# Gun Control - The ninth amendment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 29, 2002, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732 "2002-03-29T12:49:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2002, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/241 "2002-04-02T20:43:11Z")
1. My apologies if I took your taser statement the wrong way, **Beef**. 2. Guess away. But if you think my registration proposal is in any way intended to result in confiscation, your guess is wrong. (Well, except to the extent that it would make it easy for the authorities to identify and confiscate guns owned by people who subsequently become ineligible to possess them, such as newly-convicted felons, etc.) 3. _“The professed goal of the largest gun control organization in this country is to completely eliminate gun ownership.”_ Cite, please? I don’t think even Sarah Brady goes so far as to eliminate, for instance, hunting rifles and such. 4. The sheer number of gun laws is irrelevant. What matters is the _substance_ of those laws. And believe me, I would love to enforce the hell out of the ones we have. 5. _“In the first 150+ years of this country, things were far from “every man for himself”, yet we garunteed people their individual rights.”_ :eek: Surely, you jest. **BF:** Hey, I’m not negotiating here! 😛 I’m content to let the individual states work out their own concealed carry laws. I think they’re basically ineffectual (Lott hasn’t convinced me he can tell causation from a hole in the ground), but they don’t bother me. I’d limit the registration to handguns barring evidence that long guns are used in a significant number of crimes (I don’t believe they are), but I would want background checks on all gun transfers. ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/242 "2002-04-03T01:31:25Z")
**Minty** : Taking your smilie into account, your non-negotiating stance is what a majority of gun rights advocates object to. They (and I) feel that there is no compromise with the gun-control advocates. Your suggestions are to be imposed on law-abiding citizens, with the very real possibility that it would have no effect on the criminal. Since 1968, there has been a concerted effort to restrict or rescind what many believe to be a basic right so stated in the Constitution in the form of the 2nd amendment. (What the interpretation means has already been flogged, so just take it as a point of order) The dichotomy is striking. On one hand, you feel that only handguns need to be registered. On the other, you don’t think long guns need to be, yet many long guns were banned in the 1994 Brady Bill, based on someone’s definition of cosmetic features that “make up” an “assault rifle”. By anyone else’s definition, a .223 caliber rifle with a 10 round detachable magazine is either a farmer’s varmint rifle or a competition shooters rifle, but with a pistol grip, it’s an assault rifle and is banned. And yet you correctly surmise that you don’t think long guns are used in a significant number of crimes. Unable to get cites for the following, but if you insist, I’ll get ‘em tomorrow. #2 from above. Unfortunately, in the US, we already have evidence for registration leading to confiscation in New York City and the state of California. So that suggestion (for or against) is really a non-starter. #3. There are plenty of gun sites that have long memories, even though the Brady Bunch has sanitized their web page to show they’re all for gun safety and “common-sense” legislation. The Violence Policy Center and the Americans for Gun Safety are a little more militant, however, but they do it behind the scenes. I think I have provided some cites in a couple of other threads (and so have UncleBeer and ExTank) that were direct quotes stating to the effect that every organization I have listed is for a total ban on ownership of firearms by private citizens in the US. #4. A very good point, however, how do you convince a gun rights advocate that we need more gun laws when the ones we already have are not enforced? IIRC, the Clinton administration had bragged about how the NICS (National Instant Check Service) had prevented something like 500,000 attempts to purchase a firearm since it was instituted in 1994, yet there have been only, what, six people prosecuted under federal firearms statutes? There’s a lot more I’d like to reply to but I’d like to do it in smaller pieces. Thanks for your time. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/243 "2002-04-03T02:01:48Z")
**BF** , I’m not defending the details of the '94 assault weapons ban, which makes a number of more or less arbitrary distinctions between nearly identical weapons. Such is the nature of compromise, unfortunately. I think I’ve already explained why I would register handguns and not rifles or shotguns, but if you want to insist on perfectly equal treatment for those two categories of weapons, I’d be happy to register both. I totally disagree with you that registration leads to confiscation. There is nothing inevitable about the latter following from the former. Wholesale banning or confiscation could only occur if the public wanted it to happen, and you and I both know that ain’t happening anytime soon. I don’t know NYC, but I disagree with your specific example of California, where I believe that it remains perfectly legal to own handguns and rifles without registering them. I’m also quite positive that the pistol I went shooting with in the California desert a few months ago has not been confiscated. The discussion will be much more productive, I think, if you deal with the merits of registration without invoking the speculative ghost of confiscation. Again, I’d like to see those cites saying that “the largest anti-gun organization” (presumably the Brady Center or whatever the heck they’re called these days) supports a total ban on private gun ownership. Hyperbole shouldn’t suffice when one is making assertions of easily verifiable fact Amd believe me, I’d like to see more enforcement of existing control measures. That is in no way inconsistent with wanting to see others enacted and enforced. Besides, if we’re not going to enforce them, what do you care whether we enact them? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/244 "2002-04-03T03:42:51Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t know NYC, but I disagree with your specific example of California, where I believe that it remains perfectly legal to own handguns and rifles without registering them. In California, all gun purchases must be registered (with a fee paid to the state, of course). The records for long guns are supposed to be destroyed after two weeks. I don’t know if they are or aren’t. Handgun records are retained. It is illegal in California to buy a gun unless the transaction is performed by a dealer, a registration fee is paid, and the 10-day waiting period is observed. This applies to “curios and relics” as well as new firearms. It is illegal for a person to purchase more than one handgun in a 30-day period. (What if you want to buy a matched set? I was looking at a pair of collectible .22 pistols in the presentation box.) Certain firearms are banned. There have been registration periods during which registration with the DoJ was legal. Of course, the state does not publicize the registration requirement. I bought a perfectly legal rifle in a gun store years ago. Later it was put on the banned list. I was never notified that it was put on the list, nor that registration was required. In this case, there are three options: Turn it in to the police (“confiscation” – without compensation), destroy it (without compensation), or sell it to a dealer (who is not allowed to sell it except to law enforcement). Since the registration period, of which gun owners were never notified unless they happened to go to a gun shop and someone mentioned it – and many of us don’t hang out in gun shops – had passed, the rifle could not be registered. There _is_ a way of doing it though: The owner must be arrested for having an unregistered rifle, then he can register it – and have a criminal record. So I became a “criminal” even though I never fired the rifle, took it out of my home, nor was notified of the regulation. Fortunately there was a fourth option: If the rifle could be removed from the state, that would be okay. Believe you me, I was extremely happy when I crossed the California border and moved the rifle to a state that does not restrict them. Had I not removed the rifle from the state, it would have been confiscated. I feel this law and others place an undue burden upon gun owners. It turns law-abiding gun owners into criminals without their knowledge. It requires confiscation of certain firearms without compensation. Current laws are forcing gun shops out of business. (For example, the gun shop that supplied AR-15 type rifles to the LAPD during the North Hollywood bank robbery a few years ago has closed its doors – leaving many gun buyers in the lurch and forcing them to pay _another_ registration fee and wait _another_ 10 days for those lucky enough to have had the stock moved to another dealer. Those whose guns were not relocated have just lost their money.) And these laws do _nothing_ to remove guns from the hands of criminals. That’s the problem with gun bans. They say, “We’re only banning these… Okay, and these… Now these…” Every couple of years they ban something else. When anti-gun legislators tell you “All we want is…”, you can bet they want more. I hope you can understand why the gun rights crowd is so vehement. The state gets laws that only affect law-abiding citizens, and leave the criminals alone. _This_ is why we say, “Enforce the laws we already have!” Registration? For what? So the police can return a stolen gun? Fat chance. I had a loser ex-roommate who accidentally put my .22 pistol in his trunk. (Long story, and this post is long already.) Did the police call and tell me, “We have a pistol that is registered to you.”? No. It took months to get it back. And I never did get my case and lock back. Had my roommate not told me that they had it, it would have been destroyed without my knowledge. So what good is registration? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/245 "2002-04-03T04:27:38Z")
Registration is good in that, if universally applied and enforced, it provides law enforcement with a permanent record of which gun belongs to which person, as well as who owns firearms and who doesn’t. No more guessing who a found weapon belongs to, or at least who it got stolen from, and greatly reduced guessing whether any given suspect is a gun owner. Cross-border trafficking probably reduces its effectiveness, of course, and your post states that it only applies when a gun is sold, which further undercuts the goal. Nevertheless, I would support it as a reasonable regulation with no imact on your ability to acquire a large-caliber tool of self-defense while still providing law enforcement with a valuable tool to investigate the misuse of that tool, or to check whether you have one if you become disqualified from possessiong it through felony conviction or otherwise. If anything, your story of the inability of the state or anyone else to notify you when your assault rifle (I’m assuming) got banned undercuts the argument of others that registration --\> confiscation. After all, what’s the point of registering so you can confiscate if you don’t even use the registration when you do finally decide to confiscate? On the state of California registration law, I stand corrected. So, out of curiosity, what was the “perfectly legal” rifle you owned that got banned? > [@](#): > > I feel this law and others place an undue burden upon gun owners. It turns law-abiding gun owners into criminals without their knowledge. First of all, it’s everyone’s duty to know what the law is. Considering the substantial amount of publicity that California’s assault weapons ban got when it was passed, it does not strike me as unreasonable to inquire whether your particular weapon is covered. Second, do the police actually arrest, and prosecutors actually charge, people who had such weapons but honestly did not know of the law’s requirements? I’m rather more concerned about unfair prosecutions when they’re something other than in the abstract. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/246 "2002-04-03T04:52:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Registration is good in that, if universally applied and enforced, it provides law enforcement with a permanent record of which gun belongs to which person Except that in my experience, law enforcement makes no effort to determine the ownership if the gun is not used in any crime. > [@](#): > > After all, what’s the point of registering so you can confiscate if you don’t even use the registration when you do finally decide to confiscate? They have the _ability_ to confiscate if they so choose. But gun laws are not passed for public safety. Gun laws are passed to give politicians an “issue” to show they are “tough on crime”. > [@](#): > > So, out of curiosity, what was the “perfectly legal” rifle you owned that got banned? It was a Springfield SAR-8, not that it matters; it was legal to buy and sell that rifle when I bought it. > [@](#): > > First of all, it’s everyone’s duty to know what the law is. Do you know _every_ law that affects you in your state? If you have no reason to suspect a law has been passed, why would you look for it? > [@](#): > > Considering the substantial amount of publicity that California’s assault weapons ban got when it was passed, it does not strike me as unreasonable to inquire whether your particular weapon is covered. There have been at least three similar bans that I know of. In the last case, the one that affected me, I heard no publicity about it. Having inquired at a gun store after I finally did hear about it, the shop worker said that it was not widely publicized. Remember that California is the most populous state. There are many laws passed every year, and many of them are high-profile. Apparently the latest ban was not noticed by most people since there were so many other high-profile issues at the time. It seems to me that the state should make a reasonable effort to notify people who would be affected. When there is a change in rulemaking by the FAA, I get mail notifying me of the change. When the DMV has something to say to people, they mail notices. So the DoJ should send notices to gun owners who may have missed the notice tha may or may not have been mentioned on the news. > [@](#): > > Second, do the police actually arrest, and prosecutors actually charge, people who had such weapons but honestly did not know of the law’s requirements? I’m rather more concerned about unfair prosecutions when they’re something other than in the abstract. I cannot say whether they do or do not. It’s not something that would be on the news or in the paper. When I have heard about guns being confiscated, it has always been in the context of another crime. This does not mean that confiscations with no other cause _don’t_ happen; just thay I haven’t heard. I don’t spend my time studying court cases. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/247 "2002-04-03T05:29:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*3. _“The professed goal of the largest gun control organization in this country is to completely eliminate gun ownership.”_ Cite, please? I don’t think even Sarah Brady goes so far as to eliminate, for instance, hunting rifles and such. > \*\* You know, I read a quote by Sarah Brady before she started the “reasonable gun laws” approach to gain mass appeal, that basically stated her intent was to cause an outright ban of guns, but she recognized that the practical approach was an incremental restriction. But I looked quite a bit, and couldn’t find this. In the search, I’ve found a bunch of quotes that aren’t nearly as good, but are revealing. “Our ultimate goal- total control of handguns in the United States- is going to take time…The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced…The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of handguns and all handgun ammunition- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors- totally illegal.” -Nelson Shields (Sarah Brady’s predecessor at HCI), New Yorker Magazine 7/26/76 p.53 (Of course, they only mention handguns there, but it details the incremental approach). “We must get rid of all the guns.” - Sarah Brady President Handgun Control, Inc. Phil Donahue Show, September 1994 — with Sheriff Jay Printz & others. “Yes, I’m for an outright ban (on handguns).” – Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes interview. (Yeah, sort of a personal view, but still…) "“I just believed that what I was doing was right. I told the NRA (National Rifle Association) I would make it my life’s ambition to see you all don’t exist anymore and I will do this until I put them out of business. That keeps me going when I have to deal with rude people.” " Jim Brady, of Handgun Control Inc., in the \_Hartford Courant,\_May 21,1994 Clearly, there’s implication here. “The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I’m just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.” -Sarah Brady 7/1/88 This one may or may not be true, I’ve heard conflicting things about it. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/248 "2002-04-03T05:41:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Johnny L.A. \* > Except that in my experience, law enforcement makes no effort to determine the ownership if the gun is not used in any crime. Well I wasn’t proposing it as a lost and found service. 😉 > [@](#): > > But gun laws are not passed for public safety. Gun laws are passed to give politicians an “issue” to show they are “tough on crime”. Irrelevant to the issue of what the law should be, even though I’d certainly like to see more enforcement. I really wish somebody would call the NRA’s bluff on those alleged 20,000 gun laws. Man, would _that_ ever start some whining! > [@](#): > > It was a Springfield SAR-8, not that it matters; it was legal to buy and sell that rifle when I bought it. Bummer. I’d have made sure you got compensation as a mattter of policy, but I’d not go for a rule that says you get to keep something later declared contraband under the state’s police powers. > [@](#): > > Do you know _every_ law that affects you in your state? If you have no reason to suspect a law has been passed, why would you look for it? That’s why cops and prosecutors rarely go after honest violators of such laws. You’ll lose the gun, but don’t expect much else unless you’re intentionally avoiding the law. > [@](#): > > So the DoJ should send notices to gun owners who may have missed the notice tha may or may not have been mentioned on the news. If it’s possible and feasible for them to do so, I agree. Again, though, I can just imagine the squawking from all the NRA types if the government dared to tell them personally to hand over their weapons. **Beef** , even if they’re true, they strike me as ripped from their context. The 7/1/88 is particularly telling, since she couldn’t possibly be commenting on the passage of a ban outlawing the sale of all guns, because no such thing has ever passed the House. And even if they’re not unfairly taken out of context, they don’t really support the proposition that HGI/Brady Center/Whatever They Are itself supports a total ban on private ownership. Their [mission statement](http://www.bradycenter.org/about/mission.asp) is slightly ambiguous, but seems to indicate they do not take that position. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/249 "2002-04-03T13:38:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Well I wasn’t proposing it as a lost and found service. 😉 Then what good is it? Let me take it point by point: > [@](#): > > Registration is good in that, if universally applied and enforced, it provides law enforcement with a permanent record of which gun belongs to which person, as well as who owns firearms and who doesn’t. It’s none of law enforcement’s business which law-abiding citizens have firearms, because law-abiding citizens are very unlikely to use them illegally. As I already stated, in my experience they will not notify an owner if they find one of his guns. Therefore there is no benefit. > [@](#): > > No more guessing who a found weapon belongs to, or at least who it got stolen from, and greatly reduced guessing whether any given suspect is a gun owner. If a suspect is found with a gun, registration will tell the police whether or not it belongs to him. So what? If it’s stolen, then they can charge him with theft. But that’s a minor charge that can be plea bargained away. Again, if the gun is stolen or borrowed or whatever, what good is it if the police don’t notify the owner? > [@](#): > > Cross-border trafficking probably reduces its effectiveness, of course, and your post states that it only applies when a gun is sold, which further undercuts the goal. As can be seen in many instances, including NYC and Washington D.C., bans don’t work. I think you’ll find that registration is even less effective. > [@](#): > > Nevertheless, I would support it as a reasonable regulation with no imact on your ability to acquire a large-caliber tool of self-defense while still providing law enforcement with a valuable tool to investigate the misuse of that tool, or to check whether you have one if you become disqualified from possessiong it through felony conviction or otherwise. Calibre is irrellevant. Registration is required for _all_ handguns in California that change hands. Also, not all firearms are used for defense. Most people never shoot anything more than paper. I don’t buy the “valuable tool” argument. A criminal probably has a gun that was gotten illegally, so even if he drops it at the crime scene registration won’t lead the police to him. I think your last statement has been addressed by SCOTUS in 1968. It held that a felon could not be compelled to register a firearm because it is illegal for a felon to _have_ a firearm and therefore requiring him to register it would violate his Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination. Since felons are not required to register guns, it would be easier simply to see if he’s a felon. If he’s in possession, then he’s broken the (already existing) law. No registration required. > [@](#): > > Irrelevant to the issue of what the law should be, even though I’d certainly like to see more enforcement. I really wish somebody would call the NRA’s bluff on those alleged 20,000 gun laws. Man, would that ever start some whining! It _is_ relevant. I don’t remember the Latin, but there is a saying that “A bad law is not a law.” Registrations and bans will _not_ reduce crime, as has been shown in NYC, Washington D.C., Chicago, etc. Politicians want to show they’re _doing something_™ about crime; but it’s too hard to enforce existing laws, provide better education so that kids don’t feel they have to turn to gangs, provide universal health care so that people are ruined by debt, provide parenting programs to help people who need it to raise their kids, hold people responsible for their actions by disallowing lawsuits when somebody does something stupid and then tries to blame someone else, and ban capital punishment so that the public know that killing is wrong except in very, very limited circumstances. No, those are hard things. It’s much easier to get a law passed even though it has no effect on criminals and say, “See? I _did something_™. Now re-elect me.” And yes; if the existing laws are enforced, there will be a great whining and gnashing of teeth – by criminals and defense attorneys. “What! You’re charging my client with armed robbery, car theft, resisting arrest, leading police on a car chase, _and_ possession of a firearm?” I don’t see anything wrong with enforcing such laws that would take guns out of the hands of _criminals_ and provide for harsher sentences when a gun is used in a crime. > [@](#): > > Bummer. I’d have made sure you got compensation as a mattter of policy, but I’d not go for a rule that says you get to keep something later declared contraband under the state’s police powers. Yeah, that kind of cuts in to the “due process” and or “just compensation” parts of the Bill of Rights. As for getting to keep something that is later declared contraband, who does confiscation hurt? The law-abiding citizen. If they want people to register guns, they should allow them to register, regardless of the time. Since the registration requirements were not publicized, the state knew, or should have known, that most gun owners would not hear of it. I _would have_ registered my SAR-8 had I had the chance; but I was not allowed to, so I had to remove it from the state. Also, people moving from other states are not allowed to bring their banned guns with them regardless of how long they owned them. I’m pretty sure that there can be no shooting competitions in California that require the use of certain rifles because of the ban – people can’t bring their guns into the state even for a competition. > [@](#): > > That’s why cops and prosecutors rarely go after honest violators of such laws. You’ll lose the gun, but don’t expect much else unless you’re intentionally avoiding the law. Why should I lose my property at all? I’ve never done anything wrong. > [@](#): > > If it’s possible and feasible for them to do so, I agree. Again, though, I can just imagine the squawking from all the NRA types if the government dared to tell them personally to hand over their weapons. You bet there’d be squawking! And I’m not even an NRA member! But I was referring to notifying people to register their guns, not to march down to the nearest police station and turn them in. The point I’ve been trying to make is that we need to make things difficult for people who misuse firearms, not make things difficult for the vast majority of gun owners who do not misuse them. It’s only fair. ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/250 "2002-04-03T14:58:08Z")
**Minty** Here’s a few I found that may or may not answer your question. From [CBS](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/11/02/60II/main68650.shtml). If the gun industry ever begins to mass produce smart guns, the biggest opponent of the idea won’t be the National Rifle Association, but an influential arm of the gun control movement. “The smart gun is a hoax. It’s a very seductive hoax, but nevertheless it’s a hoax,” says Tom Diaz, author and senior analyst for the Violence Policy Center, a Washington, D.C., advocacy group that favors a _total ban on handguns_, including smart guns. “At bottom, this is a ploy, a very clever ploy, by the gun industry to use your tax dollars and my tax dollars to expand its markets,” says Diaz. “You will never be able to come up with a system that’s going to make handguns safe, to make handguns go away, until we say, ‘We’ve got an industry that pours onto our markets millions of deadly, lethal killing instruments. And we’ve got to stop that,’” he observes. “I feel that the smart gun ultimately will take more lives than it will save,” he says. From [ABC](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/guns_safety.html). Still, not even all gun-control supporters think a smart gun is a good idea. The Violence Prevention Center, which wants _guns banned outright_, says the technology would give people a false sense of security. “There’s wild overestimation about how much good [smart guns] can do”, says Kristen Rand, the center’s director of federal policy. She says the technology would provide a false sense of security, and that people who would otherwise not buy a gun might reconsider. Another from [ABC](http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/2020_brady_020322.html). _(said right after she joined the HCI as spokesperson, circa 1984)_ “I was outraged,” says Sarah. She called the National Rifle Association and said: “I am going to make my life ambition to put you out of business. I’m Sarah Brady, and you don’t know who I am, but I’m going to do it.” Sarah joined forces with a group called Handgun Control Inc., and set her sights on forcing the government to enact strong gun-control legislation. Twelve years after Jim was shot, President Clinton signed the Brady Bill into law, requiring a mandatory waiting period and background checks on all handguns sold by gun dealers. “It was just exhilarating,” says Sarah, a lifelong Republican who voted for Clinton. In the years since that triumph, from her offices at Handgun Control Inc., which was recently renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Sarah has continued to lobby ferociously for even tougher gun control legislation. But already, Sarah says the Brady law has prevented almost 700,000 felons, fugitives and mentally ill people from purchasing guns. Though Sarah has been at the forefront of the gun-control movement, she bought her son Scott, now 24, a hunting rifle for Christmas. _(said after HCI became the Brady Bunch and toned down their rhetoric, circa early 2001)_ “I have never been a gun grabber,” she says. “I don’t believe in banning guns. I believe strongly that law-abiding, responsible citizens should be able to purchase guns.” (italics for emphasis and my comments) ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/251 "2002-04-03T15:09:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Johnny L.A. \* > It’s none of law enforcement’s business which law-abiding citizens have firearms, because law-abiding citizens are very unlikely to use them illegally. As I already stated, in my experience they will not notify an owner if they find one of his guns. Therefore there is no benefit. Yeah, nobody who doesn’t already have a criminal record has never used a gun in a criminal act. :rolleyes: The potential harm from the misuse of any gun, whether owned by an apparently law-abiding citizen or the local drug dealer, is sufficiently serious that the police should immediately be able to identify the proper owner of a gun if one is misused. The impact on a law-abiding citizen is negligible–nothing more than taking the time to fill out and submit a simple form–while the impact on a person who actually commits a crime with a gun is great, in that it substantially increases the chances that they’re going to get caught. Wanna guess how that particular balancing test works out on my scales? Granted, it would be awful nice of the cops to tell you when they find your stolen or misplaced gun. But the primary purpose of registration should be crime fighting and investigation, not acting as a lost and found box. > [@](#): > > So what? If it’s stolen, then they can charge him with theft. But that’s a minor charge that can be plea bargained away. Again with the NRA fallacy: _You can’t do anything more because you’re not enforcing everything perfectly now._ I flatly reject that notion. > [@](#): > > As can be seen in many instances, including NYC and Washington D.C., bans don’t work. . . . Registrations and bans will _not_ reduce crime, as has been shown in NYC, Washington D.C., Chicago, etc. Gun bans don’t work very effectively when the zone of restriction is adjacent to places where guns are easily available and there are no barriers to their entry. Gun bans work just fine on larger scales, such as Europe and Japan. > [@](#): > > Calibre is irrellevant. Please don’t make me put a smilie after _every_ joke. > [@](#): > > A criminal probably has a gun that was gotten illegally, so even if he drops it at the crime scene registration won’t lead the police to him. Does anybody have any statistics on stolen guns v. legally purchased guns used in gun crimes? My guess is that, in murders at least, the gun is more likely than not to have been legally purchased. Regardless, even if the gun was stolen, it leads police to the person it was stolen from, which is quite likely to prove valuable in determining who committed the subsequent crime. > [@](#): > > I think your last statement has been addressed by SCOTUS in 1968. It held that a felon could not be compelled to register a firearm because it is illegal for a felon to _have_ a firearm and therefore requiring him to register it would violate his Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination. You misunderstand me. I’m saying that if a person legally purchases and registers a weapon, and _later_ is convicted of a felony, it will be simplicity itself to check whether he has a gun that he is no longer eligible to possess. There is no Fifth Amendment problem because there was no incriminatory statement at the time of the registration. > [@](#): > > Yeah, that kind of cuts in to the “due process” and or “just compensation” parts of the Bill of Rights. Actually, no. It’s well-established (though state laws may vary) that the government only needs to compensate you for property taken for a public use. If it’s taken as an exercise of the police power/pubic safety, you’re unfortunately boned. (I think you get a tax write-off, though.) That’s why I said I’d want compensation as a matter of public policy. > [@](#): > > As for getting to keep something that is later declared contraband, who does confiscation hurt? The law-abiding citizen. Well that’s the rub, isn’t it? If we could predict which citizens would remain law-abiding and which would decided to take out a playground full of kids, we could be a little more selective in targeting only the bad guys. But since we can’t do that, the criteria has to be whether a particular restriction on everybody will be of more benefit than harm. In the case of assault rifles, the benefit to everyone is that it potentially makes it harder for the classic lone nut to take out an entire restaurant, while the cost is utterly negligible. Somehow, Johnny, I’m pretty sure you’re still able to defend–more than adequately, I’d wager–your home even without that SAR-8. It also appears from your last post that your SAR-8 was _not_ banned, and that you could have kept it if you’d registered it in accordance with the statute. Sorry you didn’t get wind of the registration period, but > [@](#): > > Why should I lose my property at all? I’ve never done anything wrong. Neither had [James Huberty](http://www.vpc.org/studies/wgun840718.htm), whose only arrest had been a misdemeanor for drunk and disorderly conduct. > [@](#): > > The point I’ve been trying to make is that we need to make things difficult for people who misuse firearms, not make things difficult for the vast majority of gun owners who do not misuse them. It’s only fair. I’d agree, except that we cannot tell who who will misuse them and who will not. Given that indisputable fact, it is reasonable to inquire whether any given restriction will result in a net benefit or detriment and legislate accordingly. The measures I described above would, I believe, clearly benefit the whole of society while imposing only minor or or negligible detriments on individual gun owners. YMMV. **BF** , I’ll promise to get back to you this evening. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/252 "2002-04-03T16:13:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*I’d certainly like to see more enforcement. I really wish somebody would call the NRA’s bluff on those alleged 20,000 gun laws. Man, would _that_ ever start some whining! \*\* I don’t believe it’s a bluff. We have rooms and rooms and rooms filled up with laws created by a congress going hyper to try to please anyone. There are probably an inordinate amount of laws for most things, but I doubt that high. > [@](#): > > \*\* > That’s why cops and prosecutors rarely go after honest violators of such laws. You’ll lose the gun, but don’t expect much else unless you’re intentionally avoiding the law. \*\* Anecdotally, I’ve heard of a lot of people who really got screwed for honest mistakes. It seems to me that most “gun enforcement agencies” are far more concerned with harassing honest people than actually giving a shit about criminals. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > If it’s possible and feasible for them to do so, I agree. Again, though, I can just imagine the squawking from all the NRA types if the government dared to tell them personally to hand over their weapons. > > **Beef** , even if they’re true, they strike me as ripped from their context. The 7/1/88 is particularly telling, since she couldn’t possibly be commenting on the passage of a ban outlawing the sale of all guns, because no such thing has ever passed the House. And even if they’re not unfairly taken out of context, they don’t really support the proposition that HGI/Brady Center/Whatever They Are itself supports a total ban on private ownership. Their [mission statement](http://www.bradycenter.org/about/mission.asp) is slightly ambiguous, but seems to indicate they do not take that position. \*\* You’re right, the quotes were kind of weak. I read something Sarah Brady said a few days ago, that she said years back, that was absolutely perfect in supporting my point. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find it. In any case, they changed their official goal for the same reason they changed their name. “Handgun Control, Inc.” scared off some moderate gun control advocates, and so did the “We’re going to ban them all” stance. So they changed it to “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence”, and “Oh, we’re just interested in common sense laws.” ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/253 "2002-04-03T16:38:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Yeah, nobody who doesn’t already have a criminal record has never used a gun in a criminal act. :rolleyes: The potential harm from the misuse of any gun, whether owned by an apparently law-abiding citizen or the local drug dealer, is sufficiently serious that the police should immediately be able to identify the proper owner of a gun if one is misused. The impact on a law-abiding citizen is negligible–nothing more than taking the time to fill out and submit a simple form–while the impact on a person who actually commits a crime with a gun is great, in that it substantially increases the chances that they’re going to get caught. Wanna guess how that particular balancing test works out on my scales? \*\* And if there wasn’t historical precedent showing registration to be an aid to confiscation, I might even agree with you. Although maybe not, on the principle of the thing. I should not need to register and approve my property at the request of the state. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Granted, it would be awful nice of the cops to tell you when they find your stolen or misplaced gun. But the primary purpose of registration should be crime fighting and investigation, not acting as a lost and found box. > Again with the NRA fallacy: _You can’t do anything more because you’re not enforcing everything perfectly now._ I flatly reject that notion. \*\* That’s not, I think, why the NRA is saying. They’re saying “Look, we already have a billion laws on the books, and you’re not doing anything to enforce them on criminals. The only people being inconvenienced by these laws are law abiding citizens, because they go out of their way to comply with the law”. And so when someone proposes another law that is just for show, and will not be enforced against criminals, we - the law abiding citizens - still have to obey it, and may very well be inconvenienced for it for no good. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Gun bans don’t work very effectively when the zone of restriction is adjacent to places where guns are easily available and there are no barriers to their entry. Gun bans work just fine on larger scales, such as Europe and Japan. \*\* You have a point, but I will not concede to your implied point that “the lack of gun crime in Europe and Japan are due to bans.” > [@](#): > > \*\* > Actually, no. It’s well-established (though state laws may vary) that the government only needs to compensate you for property taken for a public use. If it’s taken as an exercise of the police power/pubic safety, you’re unfortunately boned. (I think you get a tax write-off, though.) That’s why I said I’d want compensation as a matter of public policy. \*\* You’d have a hard time convincing me my gun is on par with a critical piece of land on an interstate, or something, to call on eminent domain. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Well that’s the rub, isn’t it? If we could predict which citizens would remain law-abiding and which would decided to take out a playground full of kids, we could be a little more selective in targeting only the bad guys. But since we can’t do that, the criteria has to be whether a particular restriction on everybody will be of more benefit than harm. \*\* And the founding fathers are rolling in their graves. Not that you care, of course… > [@](#): > > \*\* > In the case of assault rifles, the benefit to everyone is that it potentially makes it harder for the classic lone nut to take out an entire restaurant, while the cost is utterly negligible. \*\* I’d appreciate if you used correct terminology. A legally owned assault rifle, or any fully automatic capable weapon, has never been used to commit any crimes by anyone in the United States since their regulation in NFA '34. Please use the term “Semiautomatic rifles that look mean” in place of assault rifles, for honesty’s sake. And another point: A shotgun is far more effective than a “semiautomatic rifle that looks mean” for killing everyone in a restaurant. But you wouldn’t dare touch those - they don’t _look_ mean enough. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Somehow, Johnny, I’m pretty sure you’re still able to defend–more than adequately, I’d wager–your home even without that SAR-8. \*\* And your statement, in 20 years… “Somehow, Johnny, I’m pretty sure you’re still about to defend – more than adequately, I’d wager-- your home, even without that high power 12 ga. shotgun.” > [@](#): > > \*\* > > I’d agree, except that we cannot tell who who will misuse them and who will not. Given that indisputable fact, it is reasonable to inquire whether any given restriction will result in a net benefit or detriment and legislate accordingly. The measures I described above would, I believe, clearly benefit the whole of society while imposing only minor or or negligible detriments on individual gun owners. YMMV. \*\* And we don’t know who will commit libel or not. We need to a restriction on tongue sizes that will result in a net benefit. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/254 "2002-04-03T17:03:41Z")
> [@](#): > > The potential harm from the misuse of any gun, whether owned by an apparently law-abiding citizen or the local drug dealer, is sufficiently serious that the police should immediately be able to identify the proper owner of a gun if one is misused. “_Potential harm_”? So we should penalize people based on what they _might_ do? Usually we penalize people for what they _do_ do. Almost all rapes involve the use of a penis. Why don’t we tattoo serial numbers (or Social Security Numbers) on every penis and register the owner. “Registration is good in that, if universally applied and enforced, it provides law enforcement with a permanent record of which (penis) belongs to which person, as well as who owns (penises) and who doesn’t. No more guessing who a (penis) belongs to… and greatly reduced guessing whether any given suspect is a (penis) owner.” Imagine if Clinton or Michael Jackson had had serial numbers tattooes on their penises. None of this “describing” that went on, no, “Well, it had a mole here…” Instead the rape victim or sexual harrassment victim could simply say, “I was raped by penis number 987-65-432, which belongs to So-and-so.” > [@](#): > > Again with the NRA fallacy: You can’t do anything more because you’re not enforcing everything perfectly now. I flatly reject that notion. And yet you said earlier: > [@](#): > > And I wholeheartedly agree with you that what society should be debating is whether we should pass gun control legislation, not whether we can. The desirability of any particular gun control measure is certainly open to debate and legitimate disagreement. Why pass legislation if we _can_, if we _shouldn’t_ be passing it? > [@](#): > > Gun bans don’t work very effectively when the zone of restriction is adjacent to places where guns are easily available and there are no barriers to their entry. Gun bans work just fine on larger scales, such as Europe and Japan. A gun ban in the United States would work about as well as a drug ban would work here. And again, does it hurt the criminal? No, of course not. > [@](#): > > Somehow, Johnny, I’m pretty sure you’re still able to defend–more than adequately, I’d wager–your home even without that SAR-8. As with all of my firearms, the SAR-8 was not for defense. It is representative of a modern historical type, just as my blackpowder Colts are representative of 19th Century types. My interest is in collecting and history, not hunting or defense. As for your James Huberty example, you may remember a man who went crazy in Killeen, Texas and shot up Luby’s Restaurant. One of the patrons, a doctor, obeyed Texas law and left the handgun she normally carries in her purse inside of her vehicle. She testified that she reached into her purse to retrieve the gun, but being a law-abiding citizen it was not there. She testified that could have shot the attacker and saved lives had she had her gun, but instead she had to watch her parents and many others be killed. > [@](#): > > I’d agree, except that we cannot tell who who will misuse them and who will not. Given that indisputable fact, it is reasonable to inquire whether any given restriction will result in a net benefit or detriment and legislate accordingly. The measures I described above would, I believe, clearly benefit the whole of society while imposing only minor or or negligible detriments on individual gun owners. YMMV. And there’s the crux of the matter. I and many others, supported by a mountain of statistics, believe that imposing further restrictions will _not_ result in a net benefit to society, and will result in a net detriment; doing little or nothing to stop violent crime, and imposing major and onerous restrictions on individual gun owners. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/255 "2002-04-03T17:16:59Z")
Another day, another [bill](http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27045) to ban something from our 2nd amendment pals in Kali. Note the other bill farther down, to place a nickel tax on each round of ammunition, regardless of type. The measure, known as A.B. 2222, was introduced Feb. 28. Sponsored by Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-Hollywood, chairman of the Assembly’s Select Committee on Gun Violence, the bill would also outlaw “small-arms armor-piercing ammunition.” “Existing law requires, except as specified, for the destruction, as a nuisance, of a machine gun possessed in violation of law. This bill would similarly require, except as specified, for the destruction, as a nuisance, of a .50-caliber sniper weapon possessed in violation of [the] law,” said a summary of the bill. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/256 "2002-04-03T19:25:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BF \* > \*\*Another day, another [bill](http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27045) to ban something from our 2nd amendment pals in Kali. Note the other bill farther down, to place a nickel tax on each round of ammunition, regardless of type. \*\* Yeah, because gun shot wounds cost in health care. Somehow, taxing the guy who shoots 300 rounds at the range $15 that day to cover the health cost of one gangbanger’s 9mm round is fair. And .22 ammo will go from around one and a half cents around to 6 and a half cents. Nice. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > The measure, known as A.B. 2222, was introduced Feb. 28. Sponsored by Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-Hollywood, chairman of the Assembly’s Select Committee on Gun Violence, the bill would also outlaw “small-arms armor-piercing ammunition.” \*\* I wouldn’t be surprised if this meant all FMJ. Isn’t armor piercing pistol ammo already banned nationally? > [@](#): > > \*\* > “Existing law requires, except as specified, for the destruction, as a nuisance, of a machine gun possessed in violation of law. This bill would similarly require, except as specified, for the destruction, as a nuisance, of a .50-caliber sniper weapon possessed in violation of [the] law,” said a summary of the bill. \*\* Ouch, now they’re using the word “sniper weapon” in actual law! There’s no such things as a “sniper weapon”, just rifles made to be accurate. But I wouldn’t be surprised if “sniper weapon” becomes the new “assault weapon” to stir up emotion for bans. I almost hope it does. Perhaps it’ll get the hunting crowd to get off their ass and realize they’re not safe from the next round of bans. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/257 "2002-04-03T19:30:27Z")
Er, “around one and a half cents to sixth and a half sense per round”, I meant to say. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2002, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/258 "2002-04-03T23:01:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Qwertyasdfg \* > What makes something a “natural” right, other than “cause I say so”? That’s a whole other debate. > [@](#): > > By all means, you can be the arbiter of what you _think_ is right. But guns give you the ability to easily kill on the basis of these beliefs. Guns empower you to be judge, jury, and executioner. You say that like it’s a bad thing. > [@](#): > > You (and I am basing this on your last post, not speaking for you) are adversed to majority rule, despotism, and anarchy. What kind of government do you want? I want a republic with clearly defined powers and rights guaranteed to everyone. > [@](#): > > And by the way, they are related in as much as every philosopher I know of who talked about “natural rights” also talked about the state of nature in the same breath. Argumentum ad populum. > [@](#): > > They’re also related in that, when everyone does whatever they’d like, you get the state of nature. First of all, you are yet again confusing “standing up for your rights” with “doing whatever you want”. Secondly, if by “state of nature”, you mean “anarchy”, the fact of the matter is that it is basic human nature to form hegemonic systems. Any group of humans, left to their own devices, will form some type of government, even if it’s not of a form that you recognize. > [@](#): > > Aha. This is a matter of opinion, not fact. You think that gun control violates your rights. I disagree. Yes. I earlier stated that rights are a matter of opinion. > [@](#): > > Your killing to protect your guns is just as much justified in your mind as a dealer’s killing to protect his drugs. Perhaps. So what? > [@](#): > > To me they’re equally reprehensible. Yes. That is your opinion. Minty Green > [@](#): > > If you were really agreeing to disagree, you’d also agree to accept whatever democratically-enacted gun control measures happened to be enacted, That’s not agreeing to disagree. That’s agreeing to agree. > [@](#): > > just as those of us on the other side accept the current state of the law that gives you a basically unfettered right to keep and bear arms. But you (plural) don’t. > [@](#): > > Reserving the right to veto with a bullet is not agreeing to disagree. Why not? > [@](#): > > Beef: If you’re threatened with a taser, it is reasonable to respond with a taser of your own. So if a person threatened with a taser is reasonable in responding with a taser of his own, isn’t a person threatened with a gun reasonable in responding with a gun of his own? > [@](#): > > And yes, I disagree with that logic, in the same way that I would disagree with executing people who drive too fast rather than, say, setting a speed limit. Except that individuals do not have the same options as the government. If I could, as an individual, fine or inprison those that seriously threaten my rights, I would do so. But that’s not an reasonable option. > [@](#): > > What frustrates me is the position, unsupported by the law, that gun control is per se verboten. Obviously **some** control is permissable. After all “it’s illegal to murder someone with a gun” is a form of gun control, but I’m not opposed to that. The question is how far we can go in the spectrum from controlling just imminent threats to controlling abstract potential threats. > [@](#): > > That is a position that seeks to close off public debate altogether, Simply because someone disagrees with you, that doesn’t mean that they’re trying to close off public debate. > [@](#): > > rather than encourage the well-informed experimentation that should be the hallmark of a democratic society. I don’t think that “experimentation” with basic rights should be done at all by society, let alone be a hallmark. And you never answered the question of what specifically you would consider an acceptable experiment. > [@](#): > > #1: “I’ll kill 'em [if] they deny rights, which I refuse to define!” > > #2: “I will only kill in self-defense.” That’s a bit of a mispresentation of my views, but I consider denying my rights to be a threat to me, and therefore opposing it is a form of self defense. > [@](#): > > Again with the NRA fallacy: You can’t do anything more because you’re not enforcing everything perfectly now. I flatly reject that notion. That’s a straw man. The argument is that (a) The fact that current laws are not being enforced implies that future laws will not be enforced, therefore making them ineffective (b) New laws aren’t necessary; the goal can be achieved by enforcing existing laws (or, at the very least, we should try that first) (c) It is better to have a few laws that aren’t completely comprehensive but are fully enforced, than to have a perfect set of laws that is haphazardly enforced (d) Most of all, those who are truly concerned about freedom should seek to get as much done with the fewest restrictions. The fact that many gun control advocates focus on imposing more restrictions rather than making current ones more effective shows that they are not concerned with liberty. Do you “flatly reject” any of these notions? > [@](#): > > There is no Fifth Amendment problem because there was no incriminatory statement at the time of the registration. Did you mean “there was no statement that was, at the time of the registraction, incriminatory”? Because there is a statement at the time of the registration, and it is incriminatory. I would like to see your answer to the question of whether we should have gotten involved in WWII. Johnny L.A. > [@](#): > > Why don’t we tattoo serial numbers (or Social Security Numbers) on every penis and register the owner. Is THAT what she meant by “pubic safety”? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/259 "2002-04-04T01:25:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > I don’t believe it’s a bluff. We have rooms and rooms and rooms filled up with laws created by a congress going hyper to try to please anyone. The bluff isn’t the number of laws, but the NRA claim that we should enforce those laws before adding others. They’d squeal like stuck pigs if law enforcement and regulatory agencies started to enforce those laws strictly. Music to my ears, if it ever happens. > [@](#): > > In any case, they changed their official goal for the same reason they changed their name. “Handgun Control, Inc.” scared off some moderate gun control advocates, and so did the “We’re going to ban them all” stance. So they changed it to “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence”, and “Oh, we’re just interested in common sense laws.” Does your gun give you magical mind-reading powers? That’s no more convincing to me than it would be to you if I claimed the NRA was secretly dedicated to the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. (More responses to come–please give me the chance to answer before adding to the pile.) ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2002, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732/260 "2002-04-04T01:45:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > And if there wasn’t historical precedent showing registration to be an aid to confiscation, I might even agree with you. Although maybe not, on the principle of the thing. I should not need to register and approve my property at the request of the state. (A) Are you a conscientious objector to having your car licensed by the state? If you’re a professional, do you practice civil disobedience rather than submit to licensing as a doctor, accountant, or beautician? Maybe you’re a pilot (hey, Johnny!) or a HAM radio operator, or . There’s nothing special about guns that exempts them from registration with the state. (B) Cite, please, on registration --\> confiscation. Johnny’s anecdote indicates quite the opposite. And even if it did, tough noogies. If guns are banned–which we all know they won’t be–you don’t get to keep your guns. > [@](#): > > That’s not, I think, why the NRA is saying. They’re saying “Look, we already have a billion laws on the books, and you’re not doing anything to enforce them on criminals. The only people being inconvenienced by these laws are law abiding citizens, because they go out of their way to comply with the law”. Probably because there are so few seriously substantive laws on guns across the nation that criminals can easily avoid their requirements. Can’t buy a gun in D.C.? Drive across the river to Virginia. Believe me, I want to enforce the hell out of existing laws, ineffectual as they are, _and_ add some serious substance to the ones we have. It would be a more interesting debate if people took up gun control proposals on the merits rather than complaining that existing laws don’t work well enough or aren’t enforced enough: _I agree_. > [@](#): > > You’d have a hard time convincing me my gun is on par with a critical piece of land on an interstate, or something, to call on eminent domain. I don’t have to, convince you, though. If the government seizes your rifle to give to the army to fight off the invading Canadian hordes, they are constitutionally obligated to compensate you. If they seize it because they think it’s a threat to public safety, you aren’t entitled to a penny unless they choose to compensate you. That’s all I was saying, and it’s just a basic principle of property law. > [@](#): > > And the founding fathers are rolling in their graves. Not that you care, of course… They’re dead. Dead guys don’t roll around. Don’t care. > [@](#): > > I’d appreciate if you used correct terminology. A legally owned assault rifle, or any fully automatic capable weapon, has never been used to commit any crimes by anyone in the United States since their regulation in NFA '34. Yeah, but semiautomatic assault rifles–the term is in common usage, so you’ll just have to live with it–have been used to kill large numbers of people on multiple occasions. Bye bye, assault rifles. I’d also suggest that the primary reason why noody has used a fully auto weapon in a crime since '34 is because we sensibly regulated them nearly out of existence. Re: “Guns that look mean.” I roll my eyes in your direction. Please, I have no fear of how a gun looks. Hell, I have no fear of guns. On the other hand, I have a serious fear of assholes with guns. If you can figure out how to separate the assholes from the guns I’m all ears. > [@](#): > > And we don’t know who will commit libel or not. We need to a restriction on tongue sizes that will result in a net benefit. Come talk to me when you develop a way to turn libel into a weapon capable of killing anybody in sight. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-the-ninth-amendment/100732.md?page=14)