Registration WILL lead to CONFISCATION. Don't trust the takers.

Actually, I don't think SF has ever called my an idiot or a moron. He has always been cordial and respectful in all of our interactions. For true.
 
My Testimony: He has called me both. Also a maniac, a lunatic, bats, and some other stuff that I can't recall because I am so traumatized by the whole thing. All true.
 
Damocles said:
No, you misspelled it. Since you looked up the wrong one I'll "read" it to you. US v Haynes (note the 'n'... you looked up US v Hayes, different ruling.)

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

The court ruled: We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851.

Please note the link to registration and the 5th Amendment included in that ruling.


Not really, he doesn't call every liberal an idiot. He does call you one, but not every liberal.
Click to expand...

I read your case.... It does not prohibit registration, it simply prohibits the Government from using such information against you in a criminal trial. The government can still require registrations. The 5th Amendment prohibits against requireing someone to incriminate themselves in a criminal matter.

Also see United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).

The link you provided gives a very skewed view of the case. I am still looking for a linkable text of the actual case.
 
Jarod said:
I read your case.... It does not prohibit registration, it simply prohibits the Government from using such information against you in a criminal trial. The government can still require registrations. The 5th Amendment prohibits against requireing someone to incriminate themselves in a criminal matter.
Click to expand...

Actually, it makes it so that a registration cannot be forced on somebody who actually was the reason that registration was created. It takes the meat from registration, as those you want to be kept from keeping the arms cannot be prosecuted for not registering their arms.

It is basically reductio ad absurdam... made into law.

At least this time you probably read the wiki page I linked to.
 
Damocles said:
Actually, it makes it so that a registration cannot be forced on somebody who actually was the reason that registration was created. It takes the meat from registration, as those you want to be kept from keeping the arms cannot be prosecuted for not registering their arms.

It is basically reductio ad absurdam... made into law.

At least this time you probably read the wiki page I linked to.
Click to expand...

The page you linked to was not wiki, it was firearmsandliberty.com. I did not read Wiki, I read a Cornel review of the case, then later the actual case. It does NOT prohibit government requirement that one register firearms.
 
Superfreak said:
Why go through this again with you? You are a fear monger and you will proclaim the innocence of the gun grabbers with your last breath. You live in a fantasy world where these events haven't happened elsewhere as well. How many examples need be listed before you grasp the concept that your knee jerk fear mongering over 'assault rifles/mag capacity' is not going to do anything to help solve the problem you are trying to solve. Nothing.

There is no valid reason for registration. None. The only thing it can accomplish is letting the government know who has them and how many. But you don't care about that. You just want to ban them to make yourself feel better/safer... which is pure nonsense.
Click to expand...

Since liberals are calling for gun registration, because of what they fear MAY occur; I wonder if this means they're also for every car being equiped with a breath analyzer, to stop ANYONE from driving while drunk, and also the a requirement that everyone submit their fingerprints and DNA, so that there's a data base to solve crimes that MIGHT be committed.

OH; but they are against madantory drug testing for those receiving Government assistance, because that's just WRONG.
 
Jarod said:
The page you linked to was not wiki, it was firearmsandliberty.com. I did not read Wiki, I read a Cornel review of the case, then later the actual case. It does NOT prohibit government requirement that one register firearms.
Click to expand...

I never made that claim. You've assumed something not stated and made an ass of yourself.

I claimed that registration was linked to the 5th Amendment, and proved it, cited the case in the SCOTUS. You then looked up the wrong case (took me a bit to find what you were talking about), so I looked it up for you, even quoted the portion of the SCOTUS ruling that specifically mentioned the 5th.

I'll also point out that often registration is linked to the 4th as well. See the law they tried to pass in Washington State where you had to allow the cops into your house for "inspection" of your weapons storage after registration.
 
Thing1 said:
That's pretty obtuse, on a variety of levels. First, there is evidence that areas with greater gun control have less violence. Beyond that, law enforcement everywhere favors things like a ban on assault weapons. Why is that? Because it's effective in reducing violence & crime. It's not FEAR.
Click to expand...

What evidence of areas of greater gun control having less violence is there? Chicago? DC?

Where is your evidence that shows banning assault weapons is effective in reducing crime and violence.

Link us up.

Now, if you want to keep screaming "they's comin' to take your guns!", and then try to claim you're not fearmongering in the same sentence, have at it.
Click to expand...

Again, as posted in the numerous examples Billy provided, that is what has happened time and again when registration occurs. You want to ignore it because it doesn't fit into your fantasy world.

Last, repeating the above fallacy many times will not make it true. When something happens in another country, it is not a FACT that it will happen hear. I can give you about a million examples on that one if you'd like. Nothing supports the argument behind "will." Nothing.
Click to expand...

The only fallacy is the one you keep tossing out there. Care to show us your data on the reduction in crime a ban on assault weapons has? Care to show us where areas with stronger gun laws has worked? Care to show us where registration is going to stop/reduce crime with guns? There is nothing to support any of your fear based nonsense. Nothing.
 
Damocles said:
I never made that claim. You've assumed something not stated and made an ass of yourself.

I claimed that registration was linked to the 5th Amendment, and proved it, cited the case in the SCOTUS. You then looked up the wrong case (took me a bit to find what you were talking about), so I looked it up for you, even quoted the portion of the SCOTUS ruling that specifically mentioned the 5th.

I'll also point out that often registration is linked to the 4th as well. See the law they tried to pass in Washington State where you had to allow the cops into your house for "inspection" of your weapons storage.
Click to expand...

I thought you said tha registration violated the 5th, but I could be mistaken. Ill look later. Ive got a 4 pm meeting.
 
Are you acknoledging that the the U.S.'s attempt at simple registration, not relating to criminal violations, was never ruled unconstitiutional by the Court?
 
Thing1 said:
That's pretty obtuse, on a variety of levels. First, there is evidence that areas with greater gun control have less violence. Beyond that, law enforcement everywhere favors things like a ban on assault weapons. Why is that? Because it's effective in reducing violence & crime. It's not FEAR.

Now, if you want to keep screaming "they's comin' to take your guns!", and then try to claim you're not fearmongering in the same sentence, have at it.

Last, repeating the above fallacy many times will not make it true. When something happens in another country, it is not a FACT that it will happen hear. I can give you about a million examples on that one if you'd like. Nothing supports the argument behind "will." Nothing.

You are just lying, or stupid. Or both.
Click to expand...

"...First, there is evidence that areas with greater gun control have less violence..."

Are you referring to Chicago?
 
I understood Damo to be saying that registation violates the 5th Amendment:

Damocles said:
What has that to do with registration (5th Amendment violation) and in extension home invasion? The constitution may not be, but inanity is a "suicide pact"...

Either you cannot follow the discussion and jumped in here with something that has nothing to do with the topic, or you believe that we can just take away "some" of the rights to make you feel better? The 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment have nothing to do with nuclear arms.
Click to expand...
 
Jarod said:
So you see, not only Roe v. Wade, but an entire line of cases indicate that where a "fundamental right" comes up against a "Compelling State Interest" the Court may limit those rights.
Click to expand...

And such limitations may ONLY be narrowly tailored to limit the right as little as possible.
 
Superfreak said:
What evidence of areas of greater gun control having less violence is there? Chicago? DC?
Click to expand...

Where is your evidence that shows banning assault weapons is effective in reducing crime and violence.

Link us up.



Again, as posted in the numerous examples Billy provided, that is what has happened time and again when registration occurs. You want to ignore it because it doesn't fit into your fantasy world.



The only fallacy is the one you keep tossing out there. Care to show us your data on the reduction in crime a ban on assault weapons has? Care to show us where areas with stronger gun laws has worked? Care to show us where registration is going to stop/reduce crime with guns?
There is nothing to support any of your fear based nonsense. Nothing.
Click to expand...


When was the last time you made such a definitive statement like the bolded? Oh, yeah - just a few posts ago, when you made the wild claim that there was no benefit from registration - none, and I pointed out that mentally ill people HAD been identified by such registration, and then you subsequently ignored that.

Bloomberg - a Republican, btw - has cited increased gun control for NYC's incredible reduction in violent crime over the years, for starters. And as I stated (and you ignored again), law enforcement everywhere supports bans on assault rifles. I think they know more about the actual threat than a proven liar like yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dungheap said:
I understood Damo to be saying that registation violates the 5th Amendment:
Click to expand...

I can see how my imprecise language could make people think that if that statement were taken out of context of the conversation, however context in the actual thread would, in reality bring a deeper understanding of what I was saying. Pretending that you didn't participate or change your 'understanding" of what I was saying as the conversation progressed is simply, IMO, pretense. I don't believe that you are stupid, or incapable of following a conversation, nor do I believe that of Jarod.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top