Reply With Quote
I'm actually curious to hear what was the historical argument for including the ban of registry in FOPA (which obviously existed prior). Was it mere paranoia or was there some specific case...
The BJS National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS) data for 1993-97 show
that of the 19.2 million incidents of
nonfatal violent crime, excluding simple
assault --
* 28% were committed with a firearm
* 4% were committed with a firearm and resulted in injury
* less than 1% resulted in gunshot wounds.
Yeah, idiot. We need a trauma ward for the 1%.
I'm actually curious to hear what was the historical argument for including the ban of registry in FOPA (which obviously existed prior). Was it mere paranoia or was there some specific case...
"We"...
Lives in California....
again, whether or not having a registry and collecting fees is a good or bad thing, just saying "muh bill of rights" doesn't protect against it. that's all im saying
Yeah but the 1% have very expensive tastes. Bowels and kidneys are expensive organs to repair if the projectile meets them.
And maybe we can the rest of $ for the victims of criminals we never catch because they have no registered car, license, or homestead.
It can be traced back to partisan influence in government offices specifically the ATF, to push political agenda by harassing FFLs. It stems from that. The Gun Control Act was far reaching and created a situation where gun rights were being infringed upon through the blockage of commerce via rampant inspections and confiscations of records due to loopholes.
Or because you disarmed the population and so the criminal is free to conduct business at his leisure.
And that's not what was said, Philo. I've told you twice already. BoR was the difference between the gun debate and the house, car and boat analogy. Goddamn get with it.
and it's irrelevant in all accounts when we're talking about registries. whether its about guns or o kitty pajamas
Who said anything about disarming?I thought this was all about registering?You are pissed the law can find out where you live because of taxes. Right?
And I am the idiot...
You sir, are a cashew.
Thanks. Sorry if it derailed from the convo here. I'm way more interested in the legal/historical aspect than actual guns.
Again, I'm curious if there was some sort of staple case back then that even explored the legal question. Not going to bother you with that, I can look it up after vacations.
Another angle from the legal/historical perspective is that slaves were denied the right, IIRC.
You'd love to give the federal government the lever to simply remove all resistance against tyranny. Just ask the Soviets, Jews, Chinese, Ugandans, Armenians and a few others who have surrendered their guns, after registry of course, and systematically be slaughtered, as they were now defenseless, about precursors.
This kind of thing is why the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place with the statement "shall not be infringed upon". I'm not surprised you cannot recognize a precursor, but don't get all itchy because I can. It's amazing that some of you who think your representative who vows to defend the cons ution should only defend parts you like.
And only a person ignorant of the ramifications would equate the two.
I'm still waiting.
*crickets*
I did answer that, tbh
There are already background checks in place for legal gun purchases.
Alleged ramifications anyways. There's counter examples (i.e.:post-war Japan) that are just as valid. But comparisons like that are difficult due to the obvious cultural differences.
But people don't always buy a gun AFTER being ill...
thats fine. my point was and is about the legality/cons utionality of it
In a vacuum.
Nope.
Im just more frightened of the problems that would be caused by NOT having to register anything to anyone.
, why even let any organizing en y know individuals even exist?
There are very real practical reasons for having lists in organized societies.
3 million people voted illegally, we gotta find out who these folks are.
Oh, we can't.
Laws are always set against practical concerns. This is nothing new. The paranoia surrounding the government rounding up weapons happens to be a very very remote possibility to me. I just don't take it seriously. I do however, like all the deer meat I get, so that would piss me off. It's not practical for me to worry about it though.
But I get it. Some people really do believe 3 million people voted illegally. So they don't think like I do. They are afraid of snakes, I like them, I get it.
I don't know about that, pgardn... for example, even if, arguendo, the secret (or not so secret) no fly list is legally permissible and desirable, the inability to challenge your inclusion or even verify your inclusion appears to be a flagrant violation of due process. And even if it is, sometimes it takes decades to legally turn over stuff like that.
Which is why the founding fathers didn't specify what you just said, bifurcation man.
I don't want locks on my bedroom door, ergo I think all locks are bad.There are very real practical reasons for having lists in organized societies.
3 million people voted illegally, we gotta find out who these folks are.
Oh, we can't.
The paranoia is real. The odds of it actually ever happening seem to increase as things like registries develop. What makes it a remote possibility? Because you don't think of it? Or because of the cons ution?Laws are always set against practical concerns. This is nothing new. The paranoia surrounding the government rounding up weapons happens to be a very very remote possibility to me. I just don't take it seriously. I do however, like all the deer meat I get, so that would piss me off. It's not practical for me to worry about it though.
You just arbitrarily decide what you want to accept based on which way you lean already since you have no compelling evidence either way. Its something you introduced then said you don't believe it.But I get it. Some people really do believe 3 million people voted illegally. So they don't think like I do. They are afraid of snakes, I like them, I get it.
This is the key:
Laws are always set against practical concerns.
Maybe I should have stated the word practical with something more strongly worded.
Some lists are necessary. Voting lists are very practical. I would not dare set voting lists against no fly lists. This slippery slope stuff often is used for purposes of creating paranoia IMO.
And I stated nothing about the ability of the individual to find out if they are indeed listed. I can't think of near as many cases in which an individual should NOT be allowed to find out if they are apart of a list. It seems reasonable that in the vast majority of the many lists we make people should be able to find out if they ARE on them.
Finding out goes against the purpose, to apprehend someone. If you know, you'll go elsewhere.
It's not an argument that any list is bad. It's an argument that gun registries are bad. I'm all for voter registration and ID's and all forms of that . I have TSA precheck clearance because of all the personal information the feds have on me that I gave them. I don't care if they know what guns I own, personally. That's on a micro-scale. On a larger scale, it matters because it signals something. A list means something. You need a voter list to know who's voting to prevent someone from voting illegally. Why do you need a gun registry?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions