• 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.

Visbek said:
Handgun registration (licensing, to use the specific term) is mandatory. Not voluntary.
Click to expand...
there is no such thing as a mandatory gun registration I can just not register and that's my choice. And the enforcement thereof afterward is nearly impossible.

California also has some mandatory registration and other restrictions. E.g. you can't purchase assault rifles in CA; if you purchased one before the law kicked in, you were required to register it.
Click to expand...
how can they require you to register it what are they going to do with you don't? do they have a magical assault weapon detection system?



Police actually need a reason to pull you over, and stickers can easily be faked. So why would anyone bother to actually register their car?
Click to expand...
they don't need to pull you over to check your registration you do not drive your car 24/7 all they really need to do is look at your license plate. That can happen in a parking lot in your driveway or if you park on the street.



By that logic, cars are not designed to transport people, they are designed to wear down tires and consume windshield wiper fluid.
Click to expand...
explain how that follows.



Oh, really? So when you sell a private firearm to someone, do you check their age and their criminal record?
Click to expand...
anytime I've ever sold a gun to another person it was to someone whom I worked with and in that industry you had to be 21 in order to work there so I was okay in my assumption of their age. I do not check criminal background so I'm not an employer and I'm not a police officer.

Because you made it pretty clear that you don't care at all. You don't even seem to want access to a system that lets you check if they can legally purchase a firearm.
Click to expand...
it's not my business if they can legally purchase a firearm they know they can or can't if they purchase it from me they've broken the law not me.

Plus, the idea that databases can't possibly be expanded to include people who are barred from legal firearm purchases is laughable. I mean, really. You don't think that Google and Facebook already know that you own guns?
Click to expand...
I never participated on Facebook so no they don't even know I exist. Giving away information to me always seemed stupid. As far as Google goes they might know I have a gun or some guns but they don't know which guns how many serial numbers what caliber is there in how I acquired them or whether or not I sold them.

So no I don't think they know s***



By that logic, we should legalize all drugs, all prostitution, all child pornography, sales of alcohol to minors, all sales of stolen goods and so on because those laws can't possibly be enforced with 100% effectiveness.
Click to expand...
Again how does that follow?

if you apply stupid and absurd nonsense to my logic but you have to show me how it follows otherwise you're just barking because you've been owned.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
You have a very strong tendency to post nonsensical threads. Get over your sour grapes for having that pointed out, lady.
Click to expand...

I am sorry that you are unable to face the truth that you like to insult people.

RaleBulgarian said:
Wah is the sensitive type. She’s upset with me for pointing out in her “Logic” thread that it wasn’t logical.

Thin skin and DP aren’t compatible.
Click to expand...

Lol please. I don't even remember that you posted in my thread, much less what you said. You might be shocked to learn this but the truth is that you are insignificant to me.
 
Wan said:
Lol please. I don't even remember that you posted in my thread, much less what you said. You might be shocked to learn this but the truth is that you are insignificant to me.
Click to expand...
Uh huh, I’d rather be unknown to you, but ever since I posted in your little thread you’ve been stalking me and posting “you’re so rude” comments. Do us both a favor and put me on your ignore list.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Do you think somebody bent on what he did would just give up if he had the slightest amount of trouble buying a gun? I find that doubtful.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t. I think the little **** would have found some other way to hurt/kill people, but we’ll never know because the FBI screwed up.
 
CLAX1911 said:
there is no such thing as a mandatory gun registration I can just not register and that's my choice. And the enforcement thereof afterward is nearly impossible.
Click to expand...
I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Again: Handgun registration in New York State is mandatory. It's required. If you have a handgun, and fail to register it, you're breaking the law. Your willingness to break the law does not magically turn a mandatory requirement into a voluntary one. Even the ability to break the law without getting instantly busted does not mean it's voluntary.

For example: I am physically capable of driving a car without a license. I have not needed to show any law enforcement officers my drivers' license, while operating a vehicle, for a very very very long time. That does not mean that it is "voluntary" to have a drivers' license in order to operate an automobile on public roads.


anytime I've ever sold a gun to another person it was to someone whom I worked with and in that industry you had to be 21 in order to work there so I was okay in my assumption of their age. I do not check criminal background so I'm not an employer and I'm not a police officer.

it's not my business if they can legally purchase a firearm they know they can or can't if they purchase it from me they've broken the law not me.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this all still sounds like "I don't care who buys my guns, or what they do with them after I sell it." You're also doing everything you can, apparently, to fight access to a system that might actually let you check if that guy you work with is a legitimate buyer. <sarcasm>Your willingness to accept moral responsibility for your actions is deeply moving.</sarcasm>


I never participated on Facebook so no they don't even know I exist.
Click to expand...
lol

Got a news flash for you, my friend: You don't need an actual FB account for them to track you. Any web page with a little FB "like" button on it is tracking you. Plus, other sites (notably Google) tracks you via ads. There is no privacy on the Internet.

Let me put this another way: If a totalitarian government decided to seize every gun in the US, they aren't going to need gun owners to register their guns first. Anyone who doesn't understand that is completely out of touch with the ways that modern technology and totalitarian states operate.

I'd also add that anyone who thinks they can overthrow a totalitarian American government with small arms is utterly delusional.


Again how does that follow?
Click to expand...
lol... Do you really need me to spoon-feed this to you?

Your claim is basically that we should not have a law if people won't obey it. Well, people don't obey laws about drugs, prostitution, child pornography, underage drinking etc. So why should we have any of those laws, when they are routinely flouted, and difficult to enforce?
 
RaleBulgarian said:
No, I don’t. I think the little **** would have found some other way to hurt/kill people, but we’ll never know because the FBI screwed up.
Click to expand...

So would you agree that encumbering everyone else with extra laws that won't really have an effect on anything is a bad idea
 
CLAX1911 said:
So would you agree that encumbering everyone else with extra laws that won't really have an effect on anything is a bad idea
Click to expand...
A loaded question.

Ineffective laws are by definition, useless, so in that case, yes.
 
Visbek said:
I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Again: Handgun registration in New York State is mandatory. It's required. If you have a handgun, and fail to register it, you're breaking the law.
Click to expand...
So what? how many people are caught and arrested what percentage of that is unregistered gun owners I bet you can't even figure that one out because there's no way of knowing.

Fat lot of good that law does. Apparently it's just used to look black people up.

Your willingness to break the law does not magically turn a mandatory requirement into a voluntary one.
Click to expand...
The inability to enforce it does.

Even the ability to break the law without getting instantly busted does not mean it's voluntary.
Click to expand...
there is the ability to break the law a thousand times a day for the rest of your life and not get caught. So it being mandatory and name only is really rather lip service than actual mandate.

For example: I am physically capable of driving a car without a license. I have not needed to show any law enforcement officers my drivers' license, while operating a vehicle, for a very very very long time. That does not mean that it is "voluntary" to have a drivers' license in order to operate an automobile on public roads.
Click to expand...
but you have to openly drive your car in public. If you're driving it in private no one cares if you have a license. If you go on public streets yes cops can find out if you have a license or not. if I have a gun and don't go waving it around all over the place how are they going to know I have it?



Yeah, this all still sounds like "I don't care who buys my guns, or what they do with them after I sell it."
Click to expand...
that's precisely it. it's not my concern
You're also doing everything you can, apparently, to fight access to a system that might actually let you check if that guy you work with is a legitimate buyer.
Click to expand...
this isn't apparent in the least. It's yet another strawman you have created. I could care less about having access to something.

<sarcasm>Your willingness to accept moral responsibility for your actions is deeply moving.</sarcasm>
Click to expand...
if I were to sell my gun to somebody and they committed murder with it that wouldn't be my actions that would be the person who committed murder. I'm against punishing people for the actions of others I find that to be extremely immoral. Why not just start doing witchcraft trials again? I used to say regressive ingest but you truly are regressive.



lol

Got a news flash for you, my friend: You don't need an actual FB account for them to track you. Any web page with a little FB "like" button on it is tracking you. Plus, other sites (notably Google) tracks you via ads. There is no privacy on the Internet.
Click to expand...
so they know where I am when I'm carrying my phone big deal.

Let me put this another way: If a totalitarian government decided to seize every gun in the US, they aren't going to need gun owners to register their guns first. Anyone who doesn't understand that is completely out of touch with the ways that modern technology and totalitarian states operate.
Click to expand...
I don't think modern technology is capable of telling people where I buried my firearms to hide them from a totalitarian government.

I'd also add that anyone who thinks they can overthrow a totalitarian American government with small arms is utterly delusional.
Click to expand...
so you're already conquered.



lol... Do you really need me to spoon-feed this to you?
Click to expand...
no I'm calling you out you lied when you said it was in my logic. and I just want to watch you stammer and stutter trying to explain how it is.

Your claim is basically that we should not have a law if people won't obey it.
Click to expand...
how did I guess you already screwed up in the first sentence. That most certainly is not my claim. My claim is that an unenforceable law makes no sense.

Well, people don't obey laws about drugs, prostitution, child pornography, underage drinking etc. So why should we have any of those laws, when they are routinely flouted, and difficult to enforce?
Click to expand...

Sorry it didn't follow you failed.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Uh huh, I’d rather be unknown to you, but ever since I posted in your little thread you’ve been stalking me and posting “you’re so rude” comments.
Click to expand...

I stalk you? You wish.

Do us both a favor and put me on your ignore list.
Click to expand...
I don't want to put you on ignore. You have high entertainment value.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Among other things gun registration will not happen. And I will explain why.

Take a scenario you have a person with a gun and the government says register it and he registers. Should it get stolen he has the duty to report it to the police in a timely fashion lest he be suspected for any crime it should be involved in. So why would he register it? It's a lose-lose situation for him.

This sort of ties into universal background checks as well. The idea as I understand it, is to perform a background check on a person to person sale. if person A wants to sell his gun to person B all he does is trade the gun for money and he can do that anyway there's no way the government would know about it. Requiring person A to do a background check for most certainly a fee, wait for info to come back from the government which takes weeks sometimes months, to sell the gun to person B. If by some magical feet there is a registration that is functional, person A would just sell it to a person B and report it stolen to save himself the trouble the cost and the time.

These are practical reasons why these things aren't common sense.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Red:
Argumentative failure --> The predicate you stipulated does not include any "lest one be suspected of ..." provision. It expressly states "the government says register it," but that's it. You've "injected" the "if, then, else" constraint, rather than including it the predicate of your scenario.
 
CLAX1911 said:
The inability to enforce it does.
Click to expand...
So, you basically don't understand how laws work. Good to know.


that's precisely it. it's not my concern this isn't apparent in the least. It's yet another strawman you have created. I could care less about having access to something.
Click to expand...
Yes, your lack of care is precisely the problem. Pointing out the consequences and moral failures of your position are not a "straw man."


if I were to sell my gun to somebody and they committed murder with it that wouldn't be my actions that would be the person who committed murder.
Click to expand...
sigh

I never said that it was exactly the same, but thanks for deliberately misrepresenting my position. The problem is that a normal human being ought to at least feel some responsibility if they a) refuse to lift a finger to make sure the transaction is actually legal, and b) the weapon is subsequently used for an illegal and harmful purpose.

In fact, some people feel responsible when they do fulfill their responsibilities to check on the legality of a sale, and it was used in a violent crime. For example, Sunrise Tactical sold an AR-15 to the man who murdered 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High. They performed the required checks, it was a legal sale, but the existing databases didn't track whether he had any mental health issues -- that was literally just a checkbox on a form. The owners of Sunrise still were so distraught that they closed their gun store. That is a normal human reaction.

Your pride in your own callousness is, to put it mildly, not impressive.


I'm against punishing people for the actions of others I find that to be extremely immoral. Why not just start doing witchcraft trials again?
Click to expand...
Yaay, more irrational imputations

Absolutely nothing about registration or UBCs involves hysterical death sentences based on superstitions. The only hysterics here are those who think that "gun registration means confiscation!!!" or "UBCs are evil!!!"


so they know where I am when I'm carrying my phone big deal.
Click to expand...
lol... Yeah, it goes way beyond that. They know your purchasing habits, they know everything you search for, they know who you're communicating with, the list goes on. Sounds to me like you're paranoid about things that don't exist, and insufficiently paranoid about things that do.

It should also be obvious that in a modern totalitarian state, you'd have essentially zero privacy. And yes, it won't take them long to figure out who's against the state. Good luck with that.


I don't think modern technology is capable of telling people where I buried my firearms to hide them from a totalitarian government.
Click to expand...
lol... Well, you just stated on a public messaging board that you hide your weapons. Smooth move, Ferguson.

You obviously have no conception of how effective a totalitarian government can be, or how it operates.


no I'm calling you out you lied when you said it was in my logic.
Click to expand...
It is your logic. You just don't understand the consequences of your own position.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Factually, you have no way of knowing what would have happened if Roof was denied.

Agree, the lack of prosecutions for ex-felons trying to purchase firearms is pathetic.

If I wanted to sell a firearm privately, I’d like to have the ability to access NICS for basic info on a potential buyer. The way the world is today, I’d do like you’ve done before, selling to an FFL dealer or have one sell it for me on consignment.
Click to expand...

agreed. I only sell to people i know have a CCW, works for a gun dealer, or is family or LE
 
Xelor said:
Red:
Argumentative failure --> The predicate you stipulated does not include any "lest one be suspected of ..." provision. It expressly states "the government says register it," but that's it. You've "injected" the "if, then, else" constraint, rather than including it the predicate of your scenario.
Click to expand...

So there is no point. In registration?
 
Xelor said:
Red:
Argumentative failure --> The predicate you stipulated does not include any "lest one be suspected of ..." provision. It expressly states "the government says register it," but that's it. You've "injected" the "if, then, else" constraint, rather than including it the predicate of your scenario.

CLAX1911 said:
So there is no point. In registration?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Whether there is or isn't is unestablished by the argument you presented.
 
Visbek said:
So, you basically don't understand how laws work. Good to know.
Click to expand...
this isn't really about how the law works because that's really straightforward this is about how it's enforced. If it's enforced by voluntary means then it's not mandatory.



Yes, your lack of care is precisely the problem. Pointing out the consequences and moral failures of your position are not a "straw man."
Click to expand...
why is it a moral failing not to care about having access to the nics database? I'm sorry that statement doesn't make any kind of sense.



sigh

I never said that it was exactly the same, but thanks for deliberately misrepresenting my position. The problem is that a normal human being ought to at least feel some responsibility if they a) refuse to lift a finger to make sure the transaction is actually legal, and b) the weapon is subsequently used for an illegal and harmful purpose.
Click to expand...
I disagree people should be responsible for their own actions they shouldn't be able to blame the person that sold them the gun. just like if someone went around and stabs people to death they shouldn't blame the person who sold them the knife that's moronic that is not morality that is stupidity.

In fact, some people feel responsible when they do fulfill their responsibilities to check on the legality of a sale, and it was used in a violent crime.
Click to expand...
so some people are idiots who cares?

For example, Sunrise Tactical sold an AR-15 to the man who murdered 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High. They performed the required checks, it was a legal sale, but the existing databases didn't track whether he had any mental health issues -- that was literally just a checkbox on a form. The owners of Sunrise still were so distraught that they closed their gun store. That is a normal human reaction.
Click to expand...
I disagreed it's an idiotic human reaction. The gun shop that's holding the gun didn't do anything wrong. and you're never going to convince me that they should have any sort of guilt for it.

so if you're trying to shame me into agreement with you using words like it's normal or it's accepted or it's common it's not going to work. Feelings of guilt are often misplaced.

Your pride in your own callousness is, to put it mildly, not impressive.
Click to expand...
your evaluation of my personality and thoughts is first off wrong II stupid. Whatever you using to define my mood tarot cards crystal balls it's all bunk.

Seriously though I don't give half a **** if you think I'm callous or proud.



Yaay, more irrational imputations

Absolutely nothing about registration or UBCs involves hysterical death sentences based on superstitions. The only hysterics here are those who think that "gun registration means confiscation!!!" or "UBCs are evil!!!"
Click to expand...
this is a stupid argument I did not say that it was leading up to confiscation. I said it was impossible to enforce.

so please continue arguing against something I never said as if it's relevant at all to the discussion.


lol... Yeah, it goes way beyond that. They know your purchasing habits, they know everything you search for, they know who you're communicating with, the list goes on.
Click to expand...
they know everything I use my phone for or my computer. They don't know everything about me.

Sounds to me like you're paranoid about things that don't exist, and insufficiently paranoid about things that do.
Click to expand...
what am I paranoid about?

It should also be obvious that in a modern totalitarian state, you'd have essentially zero privacy. And yes, it won't take them long to figure out who's against the state. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
you say I'm paranoid and you keep talking about totalitarian States. Do you know what you're talkin about?



lol... Well, you just stated on a public messaging board that you hide your weapons. Smooth move, Ferguson.
Click to expand...
but no one knows where.

You obviously have no conception of how effective a totalitarian government can be, or how it operates.
Click to expand...
they never fail do they?



It is your logic.
Click to expand...
to wit I asked you how does it follow and you didn't say. so I've got your idiotic claim that some stupid nonsense you made up is my logic but I don't have anything showing me how it is.

You just don't understand the consequences of your own position.
Click to expand...
don't blame me because you're too much of a flunky to explain these consequences in a way that anyone can understand. I assume that means there's not any and you just disagree and want to have some position of superiority because it's what the people who can't back up their claims do.
 
Xelor said:
Whether there is or isn't is unestablished by the argument you presented.
Click to expand...

Correct it was established by the statement you made.

If I can sell my gun to criminal and not report it stolen and please find them figure out the gun was registered to me and they don't do anything to me then the registration would serve no purpose.

if it does continue to serve a purpose after that please explain to me what it would be I am all ears.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Among other things gun registration will not happen. And I will explain why.

Take a scenario you have a person with a gun and the government says register it and he registers. Should it get stolen he has the duty to report it to the police in a timely fashion lest he be suspected for any crime it should be involved in. So why would he register it? It's a lose-lose situation for him.

This sort of ties into universal background checks as well. The idea as I understand it, is to perform a background check on a person to person sale. if person A wants to sell his gun to person B all he does is trade the gun for money and he can do that anyway there's no way the government would know about it. Requiring person A to do a background check for most certainly a fee, wait for info to come back from the government which takes weeks sometimes months, to sell the gun to person B. If by some magical feet there is a registration that is functional, person A would just sell it to a person B and report it stolen to save himself the trouble the cost and the time.

These are practical reasons why these things aren't common sense.

Your thoughts?

Xelor said:
Red:
Argumentative failure --> The predicate you stipulated does not include any "lest one be suspected of ..." provision. It expressly states "the government says register it," but that's it. You've "injected" the "if, then, else" constraint, rather than including it the predicate of your scenario.

CLAX1911 said:
So there is no point. In registration?

CLAX1911 said:
Correct it was established by the statement you made.

If I can sell my gun to criminal and not report it stolen and please find them figure out the gun was registered to me and they don't do anything to me then the registration would serve no purpose.

if it does continue to serve a purpose after that please explain to me what it would be I am all ears.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Blue:
You just keep thinking that...
 
CLAX1911 said:
Excuse me my apologies, I meant law.

So if the law would have been ineffective stopping someone like roof, what is its purpose?
Click to expand...
The law wasn’t the cause in Roof’s case, failure to properly implement the law was.
 
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...

If firearm registration was entirely voluntary, then it would not violate the US Constitution. However, a mandatory registration violates the Second Amendment because any penalty for not registering a firearm would be an infringement of the individual right to keep and bear arms. If there is no penalty, then there is no infringement.

As long as government maintains the ability to confiscate all firearms through registration, it will always be an infringement. Before you claim that something like that would never happen, it already has - several times.

In 1934 NAZI German required all private firearms to be registered. By 1937 all private firearms were banned in Germany. Because Germans had registered their firearms, the NAZI's knew exactly who to collect them from. More recently, in 1991 Australia began requiring all private firearms to be registered. By 1997 Australia began rounding up those registered firearms. Even more recently the Canadians began requiring private firearms to be registered in 1995. By 2014 Canada began confiscating those registered firearms.

The only purpose for the government registration of firearms is to give the government the ability to seize those firearms from the morons who registered them in the first place. Anyone who registers a firearm is monumentally stupid and shouldn't ever be allowed to own a firearm in the first place. They are simply too stupid to own a firearm.
 
VanceMack said:
There is no such thing as a 'ghost gun'.

First...the owner is NOT 'wrong'. The Federal Government and Constitution provides for the right to keep and bear arms. As it is specifically addressed states rights and laws are superseded. Now you would probably disagree with that statement...right up until I then point out that by your logic states should then have the right to ban gay weddings. And of course you will respond by saying Nu UHN UH!!!!! cause the 14th!!!

That being said...California does not prevent people from building guns from 80% lower blocks. Ca law requires a serial number be assigned...which is what happened.

Finally..all you are doing is avoiding the FACT that the man registered his gun...and the government then confiscated it.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Supreme Court held that the individual right to keep and bear arms was binding upon the States in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and California frequently violates the Second Amendment, among numerous other protected rights under the US Constitution. It is very obvious that Democrats don't give a damn about the US Constitution, considering it is always, without exception, the Democrat-controlled States who continually violate the rights of the people.
 
Glitch said:
If firearm registration was entirely voluntary, then it would not violate the US Constitution. However, a mandatory registration violates the Second Amendment because any penalty for not registering a firearm would be an infringement of the individual right to keep and bear arms. If there is no penalty, then there is no infringement.

As long as government maintains the ability to confiscate all firearms through registration, it will always be an infringement. Before you claim that something like that would never happen, it already has - several times.

In 1934 NAZI German required all private firearms to be registered. By 1937 all private firearms were banned in Germany. Because Germans had registered their firearms, the NAZI's knew exactly who to collect them from. More recently, in 1991 Australia began requiring all private firearms to be registered. By 1997 Australia began rounding up those registered firearms. Even more recently the Canadians began requiring private firearms to be registered in 1995. By 2014 Canada began confiscating those registered firearms.

The only purpose for the government registration of firearms is to give the government the ability to seize those firearms from the morons who registered them in the first place. Anyone who registers a firearm is monumentally stupid and shouldn't ever be allowed to own a firearm in the first place. They are simply too stupid to own a firearm.
Click to expand...

Unless the penalty of failing to register is confiscation, there is no infringement.

And arguing what might happen down the road is not germane to the immediate issue.

* I am not for or against registering firearms. Just participating in the debate, playing devil’s advocate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom