CDZ Are You For a National Registry of Gun Owners?

[Kondor3]

Yes.

National standards for...

1. individual licensing

2. item by item firearm registration

3. mandatory training on a firearm type-by-type basis

4. periodic mandatory re-licensing, re-certifications and training refreshers

5. sales, transfers, borrowing, loss, theft, gifts, disposal and any other kind of movement of a firearm between owners or users, and ammunition

6. limits on the number of firearms allowed in the possession of any individual (generous limits, to be sure, but, sane limits, so as to avoid hidden caches)

7. immediate suspension of the right to bear arms when indicted or convicted of criminal behavior; including surrender of all firearms, ammunition, etc., to a caretaker agency

8. crucifixion (metaphorical, at law) for violators

9. severe sanctions (financial, etc.) for states which do not enforce and adhere to the national standards

One cannot regulate a militia well, without having a good handle on its capabilities.

This can all be accomplished for the sole purpose of attaining a well-regulated militia, just like it says in the Constitution.

 

[2aguy]

Yes.

National standards for...

1. individual licensing

2. item by item firearm registration

3. mandatory training on a firearm type-by-type basis

4. periodic mandatory re-licensing, re-certifications and training refreshers

5. sales, transfers, borrowing, loss, theft, gifts, disposal and any other kind of movement of a firearm between owners or users, and ammunition

6. limits on the number of firearms allowed in the possession of any individual (generous limits, to be sure, but, sane limits, so as to avoid hidden caches)

7. immediate suspension of the right to bear arms when indicted or convicted of criminal behavior; including surrender of all firearms, ammunition, etc., to a caretaker agency

8. crucifixion (metaphorical, at law) for violators

9. severe sanctions (financial, etc.) for states which do not enforce and adhere to the national standards

One cannot regulate a militia well, without having a good handle on its capabilities.

This can all be accomplished for the sole purpose of attaining a well-regulated militia, just like it says in the Constitution.

Could you be the one?

Could you be the one anti gunner that actually explains how licensing gun owners does anything to stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns?

Could you show how exactly registering guns...already tried and failed in Canada....does anything to stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns/

And what is the purpose behind licensing gun owners and registering guns that is not already covered by existing laws and practices?

Could you take some time and try to explain this?

 

[2aguy]

Yes.

National standards for...

1. individual licensing

2. item by item firearm registration

3. mandatory training on a firearm type-by-type basis

4. periodic mandatory re-licensing, re-certifications and training refreshers

5. sales, transfers, borrowing, loss, theft, gifts, disposal and any other kind of movement of a firearm between owners or users, and ammunition

6. limits on the number of firearms allowed in the possession of any individual (generous limits, to be sure, but, sane limits, so as to avoid hidden caches)

7. immediate suspension of the right to bear arms when indicted or convicted of criminal behavior; including surrender of all firearms, ammunition, etc., to a caretaker agency

8. crucifixion (metaphorical, at law) for violators

9. severe sanctions (financial, etc.) for states which do not enforce and adhere to the national standards

One cannot regulate a militia well, without having a good handle on its capabilities.

This can all be accomplished for the sole purpose of attaining a well-regulated militia, just like it says in the Constitution.

7. immediate suspension of the right to bear arms when indicted or convicted of criminal behavior; including surrender of all firearms, ammunition, etc., to a caretaker agency

You know....existing laws already do this...........right? And the muslim assassin who tried to murder the police officer...was a convicted felon several times over, and had been previously arrested for multiple gun crimes including carrying a gun as a criminal......and still got a gun stolen from police and used it to try to kill the police officer...you know that...right?

 

[2aguy]

Yes.

National standards for...

1. individual licensing

2. item by item firearm registration

3. mandatory training on a firearm type-by-type basis

4. periodic mandatory re-licensing, re-certifications and training refreshers

5. sales, transfers, borrowing, loss, theft, gifts, disposal and any other kind of movement of a firearm between owners or users, and ammunition

6. limits on the number of firearms allowed in the possession of any individual (generous limits, to be sure, but, sane limits, so as to avoid hidden caches)

7. immediate suspension of the right to bear arms when indicted or convicted of criminal behavior; including surrender of all firearms, ammunition, etc., to a caretaker agency

8. crucifixion (metaphorical, at law) for violators

9. severe sanctions (financial, etc.) for states which do not enforce and adhere to the national standards

One cannot regulate a militia well, without having a good handle on its capabilities.

This can all be accomplished for the sole purpose of attaining a well-regulated militia, just like it says in the Constitution.

Here is why we don't need to license gun owners....

No, we don't need to license gun owners.

First….

--criminals will not get a license to own or carry a gun.

--mass shooters will happily get a license to own and carry guns…and then they will go to a gun free zone and murder people with them.

--there is no reason to license normal gun owners, current law covers everything a license would do, without creating the felony trap.

This is how it works.

--I am a law abiding person with no criminal convictions…

I buy a gun and carry it. I commit no crime and I don't shoot anyone….my whole life.

No license was needed for me to do this.


--I am a law abiding person with no criminal convictions….

I buy a gun and carry it and then use it to commit a crime, rape, robbery or murder…I am arrested. I can no longer own a gun….ever.

No license was needed to do that now.

--------------------

I am a criminal……

I buy an illegal gun and carry it. I am stopped buy the police for some reason and am caught with the gun…I can then be arrested since I cannot own or carry a gun.

No licensing of normal gun owners was needed to do this.

I am a criminal…..

I buy an illegal gun and carry it. I use it to commit rape, robbery and murder…and get caught… I can already be sent to jail for having the gun…besides all the other crimes I committed with the gun.

No licensing of normal gun owners was needed to do this…we can already do it under current law.



The only reason to license normal gun owners…

1) revenue

2) to put them in a position where if they do not register their guns, we can turn them into a criminal and take their legally owned guns, since they will not use their guns to commit crimes.

And we can arrest them anyway if they do commit a crime even if they do not have a license.

 

[2aguy]

Yes.

National standards for...

1. individual licensing

2. item by item firearm registration

3. mandatory training on a firearm type-by-type basis

4. periodic mandatory re-licensing, re-certifications and training refreshers

5. sales, transfers, borrowing, loss, theft, gifts, disposal and any other kind of movement of a firearm between owners or users, and ammunition

6. limits on the number of firearms allowed in the possession of any individual (generous limits, to be sure, but, sane limits, so as to avoid hidden caches)

7. immediate suspension of the right to bear arms when indicted or convicted of criminal behavior; including surrender of all firearms, ammunition, etc., to a caretaker agency

8. crucifixion (metaphorical, at law) for violators

9. severe sanctions (financial, etc.) for states which do not enforce and adhere to the national standards

One cannot regulate a militia well, without having a good handle on its capabilities.

This can all be accomplished for the sole purpose of attaining a well-regulated militia, just like it says in the Constitution.

3. mandatory training on a firearm type-by-type basis

4. periodic mandatory re-licensing, re-certifications and training refreshers

Violation of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause.....each of these activities costs money......and just like a Poll Tax is unconstitutional since it is prohibitive to the practice of a right....each one of those is also prohibitive to the practice of a right.

 

[Kondor3]

Yes.

National standards for...

1. individual licensing

2. item by item firearm registration

3. mandatory training on a firearm type-by-type basis

4. periodic mandatory re-licensing, re-certifications and training refreshers

5. sales, transfers, borrowing, loss, theft, gifts, disposal and any other kind of movement of a firearm between owners or users, and ammunition

6. limits on the number of firearms allowed in the possession of any individual (generous limits, to be sure, but, sane limits, so as to avoid hidden caches)

7. immediate suspension of the right to bear arms when indicted or convicted of criminal behavior; including surrender of all firearms, ammunition, etc., to a caretaker agency

8. crucifixion (metaphorical, at law) for violators

9. severe sanctions (financial, etc.) for states which do not enforce and adhere to the national standards

One cannot regulate a militia well, without having a good handle on its capabilities.

This can all be accomplished for the sole purpose of attaining a well-regulated militia, just like it says in the Constitution.

Could you be the one?

Could you be the one anti gunner that actually explains how licensing gun owners does anything to stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns?

Could you show how exactly registering guns...already tried and failed in Canada....does anything to stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns/

And what is the purpose behind licensing gun owners and registering guns that is not already covered by existing laws and practices?

Could you take some time and try to explain this?

None of it does anything...

Other than to STANDARDIZE our provisioning of an Armed Citizenry so that every jurisdiction is identical to every other...

In such a manner that a lot of "leaks" are plugged...

In such a manner than guns are routinely removed from the possession of those convicted of a crime or diagnosed as mentally ill...

Given sufficient time...

Say two or three decades...

The supply of illicit guns will be a fraction of the size it is now...

And THEN we will begin to see the benefits of taking such an approach...

Does it do us one damned bit of good now?

No, or, at least, not much...

Is all this supposed and so-called 'benefit' a matter of speculation?

Yep.

However, something has to be done, and such an approach is most likely to yield good results, spanning a half-generation or so.

Future-think... not just living in-the-moment.

 

[Kondor3]

Yes.

National standards for...

1. individual licensing

2. item by item firearm registration

3. mandatory training on a firearm type-by-type basis

4. periodic mandatory re-licensing, re-certifications and training refreshers

5. sales, transfers, borrowing, loss, theft, gifts, disposal and any other kind of movement of a firearm between owners or users, and ammunition

6. limits on the number of firearms allowed in the possession of any individual (generous limits, to be sure, but, sane limits, so as to avoid hidden caches)

7. immediate suspension of the right to bear arms when indicted or convicted of criminal behavior; including surrender of all firearms, ammunition, etc., to a caretaker agency

8. crucifixion (metaphorical, at law) for violators

9. severe sanctions (financial, etc.) for states which do not enforce and adhere to the national standards

One cannot regulate a militia well, without having a good handle on its capabilities.

This can all be accomplished for the sole purpose of attaining a well-regulated militia, just like it says in the Constitution.

3. mandatory training on a firearm type-by-type basis

4. periodic mandatory re-licensing, re-certifications and training refreshers

Violation of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause.....each of these activities costs money......and just like a Poll Tax is unconstitutional since it is prohibitive to the practice of a right....each one of those is also prohibitive to the practice of a right.

Details... details... details... all of that shit can be smoothed-out and overcome in a half-dozen ways...

 

[2aguy]

Yes.

National standards for...

1. individual licensing

2. item by item firearm registration

3. mandatory training on a firearm type-by-type basis

4. periodic mandatory re-licensing, re-certifications and training refreshers

5. sales, transfers, borrowing, loss, theft, gifts, disposal and any other kind of movement of a firearm between owners or users, and ammunition

6. limits on the number of firearms allowed in the possession of any individual (generous limits, to be sure, but, sane limits, so as to avoid hidden caches)

7. immediate suspension of the right to bear arms when indicted or convicted of criminal behavior; including surrender of all firearms, ammunition, etc., to a caretaker agency

8. crucifixion (metaphorical, at law) for violators

9. severe sanctions (financial, etc.) for states which do not enforce and adhere to the national standards

One cannot regulate a militia well, without having a good handle on its capabilities.

This can all be accomplished for the sole purpose of attaining a well-regulated militia, just like it says in the Constitution.

Could you be the one?

Could you be the one anti gunner that actually explains how licensing gun owners does anything to stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns?

Could you show how exactly registering guns...already tried and failed in Canada....does anything to stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns/

And what is the purpose behind licensing gun owners and registering guns that is not already covered by existing laws and practices?

Could you take some time and try to explain this?

None of it does anything...

Other than to STANDARDIZE our provisioning of an Armed Citizenry so that every jurisdiction is identical to every other...

In such a manner that a lot of "leaks" are plugged...

In such a manner than guns are routinely removed from the possession of those convicted of a crime or diagnosed as mentally ill...

Given sufficient time...

Say two or three decades...

The supply of illicit guns will be a fraction of the size it is now...

And THEN we will begin to see the benefits of taking such an approach...

Does it do us one damned bit of good now?

No, or, at least, not much...

Is all this supposed and so-called 'benefit' a matter of speculation?

Yep.

However, something has to be done, and such an approach is most likely to yield good results, spanning a half-generation or so.

Future-think... not just living in-the-moment.

Yeah...you have nothing.......

 

[westwall]

Show me where it specifically states in the Constitution that are you guaranteed the right to own a car and I'll show you where it specifically states you are guaranteed the right to own a firearm.

a car is nothing but private property no different than a piece of land, a dwelling, or a refrigerator

None of the things you listed are guaranteed rights in the Constitution.

I've yet to see "the right to keep and bear land, vehicles, dwellings, or refrigerators shall not be infringed" in the Constitution.

You have no Constitutional right to land, a house, a vehicle or a refrigerator.

You do have a right to keep and bear arms in defense of yourself, your family and your country.

Why you choose to argue over this is beyond me and quite silly of you.

Whether a car is guaranteed in the Constitution cannot possibly be more irrelevant here. Actually if anything it makes my point stronger.

The point was, given the attempted Slippery Slope fallacy that "registration is the first step to confiscation", I pointed out that cars have been registered for over a century and yet, far from being "banned", there are about as many of them as there are of us, even after a century of population growth. Which puts the lie to that premise.

Citing the Constitution only turns the knife deeper in that fallacy, since there's nothing in the Constitution preventing the government from banning cars if it wanted to ---- and yet given over a hundred years of registration, the opposite has happened. So y'all are just affirming my point that it IS a fallacy.

We have recent and historical examples of registration directly leading to eventual confiscation…..recently Britain and Australia, New York and California……..and in the past Germany……which led to the confiscation of guns from political enemies and Jews and expedited the murder of 12 million people…

We are not making this up….registration has actually happened and has led to confiscation……….

"Examples" do not make a fallacy into "not a fallacy". Period.

Wrong. There is a 100% correlation of registration leading to confiscation. One hundred percent. That makes your claim specious at best and outright lying at worst.

 

[westwall]

Yes.

National standards for...

1. individual licensing

2. item by item firearm registration

3. mandatory training on a firearm type-by-type basis

4. periodic mandatory re-licensing, re-certifications and training refreshers

5. sales, transfers, borrowing, loss, theft, gifts, disposal and any other kind of movement of a firearm between owners or users, and ammunition

6. limits on the number of firearms allowed in the possession of any individual (generous limits, to be sure, but, sane limits, so as to avoid hidden caches)

7. immediate suspension of the right to bear arms when indicted or convicted of criminal behavior; including surrender of all firearms, ammunition, etc., to a caretaker agency

8. crucifixion (metaphorical, at law) for violators

9. severe sanctions (financial, etc.) for states which do not enforce and adhere to the national standards

One cannot regulate a militia well, without having a good handle on its capabilities.

This can all be accomplished for the sole purpose of attaining a well-regulated militia, just like it says in the Constitution.

3. mandatory training on a firearm type-by-type basis

4. periodic mandatory re-licensing, re-certifications and training refreshers

Violation of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause.....each of these activities costs money......and just like a Poll Tax is unconstitutional since it is prohibitive to the practice of a right....each one of those is also prohibitive to the practice of a right.

Details... details... details... all of that shit can be smoothed-out and overcome in a half-dozen ways...

Yep. the devil is in the details isn't it. The fact remains that gun laws benefit the wealthiest and enslave the poor and middle class. Why do you want the one percenters to have total and complete control over your life?

 

[the_human_being]

 

[Pogo]

a car is nothing but private property no different than a piece of land, a dwelling, or a refrigerator

None of the things you listed are guaranteed rights in the Constitution.

I've yet to see "the right to keep and bear land, vehicles, dwellings, or refrigerators shall not be infringed" in the Constitution.

You have no Constitutional right to land, a house, a vehicle or a refrigerator.

You do have a right to keep and bear arms in defense of yourself, your family and your country.

Why you choose to argue over this is beyond me and quite silly of you.

Whether a car is guaranteed in the Constitution cannot possibly be more irrelevant here. Actually if anything it makes my point stronger.

The point was, given the attempted Slippery Slope fallacy that "registration is the first step to confiscation", I pointed out that cars have been registered for over a century and yet, far from being "banned", there are about as many of them as there are of us, even after a century of population growth. Which puts the lie to that premise.

Citing the Constitution only turns the knife deeper in that fallacy, since there's nothing in the Constitution preventing the government from banning cars if it wanted to ---- and yet given over a hundred years of registration, the opposite has happened. So y'all are just affirming my point that it IS a fallacy.

We have recent and historical examples of registration directly leading to eventual confiscation…..recently Britain and Australia, New York and California……..and in the past Germany……which led to the confiscation of guns from political enemies and Jews and expedited the murder of 12 million people…

We are not making this up….registration has actually happened and has led to confiscation……….

"Examples" do not make a fallacy into "not a fallacy". Period.

Wrong. There is a 100% correlation of registration leading to confiscation. One hundred percent. That makes your claim specious at best and outright lying at worst.

Yuh huh.

So you don't register those cars you drive faster than the speed of light? It is the law, you know. Cars have been registered for over a hundred years.

I've had dozens of them over the years. They've never been confiscated.

 

[westwall]

None of the things you listed are guaranteed rights in the Constitution.

I've yet to see "the right to keep and bear land, vehicles, dwellings, or refrigerators shall not be infringed" in the Constitution.

You have no Constitutional right to land, a house, a vehicle or a refrigerator.

You do have a right to keep and bear arms in defense of yourself, your family and your country.

Why you choose to argue over this is beyond me and quite silly of you.

Whether a car is guaranteed in the Constitution cannot possibly be more irrelevant here. Actually if anything it makes my point stronger.

The point was, given the attempted Slippery Slope fallacy that "registration is the first step to confiscation", I pointed out that cars have been registered for over a century and yet, far from being "banned", there are about as many of them as there are of us, even after a century of population growth. Which puts the lie to that premise.

Citing the Constitution only turns the knife deeper in that fallacy, since there's nothing in the Constitution preventing the government from banning cars if it wanted to ---- and yet given over a hundred years of registration, the opposite has happened. So y'all are just affirming my point that it IS a fallacy.

We have recent and historical examples of registration directly leading to eventual confiscation…..recently Britain and Australia, New York and California……..and in the past Germany……which led to the confiscation of guns from political enemies and Jews and expedited the murder of 12 million people…

We are not making this up….registration has actually happened and has led to confiscation……….

"Examples" do not make a fallacy into "not a fallacy". Period.

Wrong. There is a 100% correlation of registration leading to confiscation. One hundred percent. That makes your claim specious at best and outright lying at worst.

Yuh huh.

So you don't register those cars you drive faster than the speed of light? It is the law, you know. Cars have been registered for over a hundred years.

I've had dozens of them over the years. They've never been confiscated.

Car ownership isn't a Right....doofus.

 

[Pogo]

Whether a car is guaranteed in the Constitution cannot possibly be more irrelevant here. Actually if anything it makes my point stronger.

The point was, given the attempted Slippery Slope fallacy that "registration is the first step to confiscation", I pointed out that cars have been registered for over a century and yet, far from being "banned", there are about as many of them as there are of us, even after a century of population growth. Which puts the lie to that premise.

Citing the Constitution only turns the knife deeper in that fallacy, since there's nothing in the Constitution preventing the government from banning cars if it wanted to ---- and yet given over a hundred years of registration, the opposite has happened. So y'all are just affirming my point that it IS a fallacy.

We have recent and historical examples of registration directly leading to eventual confiscation…..recently Britain and Australia, New York and California……..and in the past Germany……which led to the confiscation of guns from political enemies and Jews and expedited the murder of 12 million people…

We are not making this up….registration has actually happened and has led to confiscation……….

"Examples" do not make a fallacy into "not a fallacy". Period.

Wrong. There is a 100% correlation of registration leading to confiscation. One hundred percent. That makes your claim specious at best and outright lying at worst.

Yuh huh.

So you don't register those cars you drive faster than the speed of light? It is the law, you know. Cars have been registered for over a hundred years.

I've had dozens of them over the years. They've never been confiscated.

Car ownership isn't a Right....doofus.

What the hell doess that have to do with the point, Brainiac?

Read the thread much? Is 171 written in an invisible font?

 

[Yarddog]

This is the REAL ISSUE behind Obama's federal background check scheme. In order to screen out people on no-fly lists, etc. ALL gun purchasers will have to be reported to the FBI, who will have to maintain a list of such purchases.

Does anyone seriously believe that such a list could not be used for nefarious political purposes? Have you forgotten Clinton's accessing confidential FBI files of political opponents or Obama's manipulation of IRS nonprofit applications?

Since none of this would have prevented any of the recent mass killings, what other purpose is being served?

Its all about intentions. If the Feds intentions were honorable, I would gladly accept something like that, but I'm just not so sure. I don't know why it has to be a federal database anyway. Why couldn't it just be handled on State level with a federal mandate?

 

[rightwinger]

We already have a national registry of gun owners....it is called the National Rifle Association

All the government has to do is seize their membership records to find out where the gun owners are

 

[2aguy]

None of the things you listed are guaranteed rights in the Constitution.

I've yet to see "the right to keep and bear land, vehicles, dwellings, or refrigerators shall not be infringed" in the Constitution.

You have no Constitutional right to land, a house, a vehicle or a refrigerator.

You do have a right to keep and bear arms in defense of yourself, your family and your country.

Why you choose to argue over this is beyond me and quite silly of you.

Whether a car is guaranteed in the Constitution cannot possibly be more irrelevant here. Actually if anything it makes my point stronger.

The point was, given the attempted Slippery Slope fallacy that "registration is the first step to confiscation", I pointed out that cars have been registered for over a century and yet, far from being "banned", there are about as many of them as there are of us, even after a century of population growth. Which puts the lie to that premise.

Citing the Constitution only turns the knife deeper in that fallacy, since there's nothing in the Constitution preventing the government from banning cars if it wanted to ---- and yet given over a hundred years of registration, the opposite has happened. So y'all are just affirming my point that it IS a fallacy.

We have recent and historical examples of registration directly leading to eventual confiscation…..recently Britain and Australia, New York and California……..and in the past Germany……which led to the confiscation of guns from political enemies and Jews and expedited the murder of 12 million people…

We are not making this up….registration has actually happened and has led to confiscation……….

"Examples" do not make a fallacy into "not a fallacy". Period.

Wrong. There is a 100% correlation of registration leading to confiscation. One hundred percent. That makes your claim specious at best and outright lying at worst.

Yuh huh.

So you don't register those cars you drive faster than the speed of light? It is the law, you know. Cars have been registered for over a hundred years.

I've had dozens of them over the years. They've never been confiscated.

The people who want to get rid of cars are in the same party that hates guns…….but they hate guns more than cars right now.

 

[westwall]

We already have a national registry of gun owners....it is called the National Rifle Association

All the government has to do is seize their membership records to find out where the gun owners are

How totalitarian of you. Why do you progressives love to crap on the Constitution so much? Why do you hate individual rights and individual freedoms?

 

[westwall]

We have recent and historical examples of registration directly leading to eventual confiscation…..recently Britain and Australia, New York and California……..and in the past Germany……which led to the confiscation of guns from political enemies and Jews and expedited the murder of 12 million people…

We are not making this up….registration has actually happened and has led to confiscation……….

"Examples" do not make a fallacy into "not a fallacy". Period.

Wrong. There is a 100% correlation of registration leading to confiscation. One hundred percent. That makes your claim specious at best and outright lying at worst.

Yuh huh.

So you don't register those cars you drive faster than the speed of light? It is the law, you know. Cars have been registered for over a hundred years.

I've had dozens of them over the years. They've never been confiscated.

Car ownership isn't a Right....doofus.

What the hell doess that have to do with the point, Brainiac?

Read the thread much? Is 171 written in an invisible font?

Ummmm....everything? But that would be logical. You abandoned logic a long time ago in this debate.

 

[320 Years of History]

"Examples" do not make a fallacy into "not a fallacy". Period.

Wrong. There is a 100% correlation of registration leading to confiscation. One hundred percent. That makes your claim specious at best and outright lying at worst.

Yuh huh.

So you don't register those cars you drive faster than the speed of light? It is the law, you know. Cars have been registered for over a hundred years.

I've had dozens of them over the years. They've never been confiscated.

Car ownership isn't a Right....doofus.

What the hell doess that have to do with the point, Brainiac?

Read the thread much? Is 171 written in an invisible font?

Ummmm....everything? But that would be logical. You abandoned logic a long time ago in this debate.

Just how many remarks/posts on this site begin with any rigorous logic? One must have begun with something logically valid to later abandon logic. LOL

I don't know exactly what Pogo wrote that you are referring to, or what his history of posts in this thread is, so the remarks above are not aspersions directed at him/her or anyone else (or their posts) in particular.