I am comfortable about government knowledge of my car because I use it on the public roads. I am willing to trade that bit of privacy for use of my vehicle on the public roads. As such I will trade that small piece of privacy in registering my self-defense handgun that I carry in public and a hunting weapon if I hunt on lands that requires a license.
Or maybe you don't want to accept the fact that those "Only to be used on private property" firearms can be trivially concealed and used wherever someone likes, thus invalidating any reason to register your firearms in the first place unless you really, really want to be a known ccw holder, and you see it as a tidy loophole to get around the idea of registration that appears to scare you so much?
As can be done with any unregistered vehicle. All you need to do is get a license plate and unless you do something to attract the police noone will know.
So... Any gun that is purchased primarily as a self defense weapon to be carried in public should be registered but sport and weapons that will never leave the home need not be registered? I am cool with that.
No. You are taking two approaches to reducing gun deaths and picking the parts you like most from both of them.
Rym's suggestion: All guns registered, all sales registered, etc. No other restrictions.
My suggestion: No guns registered, or whatever. No gun ever to be used against a human being, ever.
The point being if that the only guns anyone will want to use legally (IE not shooting at people) are for sports shooting, everyone will be free to buy shot guns and rifles and machine guns or whatever. They'll be able to buy hand guns too, if they want to do quick draw shooting. Or if they want to shoot hand guns for fun or sport.
But shooting guns designed for "stopping power" just isn't that fun. If the only reason for owning these "stopping power" handguns is now illegal, I'm sure many people would not bother owning them, or not buy them in the first place. What's the fun in having something that is designed for something now illegal? Why not buy a fun gun you can go shoot up targets and paper outlines with? Or shotguns for clay pigeons? Or any other sport?
My point isn't that I want handguns registered, it's that I never want handguns used against humans, ever.
Gun registration is a completely different point. Gun ownership is a completely different point. My proposed solution to gun deaths is purely about gun use, particularly guns aimed at fired at humans.
A hunting rifle is primarily meant to kill game, not people, even though nothing keeps it from being used to kill people as well, obviously. Presumably, if someone carried a hunting rifle for self defense, hypothetically speaking, you'd want it regulated the same way as a handgun, correct?
Not correct. If someone is carrying a hunting gun for self defense, and uses it for self defense, they should be punished to the exact same extent of the law as anyone carrying or using a handgun for self defense. As in, if they are carrying it loaded and/or unsecured in a case. Or if they point it at anyone with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or fire.
The "gun regulation" part is simply this: don't kill anyone with a gun. Ever. The next step is "don't let anyone think (especially the police) that you are planning to or are capable of killing anyone with a gun, ever." This means no carrying loaded or unsecured weapons, having loaded weapons outside of a safe at home for self defense, or using guns in an inappropriate place or in public.
But you're close. Unlike many gun control people, I'm actually 99% happy with machine guns and "assault rifles" and the like. Want to take one out to the range and blast away at an old car? Knock yourself out! Registering that kind of weapon would be handy, just in case they are stolen or go missing, but that's not a sticking point for me.
I am taking the portions that have the smallest impact on my right to privacy.
My goal is not to minimize loss of life through misuse of guns, it is to find a solution with the smallest impact on personal privacy. Why? Because criminals will still be criminals.
I do not buy into the offer of giving up my privacy based on a promise of security. Even less so given the way the US government has been revealed to operate post 9/11. They are cool when the light is shining on their actions but all the shit they pull in the shadows? Sorry, no trust.
As can be done with any unregistered vehicle. All you need to do is get a license plate and unless you do something to attract the police noone will know.
Or, y'know, you just pass by a police car or van. Because it's not like a huge number of police agencies have Automatic number plate recognition units or anything. Which are used for things like, oh, picking up cars with expired rego, picking up people driving around in unregistered cars with wrong, stolen or out of date plates. So, really, just performing the act itself stands a pretty good chance of attracting police attention, considering.
Oh, and I see you're still in a habit that I remember back from when Hungry Joe was around a lot more - You've completely failed to answer the questions presented, and shifted goalposts.
The questions laid out in the same post you quoted.
Outside of the hyperbole what was the question? A question of transport? Use a lockbox and a triggerlock. The gun is for competition so you bring it unloaded and buy your ammo at the range.
I still don't see what I missed... Maybe I should reload the page?
Edit: not answering a question is not the same as moving the goalposts. This discussion has been quite fluid and moved around a lot, does that mean everyone is moving the goalposts? Did I move them by agreeing to some form of gun registration?
If you are against gun registration and regulation, how can you not also be against all forms of registration and regulation in any other parts of life?
Is there ANY legitimate reason not to have a national gun ownership and transfer registry, and require its use for all firearms transactions of any kind? …...... The vast majority of the guns used in crime in New York City (which has strict gun laws per popular demand) come from straw sales of legally purchased guns upstate and out-of-state.
A registry allows anyone who cares about guns to have them, but allows the trivial arrest of the people who buy and then resell guns for these purposes.
How are guns any different than cars in this regard?
A registry protects gun owners. It makes guns easily traced when they are used in crimes.
An argument I hear a lot is that gun registration always leads to confiscation. The reasoning is, if there is a list of what you have then it is easier to make laws regulating one aspect of a gun. Then to force everyone to turn in guns that fit that profile. There is actually a recent example of this. In NY there is a requirement to register your firearms. Recently there was a decision to have a magazine capacity restriction. Some guns (like lever action rifles and shotguns) have the magazine built in. Now some residents are getting letters they need to immediately get their guns out of the city. You can imagine if you live in NY city and legally own a lever action rifle for sport shooting, the city telling you to sell it or turn it in would ruffle your feathers a bit. This has a copy of the letter
The other argument is that the 2nd Amendment is a right, not a privilege, and we do not need to register our rights. I cannot think of another right that we need to register to use. Some argue that guns are different because they kill people, and free speech does not. But I can see the point that it does not matter if guns are used to kill people, our founders considered them a right and the Supreme Court (specifically in Heller) affirmed that guns are an individual right. And maybe some people have a point that we should not have to register our rights.
This is exactly how I feel in debates about gun control. As soon as someone brings up the Second Amendment, all serious conversation stops. I know that NOTHING will get through the dogma, and there's no point in continuing the conversation until we go back to basics and explain things from the ground up.
Well, I don't agree that a fundamental precept of law and society written into one of the founding documents of our nation isn't relevant to a discussion that encompasses civil rights, but I do agree that simply screaming "SECOND AMENDMENT!!!" isn't an argument.
The thing is, the Second Amendment is the law of the land. As long as it's the law of the land, everything done with regards to gun control has to be done within interpretations of what it permits. The only way to prevent that from happening is to repeal the Second Amendment via a new amendment to the Constitution, but there is zero chance of that happening any time soon, if ever. Heck, after 200+ years, we only have 27 amendments total to the Constitution, and the last one was 30 years ago. It's not something that gets done often or gets taken lightly.
Whatever solutions I've proposed works within the framework of what the current law of the land allows. If you want to repeal the Second Amendment, by all means, go ahead and state that and your case for it. However, I'm trying to be pragmatic here and find a middle ground that accomplishes most of what gun control advocates want while still allowing law abiding citizens to own guns within reason.
I hear some people saying that there needs to be a training requirement, or a safety class requirement, or some other sort of prerequisite to own a firearm. I would like to point out that if there is a prerequisite like a class or a test then is no longer a right, but a privilege. There is no right to drive a car, so you need to take a test to show the state that you can handle it. The state then grants you permission to drive. The Heller decision by the US Supreme Court affirmed each person has a right to bear arms. And requiring anything before hand means you are asking permission “look, I passed the test, can I have my firearm now?”. Lou is right that if you want to have a test to own a gun, you need to wait for a new Supreme Court and then challenge Heller, or change the constitution to remove the Second Amendment.
It would help this thread a lot if every time when someones suggestion would require changes in the second amendment, it automatically includes the suggestion for such change.
Just constantly saying that this or that won't work because of second amendment, is useless and worthless. Obviously if it needs to be changed it should be changed.
If I had even the slightest confidence you'd answer them, I might bother. They're already quite clearly shown, you'll find them quite easily distinguished from regular sentences by the question marks after each one. I'm sure you can recognize the two you've answered so far on your own.
You do know that there are other people in this thread aside from you and I, yes? You do know that not every question gets answered in every post?
Yes, but I didn't ask them a question. I asked you. And they're not the ones I'm seeing squirming, desperately trying to avoid answering those questions.
I cannot think of another right that we need to register to use.
There are arms aside from guns. You wouldn't need to register to use all of them. Just guns.
Likewise, while you have the right to assemble, you can't just have any assembly anywhere. Significant gatherings require registration.
Petition the government for redress of grievances? Well, you can email someone, sure. But you can't just go into the Capitol Building or the White House. Want access to congresspeople? Register as a lobbyist.
Protests? Depending on the scale, they need to be registered.
You have to register to vote.
I could continue, but it's pointless. We have countless time, place, and manner restrictions on your rights. Exercising your rights in certain ways requires registration. Why? Because reality exists, and you have to consider the practicality of certain things.
I hear some people saying that there needs to be a training requirement, or a safety class requirement, or some other sort of prerequisite to own a firearm. I would like to point out that if there is a prerequisite like a class or a test then is no longer a right, but a privilege.
So voting isn't a right. (Felons are not allowed to vote, and anyone has to register or they won't let you do it).
I guess assembly isn't a right. (You have to register for a permit to hold a large assembly in most places).
The right to bear arms isn't a right either. (You need a tax stamp for some weapons, and other weapons require professional military qualifications to own, handle or use).
Rights that are personal and do not impact others do not require any form of permission but when a right requires some sort of public accommodation (protest on the town park) then it is that accommodation that requires permission. Is that where you were going?
Well I think I see where this is going. In your home you don't need permission to keep a firearm because it is your property (or the property of a family member) and either you give yourself permission because you bought the damn thing (barring multiple personalities or someone just being goddamn weird) or you have unspoken permission from the homeowner. With public accommodations such as parks or roads or sidewalks you need permission to carry as the municipality would like to assign, thus the permit.
Rights that are personal and do not impact others do not require any form of permission but when a right requires some sort of public accommodation (protest on the town park) then it is that accommodation that requires permission. Is that where you were going?
No, but I see the merit in what you're saying. I was asking you questions about the process leading to your conclusion, and your thoughts. Kind of still am, really. Also about cars flying off flatbeds, but I was being more than a bit facetious on that one so fair enough I guess.
Well I think I see where this is going. In your home you don't need permission to keep a firearm because it is your property (or the property of a family member) ...
Try again.
You need a permit to possess many toxic chemicals even on private property. You need a permit to own certain kinds of guns on private property just the same.
Are any of these "permit to possess" items related to personal rights? Is the permit required for possession (you can make it without purchasing it in its final form), purchase or both?
I do see where you are going by referring to toxic and/or controlled substances but I am unaware of any nexus between a right to posses and a harmful item other than guns.
Comments
Rym's suggestion: All guns registered, all sales registered, etc. No other restrictions.
My suggestion: No guns registered, or whatever. No gun ever to be used against a human being, ever.
The point being if that the only guns anyone will want to use legally (IE not shooting at people) are for sports shooting, everyone will be free to buy shot guns and rifles and machine guns or whatever. They'll be able to buy hand guns too, if they want to do quick draw shooting. Or if they want to shoot hand guns for fun or sport.
But shooting guns designed for "stopping power" just isn't that fun. If the only reason for owning these "stopping power" handguns is now illegal, I'm sure many people would not bother owning them, or not buy them in the first place. What's the fun in having something that is designed for something now illegal? Why not buy a fun gun you can go shoot up targets and paper outlines with? Or shotguns for clay pigeons? Or any other sport?
My point isn't that I want handguns registered, it's that I never want handguns used against humans, ever.
Gun registration is a completely different point. Gun ownership is a completely different point. My proposed solution to gun deaths is purely about gun use, particularly guns aimed at fired at humans.
The "gun regulation" part is simply this: don't kill anyone with a gun. Ever. The next step is "don't let anyone think (especially the police) that you are planning to or are capable of killing anyone with a gun, ever." This means no carrying loaded or unsecured weapons, having loaded weapons outside of a safe at home for self defense, or using guns in an inappropriate place or in public.
But you're close. Unlike many gun control people, I'm actually 99% happy with machine guns and "assault rifles" and the like. Want to take one out to the range and blast away at an old car? Knock yourself out! Registering that kind of weapon would be handy, just in case they are stolen or go missing, but that's not a sticking point for me.
My goal is not to minimize loss of life through misuse of guns, it is to find a solution with the smallest impact on personal privacy. Why? Because criminals will still be criminals.
I do not buy into the offer of giving up my privacy based on a promise of security. Even less so given the way the US government has been revealed to operate post 9/11. They are cool when the light is shining on their actions but all the shit they pull in the shadows? Sorry, no trust.
Oh, and I see you're still in a habit that I remember back from when Hungry Joe was around a lot more - You've completely failed to answer the questions presented, and shifted goalposts.
You do know that there are other people in this thread aside from you and I, yes? You do know that not every question gets answered in every post?
Edit: not answering a question is not the same as moving the goalposts. This discussion has been quite fluid and moved around a lot, does that mean everyone is moving the goalposts? Did I move them by agreeing to some form of gun registration?
If you are against gun registration and regulation, how can you not also be against all forms of registration and regulation in any other parts of life?
I think Whaleshark asked that question.
This has a copy of the letter
The other argument is that the 2nd Amendment is a right, not a privilege, and we do not need to register our rights. I cannot think of another right that we need to register to use. Some argue that guns are different because they kill people, and free speech does not. But I can see the point that it does not matter if guns are used to kill people, our founders considered them a right and the Supreme Court (specifically in Heller) affirmed that guns are an individual right. And maybe some people have a point that we should not have to register our rights.
Just constantly saying that this or that won't work because of second amendment, is useless and worthless. Obviously if it needs to be changed it should be changed.
Likewise, while you have the right to assemble, you can't just have any assembly anywhere. Significant gatherings require registration.
Petition the government for redress of grievances? Well, you can email someone, sure. But you can't just go into the Capitol Building or the White House. Want access to congresspeople? Register as a lobbyist.
Protests? Depending on the scale, they need to be registered.
You have to register to vote.
I could continue, but it's pointless. We have countless time, place, and manner restrictions on your rights. Exercising your rights in certain ways requires registration. Why? Because reality exists, and you have to consider the practicality of certain things.
I guess assembly isn't a right. (You have to register for a permit to hold a large assembly in most places).
The right to bear arms isn't a right either. (You need a tax stamp for some weapons, and other weapons require professional military qualifications to own, handle or use).
You see where I'm going with this?
Rights that are personal and do not impact others do not require any form of permission but when a right requires some sort of public accommodation (protest on the town park) then it is that accommodation that requires permission. Is that where you were going?
You need a permit to possess many toxic chemicals even on private property. You need a permit to own certain kinds of guns on private property just the same.
I do see where you are going by referring to toxic and/or controlled substances but I am unaware of any nexus between a right to posses and a harmful item other than guns.