Discussion in 'Main Message Board' started by jds holler, Aug 23, 2019.
Brian, it sounds as if you are trying to refute a point that I wasn't trying to make.
What I was trying to say was this.-- Many misguided folks claim that our firearms should be subject to the same type of registration process that is used for motor vehicles. I meant to show that vehicle registration is at best imperfect, and totally unenforceable in our society as it exists.
Gun registration would be no better, and as has been pointed out, would infringe on a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Another point that has been mentioned, and I'd like to agree with, is that registrations, special licenses, user permits, and such are simply a means to extract money from folks who might have it to pay; and more extraneously, for the purpose of decreasing the use of a particular object, service or location. ie: tolls on a road.
Registration would be the perfect tool for gun grabbers to use to price gun ownership out of reach of many, decrease the number of firearms among the general population, and to give birth to yet another state and federal bureaucracy. jd
I was not responding to you directly. But I believe I am refuting the same claims and fallacies you are!
Registering vehicles is nothing more than a way for the state to get more money out of you.
That's certainly true with a kayak, and canoe.
I cannot imagine what benefit I get from registering them. I even had to prove I paid (or pay) sales tax on the value when I registered mine.
I think using this analogy is dangerous in a way because it trivializes the right to gun ownership....
1. Gun ownership is a right, written in the Bill of Rights, so that we citizens can stand up to a tyrannical government. Owning a car isn't nearly as important when considering a tyrannical government.
2. I can own as many cars as I want, I only have to register them if i want to drive them on public streets, partly because a portion of that money is used to maintain those streets. So, using that logic, if we register all firearms, is the government going to use some of that money to maintain shooting ranges for us? Not likely!
I understand why people use the analogy, but to me it's like comparing apples and footballs.
I have argued the tyranny thing with antis. Its always been lost cause for me. The Koolaid has soaked in too far. Pissing in the wind would have accomplished more. To them registering almost anything is ok especially something they already hate.
Ok, calm down a little. Why is driving a privilege? What has to be given?
That has been their agenda since at least 1993. Read for yourself:
From the link.
Rep. Charles Schemer
If unwilling to expend the effort to read the entire document in the link provided above by RatRifle, one need only read the last paragraph to clearly understand the anti-gun lobby's true intentions:
A Quick Guide to Arguing With The Gun Zealots
There is also a page on Handgun Control stationary titled “A QUICK GUIDE TO ARGUING WITH THE GUN ZEALOTS” which lists strategic points to remember for public speaking. It points out that the general public is confused between semi-automatic and automatic weapons and that this confusion can work in HCI’s favor. Constantly dropping the words submachine gun, fully automatic, machine gun, military weapon, and high tech killing machine are good debater’s tricks used to instill a sense of dread over these weapons. Other points include a discussion on semi-automatic weapons, endangerment of children, enough is enough, and there are too many guns in the U.S. There is also a brief listing of “Points of Victory in the Past Ten Years”.
Notice the use of the word "zealots" with an extreme negative connotation in the section title. I would add that in the years since this was written, the term "assault weapon" has become their favorite, even though it has no clear definition or meaning. As they themselves noted, it is a common debater's trick and is solely used in an attempt to "score points". It leaves no doubt whatsoever that their intention is to misinform and/or lie, if necessary, in order to achieve their political goals.
A few of the goals listed in the sections entitled, "5 Year Plan", "Public Safety Regulations", and "Ammunition and Explosives" in approximately the middle of the document are especially noteworthy:
4) Reduction of the number of guns to require an arsenal license. The suggestion is that the number be reduced to possession of greater than 5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition.
5) Arsenal license fees. It is reasonable to require an annual fee of at least $300.00, with a cap of $1,000.00.
6) Limits on arsenal licensing. No license permitted in counties with populations in excess of 200,000.
10) Ban on all military style firearms. This will be based on a “point system” and hopefully can be expanded to include high powered air guns and paint ball weapons.
16) Eventual ban on handgun possession. We think that within 5 years we can enact a total ban on possession at the federal level.
18) Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder which would constitute more than the equivalent of 100 rounds of ammunition.
19) Ban on the possession of explosive powders of more than 1 kilogram at any one time.
22) Banning or strict licensing of all re-loading components.
31) Making unlawful the assembly of more than 4 armed individuals who are not peace officers or military.
Don't make the mistake of failing to note that these were the major goals ~25 years ago. Since that time, you can rest assured that their goals have only become more extreme. They wanted then to legally label anyone that owns a few guns as possessing an "arsenal", and limit the number of rounds of ammunition and/or reloading components to a level that would wipe out any and all firearm competitions in this country. They want even more strict regulations now, which essentially means elimination of firearms and the 2nd Amendment. This IS their goal, whether stated publicly or not, and they will do whatever they have to in order to achieve it.
Few, if any, of the gun laws being proposed would have had any effect whatsoever on the mass shootings that have occurred in the U.S. in last 20 years. They KNOW this. It is NOT about public safety, it never has been. Don't be fooled by the use of debating tricks, or be swayed by a misguided sense of guilt over any of the shootings that have occurred. No responsible gun owner bears any guilt for the actions of crazed individuals - none whatsoever.
Remember in the old west when towns banned having guns within the town limits? And you would be put in jail if you violated the town law/ordinance. (OK, no . . . I'm not quite THAT old )
But at least when they had those laws, it was a matter of where you can carry them rather than not being able to own them. They were banned much for the same reason people want to do it today.
This thread is painful to read, not sure if anyone is actually serious about a registration and ensuing tax.
Owning a gun will get you a low score in this liberal game.
Did gun owners invoke their 2A rights back then?
Driving an automobile is a "privilege" not a Constitutional right. In my state we have around 17,000 drivers on the road without a license. That worked well. The bottom line is, criminals do not follow laws. That's why they are criminals. You might get some people as law-abiding citizens to get a firearms license, but you never will the criminals. What would that accomplish? Don't forget that the kid in the Sandy Hook school shooting broke 22 laws, including murdering his mother to steal her properly stored firearms. Say "no" to licensing firearms every time you hear it mentioned. Also don't forget that somewhere around 350,000,000 firearms in the U.S. have not committed murder or any other crimes. The guns are not the problem.
The one element common to 99.99999% of all crime is use of a vehicle or access to one.
I happen to come across an article in the Smithsonian Magazine that addresses your question:
Now I'm a little more aware.
TY for that.
I'm guessing those "frontier towns" were in territories that had not become states yet and did not come under the Second Amendment.
Ownership of a vehicle, is not a natural right, nor is it enshrined specifically in the Bill of Rights. Our RKBA has met both of the aforementioned criteria.
Separate names with a comma.