Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumSome here don't want mandatory registration of guns because they plan to break the law
and keep a particular gun, even if it's banned.
mandatory registration however would make it harder to break the law.
got it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
clffrdjk
(905 posts)clffrdjk
(905 posts)
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)i think the manual says that when you're trying to respond to an argument that isn't covered by the manual, that you have to somehow shift it to something the manual does cover.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)Not even you could truly believe that that is not confiscation.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)what is it about you or your plans that you so badly want to talk about something other than the OP?
clffrdjk
(905 posts)And the first question asked was mine, you came in with a statement and I am commenting on that statement.
Speaking of which, why is confiscation the only "positive" you have mentioned for registration? Do you have no other reasons to support it?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)that will work. Laws sure keep those drug users from getting the drugs since they are illegal.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)which ones? all of them?
clffrdjk
(905 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)clffrdjk
(905 posts)"plan to break the law and keep a particular gun, even if it's banned.
mandatory registration however would make it harder to break the law."
Heck you even suggest that registration would help such proposals.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)first, because you have a response to a gun ban discussion.
second, because you have a response to the OP's question, but saying it would reflect poorly on you.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)Which is a person using confiscation as an argument for registration.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)you are the one that said it not me
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and why are you repeating verbatim the other poster's reply to me?
that's not you is it?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)of us just read your post
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)clffrdjk
(905 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)because i didn't write it.
are you trying to ruin your credibility and still win the argument?
clffrdjk
(905 posts)
chillfactor
(7,576 posts)you are against registering your guns..what is the problem? you using unlawful firearms to kill poor innocent ducks?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)username means. It is not about ducks.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)We've given up enough of our privacy, thank you very much.
Gun registration is an abhorrent prelude to confiscation, make no mistake.
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Nothing-to-Hide/
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)maybe it's just me.
i will say as a deer hunter, and an NFA firearm owner, I still oppose registration, most every "assault rifle" I own is registered as an SBR so I am not in danger of breaking this pre-confiscartion shopping list idea. I am certain the local LEO are drooling over getting to requisition my collection for the common good.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)ADA for 20 years, thus the oozlefinch.
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)we had in our Infantry Bts.. Full grunt load out AND a stinger and rounds, only thing worse is a Charlie dog in a Bravo platoon...
Fulda Gap era Army was a nightmare for Infantry attached support.
chillfactor
(7,576 posts)how ANYONE could be against gun registration...only gun lovers who carry their penis and ovaries on their hips could be against it....
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)but, damn, that's funny.
Oh, OK, I'll take a stance:
I own guns. I have a carry permit and sometimes carry a gun.
I do own a prohibited weapon, a switchblade knife w/ a 3.75" blade. I always carry that knife. (I find it very strange that I can legally carry incredibly potent, military-style weapons, that I can wear a fixed blade knife in a sheath on my belt, but can't even possess an automatic knife. I suppose it's veiled racism, like saying "marijuana" when you mean "cannabis".)
No firearm I own is illegal and none of them is likely to be prohibited. If one became illegal (like my magazine fed 12 GA) I'd turn it in, registered or not. Because I don't intend to risk jail over something not actually necessary. (OK, i'm breaking the law with my knife, but I really don't think any court is going to embarrass itself by convicting a licensed-carry resident for a pocket knife. Anyway, I'm white.)(& I consider my cannabis to be "necessary".)
I have absolutely no objection to registering my guns. I have no objection to a reasonable background check in order to register & purchase weapons. I don't object to reasonable restraints on the types of firearms I can own or carry. I don't believe any government official, elected or appointed, REP or DEM, wants to "grab" my guns.
And I question the sanity of any person that does object to these conditions, or thinks the government is anxious to confiscate his guns.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)switchblades had more to do with mass hysteria than racism. With pot, it was racism on the state level before the 1937 federal law. Perhaps if James Dean had an M1 carbine instead of a switchblade, perhaps ARs would be illegal today?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchblade#Controversy
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Tx!
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 20, 2014, 02:46 PM - Edit history (1)
specificly line 11e?
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)knows exactly what I asked you.
but i'll help you out,
11e Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
to add...
any person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance is barred from possessing guns. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)..
I mistook the line, my appologies
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Let me give you a more direct response:
MYOB.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)What is the penalty, again, for making a false statement on a 4473? 
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)I actually was not using when last I purchased.
Don't expect to purchase anytime soon, I'm not a collector.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Prosecutors have other ways available.
Where did you say you lived, again? 
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Yeah, that's it!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)there was an ATF ruling on that concerning medical cannabis a few years ago.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)I'll turn in my guns and my permit tomorrow....
(actually I live in Georgia, not CO. And, they'll have to pry my pipe from my cold, sleepy, brain-dead fingers...)
armueller2001
(609 posts)"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." - Dianne Feinstein
Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky - "An assault weapons ban is just the beginning" -
NY Gov Andrew Cuomo - "Confiscation could be an option" - http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336373/cuomo-confiscation-could-be-option-eliana-johnson
Look at what is happening in Ukraine. I'd much rather we keep our weapons as a final check and balance. Of course, the government has a vested interest in chipping away at those rights as much as possible.
"There are five boxes to use in the defense of Liberty: The Soap Box, the Mail Box, the Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Ammunition Box. Please use them in that order."
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the ninth amendment.
Response to gejohnston (Reply #12)
Post removed
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I leave that to drug dealers, who also sell guns, that can't aim all in the name a great toke. Since I have yet to see a gun controller make an intelligent, rational argument, why bother?
Speaking of children, how many did Shannon Watts kill when she was PR executive for Monsanto?
People like Bloomberg don't give a rat's ass about innocent children, crime victims, or suicide victims. When they speak of "gun crime" that means 80 percent of violent crime is a nonissue to them because they can't be used as a propaganda prop. When the talk about "gun suicides" that means they don't give a rat's ass about the other 48 percent of US suicides.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and its for the kids, that is all
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)MAIG email and web servers were on NYC government servers. Someone did a state FOIA request. 570 pages of emails between Bloomberg's office and Glaser was very revealing. On the day of 14 Dec 2012, emails between Bloomberg's chief of staff and Glaser were about "getting the Mayor ahead of the president and congress". Nothing in that stack of emails showed a hint of empathy, sympathy, just opportunity. That was even before the children were pronounced dead. When making the ads, they were complaining that Brady Campaign was poaching their celebrities.
It isn't about children or saving lives. It is about control. They don't care about the violence, they only care about the guns.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Do you have tags on your pick-up? Same thing.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)driving isn't a right.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Voting is a right, and I have to register to exercise it.
As I said, I own and carry firearms. I can see no factual difference between registering my truck, my vote, or my pistol.
I don't understand the qualms about registration. If you can provide an explanation I'd like to hear it.
I'm not being a smart-ass nor trying to pick a fight. I really don't understand the concern, and I'd like to be educated in case I'm missing something.
BTW, time to feed the dogs and stuff, so I won't see your response till tomorrow AM. Don't want you to think I'm blowing you off, being rude, or playing games with you.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)You register your truck because it is a form of taxation, ie "user fees" to generate revenue. It does a very good job at that. Also, there is no car prohibition lobby that would like to use those lists as confiscation lists. Besides, the compliance rate is very high.
You register to vote to ensure the "one person, one vote" concept. There is the compelling State interest.
With your pistol, there is obviously a prohibition lobby, and registration lists have become confiscation lists, see NYC and California in the US. That is part of why registration schemes have very low compliance rates even in places like Canada and Germany.
But that isn't the reason I oppose it. Basically, I oppose it for the same reason I oppose pot prohibition, simply because I have yet to see a compelling argument for it.
The common argument for it is: "when the cops find it at the crime scene they can trace it to the culprit." It works in Murder she Wrote episodes, but not really.
1. Guns don't get left at crime scenes unless the culprit is still there holding it.
2. Since most US murders are criminals killing each other, it isn't going to be registered if it was found. Even if it were registered to someone, it most likely show up in NCIC as being reported stolen several years ago. Like New York's casing collection, there is no evidence of it solving a crime, affecting crime rates, or any other social good anywhere in the world. In fact, that is why New Zealand abandoned gun registration in the 1980s, police officials complained that it maintaining the registry sucked up resources that could be better used elsewhere.
Then there is the argument "responding cops would know if there is a gun or not." Cops are trained to expect the worst.
Also, unlike car registration, gun registration costs money without any tangible benefit other than providing a few public sector jobs, unless you contract it out like Canada's Firearms Centre did with the now defunct "long gun" registry. They contracted it out, costing the Canadian taxpayer even more money while solving zero crimes.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)#1- guns do sometimes get left unattended. Most people aren't that good at killing people; they get nervous, even panicky and sometimes drop important evidence, such as weapons. Even establishing provenance for a gun reported stolen can provide a trail leading back to the owner and a fictitious report or possibly an aquaintance or family member with access to the weapon & a motive for the attack.
Chains-of-evidence, before and after it comes into police custody, are important tools.
As to your #2, I believe most murders are domestic in nature, rather than the result of gang warfare. Perhaps there is such a statistic for gun-only murders, but I'm unaware of it.
So, let's give you a couple of choices here:
1. Free registration that costs you nothing and restricts you, as a legal weapon-buyer, not at all.
2. Registration w/ a fee that serves as a revenue producing project to pay the costs of register maintenance, + other incidentals such as mandatory classes, etc.
I guess a mandatory liability insurance isn't a bad idea, either, since there are a significant number of shooting accidents. Seems to be effective with vehicles...
The argument that cops would be alerted to the presence of a gun is spurious. Not only is your response valid, but I'm afraid an already trigger-happy constabulatory would react with more unjustifiable shootings to cover up.
Your one remaining concern (and I believe the paramount one) is fear of confiscation. Personally, I don't believe that is a valid fear, but I'll admit to little support beyond conjecture to back up my belief. I just don't think the government will ever fear us enough for a massive confiscation.
The logistics are staggering.
Seriously, the government forces would out-man any attempt at insurrection, and any group armed with sporting rifles and cosmetic-military sporting arms isn't going to stand up to armored vehicles with modern military weapons.
You really can't get anywhere near enough to one of the Important People to attempt assassination (without the complicity of public officials, that is). If conditions deteriorate to the point that there is any real chance of public violence, the already insurmountable security forces would intensify.
No, the days of violent insurrection in the 1st World are over, and they know it.
On the other hand, firearms are a consumable-goods industry worth billions and they'll never threaten the revenue.
The two limited actions you've cited were, I believe, overturned by the Supreme Court (but I admit no citations to support that).
At any rate, I have no beef with you for opposing registration. It's not a matter of concern for me, I was just interested in your side of the discussion.
I would certainly not vote against an otherwise acceptable Dem just because he/she proposed or supported registration, just my take.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kates/Myth_of_the_Virgin_Killer-Kates-Polsby.pdf
Like I said, confiscation is less of a concern to me than simply losing the cost/benefit ratio.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"As I said, I own and carry firearms. I can see no factual difference between registering my truck, my vote, or my pistol."
Factual difference, is that you register your truck to drive it on public roads and in public places, not to simply own it.
Registration of firearms vs registration of vehicles IS a comparison of ownership versus public usage.
When people talk about enacting gun registration, they're referring to ownership.
When someone refers to vehicle registration, they're referring to something that's necessary for usage of a vehicle in public, NOT something which is required to own a vehicle.
Apples and oranges, factually different.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Do you claim no public use for your firearms?
If you use your firearm in public, say carry for self-defense, that's as much public use as driving a vehicle.
If you use your gun for self defense, having a registered gun protects you from any possible charges of having obtained the gun illegally.
If you lose the gun, through theft or mischance and it's found it can be quickly returned to you.
You're quibbling. Would you like to explain what your actual concerns are in reference to registration, rather than looking for ways to "compare out"? That was the gist of my post and you're ignoring my request for information in order to make claim of some infinitesimal semantic quibble that has no bearing on my post.
Directly: Why does the poster known as "beevul" object to registration of his firearms?
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)"If you use your firearm in public, say carry for self-defense, that's as much public use as driving a vehicle."
If I carry for self defense then I am registered with the authorities, not my weapon.
"If you use your gun for self defense, having a registered gun protects you from any possible charges of having obtained the gun illegally."
Those charges, if filed, would be Federal not state or local charges. I keep a list of my weapons, including date purchased, description, and where purchased and a receipt for the purchase.. And before you say it, NO I do not carry this list with me.
"If you lose the gun, through theft or mischance and it's found it can be quickly returned to you."
If I lose a firearm "through theft or mischance" the loose will be reported to the proper authorities along with description, serial number, and pictures. Been there done that, got em all back within two weeks.
Oneshooter
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Still doesn't answer the question I asked: why do you care? "It doesn't do anything." isn't a sufficient response (not that you've said that here, I'm just quoting comments I've heard in the past. If it doesn't do "anything" it does no harm, ether.
My actual question was answered by poster "gejohnston" and my curiosity is satisfied. It seems the most valid concern is fear of confiscation. I don't think that's very likely, maybe not even possible, registration or no. If you do, follow your conscience.
I'm not here to engage in gun-warfare, I was really just curious. I own, and occasionally carry, mostly when I've got my dogs out back-packing. There have been reliable coyote sightings here.
I don't really care one way or the other about registration and don't mean to argue with anyone. Entirely neutral stance.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Thanks back.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Discussing ownership of a thing is not the same thing as discussing public usage of a thing.
No, I don't carry a gun. I own a few.
Yup. And in most states, theres a license required to carry a gun in public, just as there is to drive a vehicle in public.
There is no licensing requirement to own a motor vehicle or a firearm, and when you're talking gun registration, you're basically talking a license to legally own a firearm.
So yeah, not nitpicking.
I need no such protection. My actions and lack there of protect me from such charges.
Without being overly specific, that's not an issue for me.
Lets just be plain, shall we? What you call "compare out", I call being accurate, truthful and debating in good faith. Personal ownership of a thing, is miles away from public usage of a thing, friend, not "some infinitesimal semantic quibble". If you see no difference between ownership and usage in public, within the debate of public policy on guns, that's on you, because everyone else does. If you're going to try to make a point, don't be making comparisons between unlike things and try to sell it as if they're like things, and expect nobody to notice. The gun grabbers tend to make this flawed comparison quite regularly, so it rather sticks out like a sore thumb.
Because its none of anyones business, what guns I as a law abiding peaceable citizen own or possess. Remember where you told another poster : MYOB? Its no less reasonable for folks who are against registration for their own reasons to say MYOB, than when it was for you to say it when you did for the reasons you did.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172137693#post99
Because its a necessary component to confiscation, whether it be en masse or layered, or time release.
Remember what certain law enforcement agencies and newspapers did with concealed carrier info? Remember the gun owner map generated from it.
Never again.
Directly: What is it you think registration would accomplish, and how would you deal with the well known fact that prohibited possessors are constitutionally protected from having to register theirs? Do you think gun registration should include and allow concealed carry? Why or why not?
clffrdjk
(905 posts)How would it accomplish this goal?
There are several examples of past and present registration are/did those meet the above goal?
indie9197
(509 posts)most importantly the government has no business knowing if you have guns.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)of value. When did civil disobedience stop becoming a liberal value? What about those bong owners who are breaking the law? Or, is that the scent of hypocracy I smell?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)that ignored the long gun registration. The deadline kept changing until repeal, several provinces, including Ontario, refused to enforce it.
About 300K people in CT comes to mind.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I fail to see how you came to such a conclusion. No I don't, but I'm not Canadian. Since you did not mention it, I'm guessing you would support the very lax machine gun controls Canada had before 1977?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)not the law requiring registration
and not any laws applying to limits on firearms (if they were to happen)
in fact, not one gun advocate in this thread has said they will follow a registration law or a ban law.
which is really telling.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and I don't own any NFA weapons, so it is a nonissue. Any NFA weapons I may acquire will be registered.
How many gun controllers obey drug laws? Or gun laws for that matter. More gun control advocates get busted for gun crimes, or at least they tend to be more public, than legal gun owners.
Are you saying Henry David Thoreau should have paid his taxes instead of protesting the Mexican American War? Are you saying Rosa Parks should have obeyed Alabama law when choosing a bus seat? Remember, it wasn't the bus company or Woolworth, it was the State law. The only reason segregation ended sooner in the north was because people saw the custom as unjust and bullshit. In the South, it was the power of the State. If you didn't discriminate, people with guns and badges from the State government closed your business down. I'm not equating them with guns, I am saying civil disobedience is a long held liberal tradition. I support the tradition and the right, as a liberal, to even those who I don't like.
If you think it is OK to violate a drug law but gun owners must comply with some inane registration scheme, then you are faux liberal and a hypocrite. Real liberals care only about right and wrong. Basic principle, it either is or it isn't. It is either logically consistent or it isn't. It is either right or wrong. You can't be for a woman's right to choose and be for gun registration because the latter violates the right to privacy under the nineth amendment, the same right Roe v Wade is based on. That said, you can't be against registration and be anti choice either.
Dunn committed murder. FBI agent Larry Cooper also committed murder when he shot 14 year old Sam Weaver in the back with a submachine gun. The fact that I don't like the child's father's politics is irrelevant to me. There was on poster who thought machine gunning kids in the back was OK as long as it was people he doesn't like. I still see him in GD once in awhile.
Look at the list of current and former MAIG members 20 percent of then are felons. They lose more members to the criminal justice system than elections. Mostly for political corruption. Some of them for gun crimes.
Not one gun advocate said they wouldn't either. That tells me they are ignoring a question. In short, they are simply saying "none of your business."
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)but the OP is about a future requirement and you've been all over the thread posting about a, by your standards, "nonissue" because it's a hypothetical.
i think you've made your issue quite clear. you don't want to type that you won't be following the law.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)projecting thoughts and making assumptions doesn't make it so.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)obviate the need for mass civil disobedience.
You controllers are so full of double-speak (among other substances). You demand registration as if we should bow down to your demands when you have yet to discuss the issue with any sort of intellectual honesty to prove yourselves worthy of our trust. You constantly call us child-killers and mentally ill and then promise you won't try to confiscate guns -- expect presumably from people you've listed as potential killers and mentally unstable.
This whole "well, if you're really law-abiding..." is nothing more than one big baiting exercise. How about when you have your little registration form printed up you be sure to include fields for Political Affiliation, Race, Ethnicity, Gender, Religion, Sexual Orientation and Union Membership? After all, good people have nothing to hide and the Keepers Of The List will always be trustworthy -- right?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)clffrdjk
(905 posts)And why we must fight it. It also tells me how dedicated the average gun owner is and how much they are willing to fight for what they believe in. Are we law abiding you bet your ass we are, far more than even the average cop and many times more than a MAIG member, is there a line yep and you have found it.
So you have yet to state a reason for registration beyond future confiscation, so why should we support something that literally can only be used against us?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)From their own words:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002610288
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014235953#post11
11. No, DL is not enough, my DL was granted without a birth certificate
as was that of many of my friends here in California.
there are still states that don't require birth certificates or proof of citizenship to get a DL.
the Arizona law doesn't count these states' DLs as adequate.
in other words, to avoid being detained, an American citizen needs to carry a Passport and/or Birth Certificate because of the stupidest law in the USA, which Arizona has now.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=611694
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014305858#post12
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)not showing my birth certificate to get my California driver's license was the law at the time i got it.
what is your point?
other than to defend the worst excesses of this group, notably when they go after Democrats.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)And you've been "go(ing) after Democrats" all through this thread.
Your ire is selective:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014305858#post12
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)what was that?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...during the time the law was being enforced, or did you not?
The law you discussed here, remember?:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002610288
"I shouldn't need to carry a passport to visit Arizona and Alabama (re: Immigration laws)"
(I agree with you about that, btw)
If you did travel there w/o your AZ-approved 'papers', why?
Were you somehow above the law?
chillfactor
(7,576 posts)the gun nuts come out of the woodwork.....
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)= gun nuts
broad brush, yep. And one side says they never say that, OK.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)Calling another poster a murderer will get you hidden no matter who it is.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Do you deny that the definition of "assault weapon" is arbitary?
Do you deny that the definition of "assault weapon" is based on the public perception by the gun-ignorant?
Do you deny that proposals to ban "assault weapons" is based on the desire to avoid having to address root causes of inter-personal violence, such as poverty, drug laws, and economic injustice?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)if a gun is banned and not grandfathered in for present owners, will you break that law?
if a gun is banned for future owners, will you break that law?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and confiscation. Pretty transparent argument.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)in a whole thread where you're invited to say, "hell, no, i will follow the law".
you don't.
and instead of being brave about planning the opposite, you keep trying to change the subject.
because you aren't even proud of your opinion on the matter.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)so you know nothing about me or what I think.
They have to be registered with the federal government so I can use the ranges and take them on post.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I will not do that to others as it is a privacy issue like others have said. By the way one of my rifles has a scary bayonet lug with adjustable stock and the other has a deployable bayonet that is attached to the barrel.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)clffrdjk
(905 posts)Is that your only reason for registration? You haven't mentioned any others.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Prove me wrong.
S_B_Jackson
(906 posts)but I suspect that if any such law were ever passed, that I would have a tragic accident in which my boat capsized on Galveston Bay and every firearm I owned except one would, sadly, be lost. When the BATFE came to my door, I guarantee, I'd be able to present them with a copy of the Coast Guard incident report and the one firearm I had still remaining - an FEG PA-63 in 9mm Mak.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)This is how criminals are manufactured.
Funny, people seem to see the same parallels with the drug laws.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)n/t
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)maybe you should read it again.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)But at least have the courage to own your words.
Your OP throws the accusation of not registering to keep a particular gun, even if banned.
You made the link between registration and a ban.
So answer then, what gun(s) do you envision being banned that would cause non-compliance with registration?
Or remain silent, admitting your post is just flame bait...
krispos42
(49,445 posts).... are so because the law expanded to create the category of "assault weapon", ban future sales of such guns, and register existing ones.
so... I await your answer s
Response to CreekDog (Original post)
Kali This message was self-deleted by its author.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)clffrdjk
(905 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)clffrdjk
(905 posts)He talked himself into a corner with his op and has not even tried to work his way out. Secular motion while he never comments on the articles, his posts have deniability because he does not post anything original. Jpak never let's himself be tied down by any one idea so he can bounce around in any direction that suits his needs. I certainly respect creekdog more for the direct approach and the limited attempts to defend it but he has failed to even begin the discussion that he was hoping for.
But I suppose when you compare him to posters like chill factor yea he is miles ahead.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Wait'll you get a load of one of his push polls.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)You just admitted as much.
If laws mandating bans and confiscation are passed, I will follow the laws. Until such time, I will oppose any steps leading to said laws. This includes registration.
Registration is the prelude to confiscation. Got it?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
clffrdjk
(905 posts)Once again you have not posted a single reason for gun registration beyond future confiscation.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)No. No one has ever mentioned doing that. However, we're talking about guns here. Remember? Many have mentioned confiscating certain types of guns, including you. See below:
and keep a particular gun, even if it's banned.
mandatory registration however would make it harder to break the law.
Italics mine.
You start this whole thread with a post about how you think people will try to avoid confiscation by not registering, and then you try desperately to pretend that registration isn't about confiscation. You're making a fool of yourself.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts) Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Thanks, got it...
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Insults and ROTFLMAO cartoons?
Typical.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Their is a list available isn't their.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)Why the hell would I?
bossy22
(3,547 posts)Canada already tried this- it cost them over $2 Billion dollars and the compliance rate was somewhere in then nature of 40%.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)You'll never understand the responses to your own post
DonP
(6,185 posts)No wonder you can't get anything meaningful done and no one takes you seriously anymore.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)yup, in the past few months, all your posts have been guns, not a single other issue.
seems irrational and there's no convincing anybody with a fixation.
DonP
(6,185 posts)In the meantime. you "activist" you, I've got two concealed carry classes to teach this week and another class to qualify at the range.
Now, if your whole "activist" crew works really, really hard, maybe you can actually get a post hidden this week and declare victory over the gungeon again.
Have fun with all your little friends in Castle Bansalot.
"Activist" LOL.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Me too, conceal carry and pistol. keeps me busy.
DonP
(6,185 posts)Lots of demand in Illinois these days.
That's my idea of "Activism". as opposed to sitting and whining online like some folks do.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)Stuff shoots like match grade stuff, but it can be hard to find in the best of times.
i must still have around 5000+ rounds of it left now for my "first timers", using either my Buckmark, Ruger Mk III or the Bearcat single action.
That should last me till they catch up again.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)It loves CCI though.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Need it for my classes.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)Registration, I've never said i wouldn't follow it
Now what particular gun are you expecting will be banned?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)what's their name?
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)You do believe our unnamed young lady in the photo is a law breaker if she is in possession of an unregistered firearm, we will assume she is in a locale that requires such, or if she is in possession of pot, outside of the states that have legalized it?
And given that she is breaking the law in one, or both, cases she should be jailed for her offense?
clffrdjk
(905 posts)Well I work with three people who fit that description.
Are you ever going to answer my other questions or can we assume that the only reason you support registration is for future confiscation?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and smoke pot.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)You know that wasn't the claim.
So by your lack of answer I can assume that the only reason for registration is confiscation, good to know I will pass the word.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and now you're saying it's a false example?
clffrdjk
(905 posts)Not a literal example but you already knew that.
Are you trying to claim that no one who smokes pot supports more gun laws?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)that the image communicates.
You believe that people who smoke pot and support more gun laws are a myth.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Everyone else got it...
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
that's like saying a cloud is a flood. normal for this group though!
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Do you really have this much trouble with basic reading comprehension or are you just being (transparently) disingenuous?
Protip: if you stop trying to erect inane and utterly obvious strawmen, you might actually become part of a useful, informative conversation.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Happy to clear up your evident confusion...
ileus
(15,396 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)So, no they won't be banned.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you screwed up your first chance by getting it totally wrong.
but consider it a learning opportunity.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)The opportunity to do the same
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=137794
So far your silence speaks volumes
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)And by "explaining," I mean "erecting vacuous strawmen."
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I felt that one all the way over here.
spin
(17,493 posts)Haynes v. United States
Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution's self-incrimination clause. Haynes extended the Fifth Amendment protections elucidated in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 57 (1968).[1]
Background of the case
The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.
Majority opinion
In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.
As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem. In this new form, the new registration provision was upheld. The court held: " To eliminate the defects revealed by Haynes, Congress amended the Act so that only a possessor who lawfully makes, manufactures, or imports firearms can and must register them", United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).[3] The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes....emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States
Therefore if I do not register my weapons eventually I become by definition a criminal. However since I am a criminal, I do not have to register my firearms and the state can't prosecute me.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I'm a US Citizen. I have a legal Driver's License.
When I travel within this country, since the constitution says I'm innocent until proven guilty, I don't think I should have to prove I am a citizen, nor prove that I am here legally.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Like this woman might want to break the law:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172137873
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...certainly separate people into two groups: those with the 'Ahlers' gene and those without.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)Stuck with it for a good bit though...