Actually that should read
…if we are not so boneheaded that we say and or believe that it cannot happen here.
elsewhere they don’t have a right to bear arms built into their national charter. they also don’t have a powerful gun lobby. i think these are relevant distinctions.
and your right to privacy? please. if you want privacy, close the door. you say ‘privacy for a starter’. any others?
Zwaldd
Quote
elsewhere they don’t have a right to bear arms built into their national charter. they also don’t have a powerful gun lobby. i think these are relevant distinctions.
and your right to privacy? please. if you want privacy, close the door. you say ‘privacy for a starter’. any others?
My door is closed. My door is locked.
You are trying to take away my privacy by making it a crime if I don’t report my belongings,namely guns, to big brother. It is nobodys F***ing buisness what I do or do not have.
Isn’t that enough?
You are also trying to make it possible for a criminal to go down the list of gunowners and their weapons and pick the weapon he wants to steal.
And conversely check if the house he is looking to rob has a armed occupant.
I just don’t see why you haven’t seen the folly of your arguement. This is not the first thread that you have repeatedly failed to argue your point of view. These aren’t new points that you are argueing and the answers sure aren’t new. Why don’t you open your eyes ,ears and listen.
The only reason I can figure is that you are completely closed minded and think you can outlast us. The back door approach won’t work either.
But “close the door” is what this is about – the debate isn’t “why should people be allowed to pack loaded weapons on the street?”, it’s “why should people be allowed to own guns in their own homes?”
At least that’s the turn it has taken, and always does take.
As you point out, the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. (The OP is from someone in Canada, where they don’t even have a guarantee of freedom of speech – which is why, occasionally, there are stories about books being prohibited from publication in Canada.) Given that California has demanded people turn in their SKS rifles, after being told they could keep them if they registered them a few years ago, and given that NYC has confiscated “assault rifles” by using the registration lists to find out who owns them, I think we can reasonably agree that even in the U.S., registration leads to confiscation.
Heh – I just noticed that you said registration programs haven’t led to confiscation here. I suggest you open your eyes; California did exactly that, after the state attorney general reinterpreted Roberti-Roos II a couple of years ago. Here’s the primary web page discussing the reversal and current “turn them in or move them out of the state” situation:
Oh, sure, people can sell them out of state instead of turning them in for destruction. That’s not confiscation. Uh-huh. Greeeaaaaat.
Did you completely miss the “Gun Registration” thread a while back?
good, then you have your privacy. by keeping a record of who has what gun, gun registration should force irresponsible owners to store, use, and sell their guns more responsibly. if you are responsible already, then my suggested registration program should not be a hassle for you. it only hassles those who intend to be irresponsible with their guns. if you are comfortable with the amount of gun violence in this country, then i can see why you don’t think a registration program is worth the invasion of your “privacy”. i am not comfortable with it and am therefore willing to make that sacrifice.
do you have an unbiased cite that documents that this confiscation was based on registration that was not originally designed for confiscation? the one link you provided doesn’t give much useful info.
of course not. i gave cogent arguments about how gun registration could reduce the proliferation of untraceable guns. my arguments went largely uncontested. instead, my opponents in that thread would wait for a few posts to go by and then restate their original premise, completely ignoring already posted rebuttals. what’s your point?
Zwaldd
Quote
good, then you have your privacy. by keeping a record of who has what gun, gun registration should force irresponsible owners to store, use, and sell their guns more responsibly. if you are responsible already, then my suggested registration program should not be a hassle for you. it only hassles those who intend to be irresponsible with their guns. if you are comfortable with the amount of gun violence in this country, then i can see why you don’t think a registration program is worth the invasion of your “privacy”. i am not comfortable with it and am therefore willing to make that sacrifice.
Only Your opinion
So you want to take my privacy away and endanger my family at the same time huh?
You’ve been shown several times that you are not the one making the sacrifice, unless the perps are casing your house right now. Better buy a guard dog, vicious animals I’m thinking, so you can protect yourself because your neighbor,the gun owner,if only by proxy ,won’t be able to help you.
The freedom of information act allows anyone to look at government records.In my opinion the government already knows too much about me. And NO I have not done anything wrong or am I planning to do something wrong.
Correct me if I am wrong here but it seems to me that you are encouraging a police state. The more authority you give to the police the closer you move toward that happening. IMHO.
Zwaldd
Quote
do you have an unbiased cite that documents that this confiscation was based on registration that was not originally designed for confiscation? the one link you provided doesn’t give much useful info.
I’ve seen the story myself.
In his own words, the man moved to California and wrote to the government agency in charge asking about the weapon. He even showed them pictures of the gun. explaining in detail what it was. The gov agency said it was ok but when he had it in his posession they recanted.IIRC the attourney general changed his mind.
No vote. Just his opinion.
You see how dangerous this could become? Do you see any rights being violated?
…and how reducing the proliferation of untraceable guns could reduce the amount of gun related crime.
Quote Zwaldd
i gave cogent arguments about how gun registration could reduce the proliferation of untraceable guns.
Look around Bud.
There aren’t many in your corner.Most see it as an infringment of their rights. Too much of an infringrment.
If you want to trade my future and my childrens future safety to remove a few, or many I don’t know,guns that might be used illegally I say NO. Hell No!!!
not at all. in no way do i want to restrict the ability for people to buy and sell guns to be used lawfully. you want to buy a gun to protect yourself? go buy one. i don’t see how this endangers your family.
it depends on your definition of a police state. i think a state in which anyone can buy, sell, or own a firearm can hardly be called a police state.
i still don’t see that california story as an example of how registration leads to confiscation. the guy moved to california and reported that he owns a weapon already made illegal in that state? i am absolutely against ‘assault weapons’ bans. it sounds like this guy was simply the victim of an arbitrary ban, and not a ‘register your gun so we can confiscate it’ scam.
now there’s a reason to change an opinion. well good for you, justwannano - there’s no shame in being a follower. without y’all there would be no leaders.
Whoa, touche’, zwaldd, but before you get into a pissing contest with justwannano, you stated that you made cogent arguments in a past gun thread that were not rebutted. IIRC, every argument you posited was rather thoroughly deflated for:
a) Placing the burden on responsible gun owners, and not taking in the account that criminals won’t adhere to gun registration.
b) The possibility of registration leading to confiscation (California, and few other countries have been cited.)
c) The exorbitant cost to the taxpayer (Canada’s gun registration cost was estimated at 85million in Canadian dollars, conservative Canadian lawmakers place the cost at 10 times that amount) for a people and gun population considerably smaller than the US.
Zwaldd
quote
now there’s a reason to change an opinion. well good for you, justwannano - there’s no shame in being a follower. without y’all there would be no leaders.
So you think I’m a follower heh Bunky.
So you are doing all this trying to be a leader???
[sub]muffled snicker/] quickly growing into a loud guffaw
you need to go back and re-read that thread, bf. here’s a recap of my arguments against your points:
a) criminals don’t have to adhere to gun registration. that’s the beauty of it. you place the responsibility (what you call a burden) on law abiding citizens to obey the law. they’re the ones that take responsibility to make sure registrations are transfered before handing over a weapon. those intending to use a gun for criminal purposes will need to search far and wide for an untraceable gun. so instead of depending on criminals to obey the law, we let them sit back and watch their gun supply dwindle.
b) i have argued in this and other gun threads that there is no precedent in this country of registration leading to confiscation. it was suggested in this thread that registration led to a ban in california, although no pertinent evidence was given to support the claim.
c) you think 85 mil for a national registration program is exhorbitant? go back to the registration thread and read the estimates on page 1 regarding a cost of $3 per handgun registration. and that’s limiting it to handguns.
so if this is what you call ‘thoroughly deflated’ then i guess it’s another disagreement on definition of terms.
No, they were debunked almost instantly… yet you kept making the same claims, so everyone ignored you.
“Repetition” does not equal “correct”.
so you’re wrapping it up by calling me ‘bunky’. i should have known better than to go mano a mano with you, justwannano.
spoofe, we simply disagree on how that debate played out. i say the gun control opponents kept repeating the initial premise over and over without contesting my rebuttals. you say it was vice versa. if you want to continue the debate, then i suggest you go back and contest my arguments in the gun registration thread instead of just stating that they were ‘debunked’.
Zwaldd
Yeah I guess thats it. You would win a verbal battle.
But it is not a verbal battle you are trying to fight here, It is reality. People often times do not make sense in what they do. I guess that is what you do not understand.
Argue all the, makes sense to me, stuff you want and someone is still liable to kick your teeth in just because.
Take away the guns and their liable to use poison darts,or syringes or,or,or
You aren’t going to change the people with legislation that removes someone s method of self protection. That is folly.
a) Most gun crime is committed using stolen guns. If the supply of legally purchased guns diminished this would increase the demand of stolen guns. Increased demand leads to increased prices, which would lead to more burglaries to acquire the guns. If not burglaries then a black market of “Designer Guns” produces in someone’s basement, that would proliferate just like the “Designer Drugs”. We can solve these problems by dismantling the free market system, and allowing the government complete control over manufacturing processes as in Russia and to some extent in Canada.
b) So what if it doesn’t. Unreasonable search and seizure doesn’t lead to cancer. Limiting your religious freedom does not lead to abortion. Seems like the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that registration would accomplish anything while still maintaining the rights you have in this country.
c) Just $3 to excercise my right! Wow! That’s less than the cost of a movie ticket.
I don’t live in fear of gun violence. I read the stories just like you do and see the victims express their emotions on national TV… I feel for them. I don’t cringe like some little coward and start swing my arms in windmill fashion because “I got to do something.” There is a price to pay for freedom (and it’s more than just $3), and there is a growing population (of cowards?) that just don’t want to pay that price. What you don’t realize is that there is an acceptable number of casualties in any endeavor from the airline industry to the consumption of Hydrogen Dioxide. Firearms can’t hold a candle to the number of lives destroyed and/or affected by the misuse of bathtub mats.
The impetus behind gun control it not to save lives, though the emotionally challenged buy into that, it is to remove the right to own them. Of all the lives lost this year from gun violence which ones would have been prevented if registration were in place? The current president’s remarks after the shooting in California was very refreshing.
Zwaldd, no amount of logic, no fact can be presented, that will asswade your fears or diminish your compassion, indeed nothing should. You need to learn to live with them and not trample on the rights of others in an attempt to do so.
now that i agree with. if you read my posts carefully, you’ll see that i specifically stated that in no way would i support legislation to confiscate guns or prevent people from buying and selling guns. i am a gun owner and would not want any restrictions placed on me about what type or quantity of gun i can buy. i wouldn’t support a registration program that included such restrictions.