$ outweigh the lack of usefulness of gun registration? (my presumption until provided with true useful purposes)
Click to expand...

You may be misinterpreting my position. I’m not for or against firearms registration. I also don’t see a requirement to register as any violation of my 2nd amendment rights. Then again, I’m not paranoid.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
You may be misinterpreting my position. I’m not for or against firearms registration. I also don’t see a requirement to register as any violation of my 2nd amendment rights. Then again, I’m not paranoid.
Click to expand...

I was just asking for clarification for the purpose(s) of registration that you said you'd provided to Turtle.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Understanding the subtle difference between admitting and acknowledging, as I’m certain you are and deliberately used in framing your response, no, I don’t admit squat.

Registering a vehicle is not just a revenue scheme. It also (and importantly) a method by which a state can determine who is the rightful owner of a vehicle, where the vehicle is kept, and where the vehicle is primarily driven. I don’t consider those reasons very important to me, but do understand the state's use for the information.

As for Constitutional protections, please show me anywhere in the Constitution that says a state or the federal government cannot require registration. Registration certainly does not infringe on anyone’s rights “to bear arms”.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand the concept of a federal government that is limited to its specified enumerated powers. The proper inquiry is never-SHOW ME WHERE THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT DO SOMETHING. Rather, the proper inquiry is-SHOW ME WHERE THE GOVERNMENT WAS PROPERLY GIVEN THE POWER TO REQUIRE REGISTRATION.
 
Lursa said:
I dont understand the practical purpose of the state needing to know who owns a firearm or how it's used or where it's used. It prevents nothing (nor does car registration that I can think of). It does affect the sale of cars, that might be one.

How does the national bureaucratic time and $$ outweigh the lack of usefulness of gun registration? (my presumption until provided with true useful purposes)
Click to expand...

Add to that is the fact that EVERY group that wants to ban or limit civilian ownership of firearms or some types of firearms, wants registration.
 
jimbo said:
Registration is most definitely an infringement.
Click to expand...

Yep, requiring an affirmative action, that will be met with punishment, if not complied with-is certainly an infringement.
 
TurtleDude said:
You don't seem to understand the concept of a federal government that is limited to its specified enumerated powers. The proper inquiry is never-SHOW ME WHERE THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT DO SOMETHING. Rather, the proper inquiry is-SHOW ME WHERE THE GOVERNMENT WAS PROPERLY GIVEN THE POWER TO REQUIRE REGISTRATION.
Click to expand...
Save that speech for someone else, because I’m not going allow you to manipulate the direction of our conversation. You, TurtleDude (not the U.S. government), have implied that requiring registration of our firearms is somehow a violation of our 2nd amendment rights and I’m asking you to make your case. Well, can you?
 
RaleBulgarian said:
^^ 100% agree.


For some anti-gunner legislators, you could be right. Sometimes a proposed measure like the one being discussed can be a “slippery slope” to even more restrictive gun ownership laws, but from what I’ve read on this one it doesn’t appear that way. The wait time where there is a question/concern about a potential buyer does increase, but the FFL still retains the right to sell at the end of 10 days. If that part were removed, I might then have a problem with it.
Click to expand...

i see no difference between 3 days and 10 days. i don't stop off at the gun store on my way to the range, so it would be nothing more than a slight inconvenience, but an inconvenience nevertheless. I also don't like slippery slopes. If 10 is good, why not 15? Same with firearms restrictions. If AR 15's why not 16's and 17's.
 
jimbo said:
i see no difference between 3 days and 10 days. i don't stop off at the gun store on my way to the range, so it would be nothing more than a slight inconvenience, but an inconvenience nevertheless. I also don't like slippery slopes. If 10 is good, why not 15? Same with firearms restrictions. If AR 15's why not 16's and 17's.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Jimbo, I can’t go any further with you down that rabbit hole.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Save that speech for someone else, because I’m not going allow you to manipulate the direction of our conversation. You, TurtleDude (not the U.S. government), have implied that requiring registration of our firearms is somehow a violation of our 2nd amendment rights and I’m asking you to make your case. Well, can you?
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the constitution that authorizes the federal government to demand registration of firearms that are no longer moving in interstate commerce. So registration violates the TENTH amendment. And based on US v Lopez, the nexus to interstate commerce is not sufficient. Secondly, requiring people to register guns they already have purchased, is an infringement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom