Reply With Quote
Does it really need to be explained to you why it was brought up in response to pgardn's post or are just playing stupid?
Does it really need to be explained to you why it was brought up in response to pgardn's post or are just playing stupid?
he brought up things like cars, which aren't covered in the bill of rights. i understood what you meant. what i'm saying is the bill of rights doesn't have anything against a registry of guns
Well then by God you need to protest and don't let them follow you by using your boat registration.
Dont be a dolt, it's very practical practice to register people and their things. God forbid cops call in your license number when you run over a lib and track you down.
And it's an absolutely pitiful response.
So why boats? Why cars? Why Homesteads?
And then explain this to SA and run DMC.
If a gun registered to you shot a lib due to government intervention? Then the police could ask you why you gave it to SA.
That response is just dumb as .
Seriously, support your position. How is a registry of legal gun owners going to be used?
No it's not. You felt it applied to muslims but not to our cons utional rights?
Of course it can be. I didn't ask if you had a problem with it. Do you want to repeal FOPA, yes or no? Why so non-committal?sorry
like i said above, it can be repealed in full or in part with simple legislation. i have no issue with repealing the registry prohibition
Boats, cars, homesteads... to gather a tax for for roads, bridges, schools, lakes and such. It's only a tax. For guns, it would be to track gun owners. You pay the sales tax when you buy a gun. Do you register your television?
Are any of those rights protected by the Cons ution?
Not only that but there's SCOTUS precedent that regulation of firearms is perfectly permissible, within certain bounds.
As of CC's question of why, there's reasonable reasons I can think up, like a court being able to determine if new, mentally unstable individuals owns firearms, etc.
I mean, that doesn't mean I endorse it or think it's a good idea.
I'm also unaware if the legality of such registries were ever challenged in court prior to FOPA.
why wouldn't a registration for guns just be a tax for roads, bridges, or schools? why do you assume cars are taxed for roads and not to track car owners?
is the right to not have your gun registered protected by the Cons ution?
Bs.
Thats only part of it. It is used for le reasons as well. They have frkn lawsuits about how far your homestead extends.
And like it or not, this is a way law enforcement finds out about your background before they approach your car. You don't think police should have an idea as to your criminal background when approaching your car? Warrants for your arrest? Law enforcement has no right to know the residence of a serial murderer?
when the cops find a car abandoned after an accident tough luck?
i didnt chime in because i had strong opinions. people started yammering on about the cons ution and i'm pointing out it does nothing to prohibit a registry. my opinion on whether or not we should have a registry or why is irrelevant to that conversation. when i put more thought into it and have my own opinion, i'll be sure to let you know
So presume for argument's sake that a gun registry was enacted.
John Smith purchases a firearm and through purchase it becomes registered to John Smith.
Here are some scenarios of what could take place to bring the registry into use:
1. John Smith is arrested with a firearm that's registered to John Smith|Alternative is that John Smith is arrested with a firearm that isn't registered to anyone.
2. John Smith's firearm is stolen and used in a crime. The criminal is apprehended and the firearm recovered. It is traced to John Smith.|Alternative is that it's traced to no one or it's reported stolen by the owner who gave the SN to the police and is then traced to John Smith.
3. John Smith loses the firearm and it's found by a kid who shoots himself in the head. The firearm is traced to John Smith.|Alternative is that the firearm isn't traced to anyone and the dead kid remains dead but John Smith avoids repercussion. John Smith could have also reported the firearm as missing or stolen and then it's traced to John Smith.
4. John Smith sells his firearm to a friend who then has to register it to himself|Alternative is John Smith sells his firearm to a friend who doesn't have to register it. Either way, John Smith's friend now has a firearm.
5. John Smith has a TRO issued on him by a former spouse or lover. John Smith's firearms are registered and so each is confiscated and John Smith is shown a list of firearms that should be in his possession by the local law enforcement.|Alternative is that the same TRO is issued and the local law enforcement goes to John Smith's home and removes his firearms. He could have hidden some which would make him a criminal. He also could have simply not registered a firearm purchased from a friend and been in the same predicament. In both cases John Smith still has a firearm and is still a criminal for the same reasons, unlawful possession of a firearm which is a felony and that makes John Smith no longer eligible to ever own a firearm.
Which scenario makes it better to have the registry than to not have it?
6. Because 50 people are gunned down in a high school by people who have unregistered firearms, executive order creates a situation where firearms are going to be confiscated. John Smith has 5 guns but they are all registered because John Smith is a law abiding citizen. The BATF shows up at John's home and under force, takes all of his firearms for his own good and the good of the people around him because the POTUS declared it cannot happen again.
Alternative is that the POTUS wants to ban guns but even executive order cannot determine who has a firearm and who doesn't. There's no list to use to know which address has which weapons. So instead of executive order, the POTUS tries to push gun control through the house and senate and it gets neutered into a magazine capacity and evil feature ban that acts as a placebo for the gun and law ignorant while at the same time not actually doing anything to control guns.
if registry costs are $100 we can use that money for roads, bridges, and schools
Did they yammer to you personally or did you just interject because you're so intelligent?
the latter
Same with your 1st amendment rights. Any money collected from the sale of your personal freedoms can be used for the common good, right Napoleon? Or is it Snowball?
How about used for emergency rooms, specifically trauma centers for gunshot wounds.
Then a speaking tax that can be used for the same type of triage center for people who recklessly run their suck.
we should ban sales tax on guns
How about a typing tax for those with excessively active fingers.
I cant hear you...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions