Why Not Registration and Permits?

[Rich2018]

You said some states don't allow concealed carry.

I believe that to be the case, but if you're saying they all do except yours, I'm happy to be corrected in this instance.

Not being a student of state wide gun laws and barely versed in the laws in Georgia.

 

[Rich2018]

Its foolish to anyone who can think logically.

Oh so a national gun registry is logically unsound as well as "foolish" now ?

It would not stop gun crime and countries that have tried a registration found it ineffective.

No it wouldn't but that would not be its aim.
It would help SOLVE some gun crime and deter some crime.

State wide registries are good but a national registry is much better.

British police talk about a gun "finger print" which some on here have said can be lost through maintenance and use, but that is worth registering too

Your opinion is noted and dismissed because well simply put you are not very well informed in the subject and continue to post idiotic purposels.

Just because there is a lot of resistance from the gun lobby, doesn't make is a bad idea. Actually it means it's probably a good idea
Many people support such a registry

I can't think of any down side.

Under your logic we should scrap car license plates

If brandishing a firearm results in a hand slap theb IMO its not being enforced properly.

Oh you'll go to jail following arrest...but chances are the judge won't sentence you to more jail.

Of course if you point the gun at someone, that is something more serious.

Yes I am. However it's not a good idea to do so and would never do it myself.

If a cop finds any alcohol in your system at all in Georgia, and you're carrying, you lose your gun rights.

 

[NWRatCon]

Then there was that city newspaper that released registered gun owners names:

Newspaper Publishes Gun Owners' Names and Addresses - ABC News

Then look at every nation which enacted gun registration laws.

Invariably this soon followed with outlawing weapons and confiscation/enforced buy-backs.

Wow. Evidence? [Please say Germany, please say Germany...] Do you go a day without making **** up and expecting others to swallow it?

 

[NWRatCon]

Did they have to register or obtain licenses or insurance for anything when the constitution was written?

Possibly ships and cargo. But doubtful much else. It’s 2020 not 1776. Guns today are not flint lock things that you can stuff in your back pocket.

What happens when we can carry disintegration guns ? Still no registration? So even though the second clearly states “ a well regulated militia “ no registration?

A little historical perspective:

Today American gun rights advocates typically oppose any form of registration – even though such schemes are common in every other industrial democracy – and typically argue that registration violates the Second Amendment. This claim is also hard to square with the history of the nation’s founding. All of the colonies – apart from Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania, the one colony in which religious pacifists blocked the creation of a militia – enrolled local citizens, white men between the ages of 16-60 in state-regulated militias. The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons required for militia service. Men could be fined if they reported to a muster without a well-maintained weapon in working condition.

Five types of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved (the Conversation).

 

[NWRatCon]

They did have bigger weapons back in 1776 such as cannons which were tremendously destructive and to the best of my knowledge they didn't require licenses or registration.

Evidently your best is not very good. Early American law distinguished between "arms" which could be "borne" by an individual, and "armaments", which is what, today, we would call "crew served weapons". Armaments were stored in militia-controlled armories. You remember Concord and Lexington? Yeah. That was about this.

 

[RF667799]

I believe that to be the case, but if you're saying they all do except yours, I'm happy to be corrected in this instance.

Not being a student of state wide gun laws and barely versed in the laws in Georgia.

I didn't say all except mine.

I asked you about the statement you made and now you admit it was an exceptionally ignorant statement.

Wait I misspoke. Not exceptional.

 

[NWRatCon]

Wait I misspoke.

New Sig line?

 

[Rich2018]

I didn't say all except mine.

I asked you about the statement you made and now you admit it was an exceptionally ignorant statement.

Wait I misspoke. Not exceptional.

That some states don't allow concealed carry. If that is no longer the case I am happy to stand corrected, not being a student of states' gun laws.

I believed some state did still prohibit concealed carry and do not issue licenses to do so to members of the public.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Wow. Evidence? [Please say Germany, please say Germany...] Do you go a day without making **** up and expecting others to swallow it?

New Zealand gun buyback: 10,000 firearms returned after Christchurch attack...A bill outlawing most automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and components that modify existing weapons, was passed by a vote of 119 to 1 in April.

New Zealand gun buyback: 10,000 firearms returned after Christchurch attack | World news | The Guardian

Gun law of Australia. A person must have a firearm licence to possess or use a firearm. Licence holders must demonstrate a "genuine reason" (which does not include self-defence) for holding a firearm licence[2] and must not be a "prohibited person". All firearms must be registered by serial number to the owner, who must also hold a firearms licence. There has been 28 state and territory-based amnesties since Port Arthur. The 1996 national amnesty and ‘buyback’ scheme ran for 12 months from October 1996 to September 1997 as part of the National Firearms Agreement which resulted in the removal of almost 650,000 firearms. There was also a six-month national handgun buyback in 2003 as part of the National Handgun Control Agreement (2002) resulting in the surrender of 68,727 handguns nationally[51]

Gun law of Australia - Wikipedia

The (Australian) "National Firearms Buyback Program" in 1996 was held for 12 months and retrieved 650,000 guns. The 2003 handgun buyback ran for 6 months and retrieved 68,727 guns. Both involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government. Bought back firearms were destroyed.[1]

Gun buyback program - Wikipedia

 

[Rich2018]

New Zealand gun buyback: 10,000 firearms returned after Christchurch attack | World news | The Guardian

Gun law of Australia - Wikipedia

Gun buyback program - Wikipedia

Damn those enemies of freedom.

/sarcasm

 

[RF667799]

That some states don't allow concealed carry. If that is no longer the case I am happy to stand corrected, not being a student of states' gun laws.

I believed some state did still prohibit concealed carry and do not issue licenses to do so to members of the public.

State-by-State Concealed Carry Permit Laws - Concealed Handguns - ProCon.org

Concealed carry is allowed in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

You made a statement in rebuttal to another poster and when questioned admitted the statement was made in ignorance. You have now been corrected.

No need to thank me. Go apologize to that other poster.

 

[Rich2018]

State-by-State Concealed Carry Permit Laws - Concealed Handguns - ProCon.org

Concealed carry is allowed in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

You made a statement in rebuttal to another poster and when questioned admitted the statement was made in ignorance. You have now been corrected.

No need to thank me. Go apologize to that other poster.

Why apologize, did I call into question the honesty of another poster ?

I leave that kind of behavior to Fledermaus.

 

[NWRatCon]

New Zealand gun buyback: 10,000 firearms returned after Christchurch attack | World news | The Guardian...

You may not realize (probably don't) that not one word of your post or citations support your position? Gun buybacks are not confiscation. They're an amnesty. Indeed from your own citation:

The amnesty mean no questions will be asked by police about when or how owners acquired the now-banned weapons, even if they don’t have a current firearms licence or paperwork for the weapons.

It helps if one reads sources before posting.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm not sure how I feel about that.

I think its restricted information, but again the public have a right to know.

It's a big can of worms, and fly's in the face of reason. The people who register, are part owners of "the papers."

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
​

Yes, mine is a weak argument, but the whole idea of giving such sensitive information to others is unreasonable, without probable cause.

Consider the ways criminals may use such information once made public.

Why do you (the public) have the right to know what I own? Do you also want to know the color of my underwear? Boxers or briefs?

 

[Lord of Planar]

The reason why its wrong to have registration and permits is because the right to keep and bear arms is exactly that, a right. Not a privilege which would require registration and/or permits/licensing.

So true. Registration should be optional.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The freedom of information act on government records.

But we should class CCW permit data as confidential personal info as we do census returns.

And tax returns.

Hey Rich...

Do you have a right to see my tax return also?

 

[RF667799]

Why apologize, did I call into question the honesty of another poster ?

I leave that kind of behavior to Fledermaus.

You responded to his argument with a statement as if it was fact. You weren't aware if the statement was true or not when you made it. That's intellectually dishonest.

 

[Chillfolks]

You responded to his argument with a statement as if it was fact. You weren't aware if the statement was true or not when you made it. That's intellectually dishonest.

That's typical of Rich2018 blurring the lines between fact fiction and opinion to support whatever he wants while ignoring reality.

 

[RF667799]

That's typical of Rich2018 blurring the lines between fact fiction and opinion to support whatever he wants while ignoring reality.

Of course, but it doesn't excuse rude behavior. My opinion is he should apologize. Or at least admit his correction to you.

 

[Rich2018]

It's a big can of worms, and fly's in the face of reason. The people who register, are part owners of "the papers."

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
​

Yes, mine is a weak argument, but the whole idea of giving such sensitive information to others is unreasonable, without probable cause.

Consider the ways criminals may use such information once made public.

Why do you (the public) have the right to know what I own? Do you also want to know the color of my underwear? Boxers or briefs?

I take your point, yet public records are something open to public scrutiny.

I think on balance, I prefer that such information should be treated like census information and be for government use only.

 

[Rich2018]

And tax returns.

Hey Rich...

Do you have a right to see my tax return also?

No

Though a court does.

 

[Rich2018]

You responded to his argument with a statement as if it was fact...

Then I think I said I am happy to stand corrected

 

[Rich2018]

Of course, but it doesn't excuse rude behavior. My opinion is he should apologize. Or at least admit his correction to you.

LOL, rude behavior

Pot...kettle....black.

 

[RF667799]

Then I think I said I am happy to stand corrected

Have you gone back and corrected yourself with Chillfolks?

 

[Captain Adverse]

You may not realize (probably don't) that not one word of your post or citations support your position?

Actually you don't seem to realize it, but it supports my point exactly.

Gun buybacks are not confiscation. They're an amnesty.

Amnesty means "to grant a general pardon, to overlook, forget/forgive..." Forget what? Forgive what?

That the guns have been declared ILLEGAL that's what. That if you turn them in we'll overlook your "criminal possession" and heck, we'll even give you a little money to make it all better.

Registration and licensing make this effort much simpler. If you don't "sell" them to us, eventually we'll come around to TAKE them anyway.

It helps if one reads sources before posting.

I agree, and I DID read my sources. But it also helps to understand concepts, and have the ability to comprehend what one is reading.

You should try it some time. :coffeepap: