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

christiefan915 said:
Why is it a false equivalency? Pretend I'm stupid and spell it out in detail.
Click to expand...
the vehicle registration is a tax. nothing more, nothing less. it's not some sort of insurance for the public to say this person is 'safe' to drive. that's what you people call a license for. my personal opinion is that a vehicle registration should only be used to determine current ownership and if the ownership of guns wasn't so hated by the vocal minority and statists, I probably wouldn't object to it much because if my guns are ever stolen, I damn sure would want them back. The issue comes down to being able to trust the government NOT to use them for confiscation and for the anti gunners to use ownership lists to attack gun owners, neither or which I will ever trust them not to do. So, until I can be assured of no entity at all ever being able to abuse a gun registration database for nefarious purposes, it's a moot issue.
 
Kel-Tec Sub 2000 said:
Well, then the threat of use would have to apply. But since the use would ultimately negate the effect and purpose of having them.

But this is all pretty pointless. Even if they were legal to own, you'd have to find someone who wanted to sell you one and since they aren't being produced anymore, that'd be mighty difficult. And if someone happens to know already, and has the money, then there isn't too much to stop them at current anyways. So in every way, shape, and form, it's a non-issue and distracts from ACTUAL concerns.
Click to expand...


In the context of whether there are limitations to 2nd Amendment rights, I think it's useful to explore the idea. If we agree that there are some types of arms that the people do not have ht right to own, then it becomes a question of where the line may be drawn as opposed to whether the line may be drawn at all.

The Supreme Court in Heller has already said that the right to bear arms is subject to regulation, so I agree that it's a relatively moot point.
 
Dungheap said:
In the context of whether there are limitations to 2nd Amendment rights, I think it's useful to explore the idea. If we agree that there are some types of arms that the people do not have ht right to own, then it becomes a question of where the line may be drawn as opposed to whether the line may be drawn at all.

The Supreme Court in Heller has already said that the right to bear arms is subject to regulation, so I agree that it's a relatively moot point.
Click to expand...

Fine, then like I said, the line is military utility as illustrated by U.S. v.Miller 1937.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
don't be that ignorant, please. especially when you and I agreed so closely on the rape issue.
Click to expand...

This is so funny, I am sitting in a Starbucks right now and came here to read this while waiting for someone. All I saw was the "close rape issue" and I totally thought, it was SF beggine me to remember how close we got on the rape thread and signed in hurridedly to tell him "in your dreams!" but then saw the whole post. haha
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... so are you going to try Lorax's silly little 'you are moving the goal posts' line of crap?

I am not moving the goal posts. You are trying to twist this to pretend we are saying 'any registration of anything will lead to confiscation'. No one has stated any such thing. Many things are registered that no one has any interest in banning. Guns are not in that category. I am sorry if you, Jarod and Lorax are too ignorant to comprehend that.
Click to expand...


Oh yes, you DID move the goalposts.

You and the other Trinity suckers and apologists for Grind and his deliberately obtuse thread title are now desperately backpedaling because you claimed it was 100% accurate, but now that people are bringing forth examples to show how completely inaccurate his title is, now it's "we aren't saying any registration of anything..."

That my friend is the very definition of backpedaling...of goalpost moving.

So now you admit that "many things are registered that no one has any interest in banning..."

A pity you couldn't point out that particular flaw when he posted the OP with it's totally false titular claim

No "category" was established in the thread title...Grind made a mistake with his ridiculously open ended comment that could be applied to almost anything and now it's come back to bite him and you on the ass.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Oh yes, you DID move the goalposts.

You and the other Trinity suckers and apologists for Grind and his deliberately obtuse thread title are now desperately backpedaling because you claimed it was 100% accurate, but now that people are bringing forth examples to show how completely inaccurate his title is, now it's "we aren't saying any registration of anything..."

That my friend is the very definition of backpedaling...of goalpost moving.

So now you admit that "many things are registered that no one has any interest in banning..."

A pity you couldn't point out that particular flaw when he posted the OP with it's totally false titular claim

No "category" was established in the thread title...Grind made a mistake with his ridiculously open ended comment that could be applied to almost anything and now it's come back to bite him and you on the ass.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that you are fucking retarded?

The OP was talking about GUN REGISTRATION and the effects of GUN REGISITRATION. The OP was NOT talking about registration of anything and everything.
 
Dr. Krieger said:
Really nice video of a canadian anchor warning us americans what's coming down the bend, this is exactly how they did it in canada. Call for a national registry, said everyone was a conspiratard for thinking the government would eventually seize guns, and then 20 years later, that's what they did.


Click to expand...

ZappasGuitar said:
Oh yes, you DID move the goalposts.

You and the other Trinity suckers and apologists for Grind and his deliberately obtuse thread title are now desperately backpedaling because you claimed it was 100% accurate, but now that people are bringing forth examples to show how completely inaccurate his title is, now it's "we aren't saying any registration of anything..."

That my friend is the very definition of backpedaling...of goalpost moving.

So now you admit that "many things are registered that no one has any interest in banning..."

A pity you couldn't point out that particular flaw when he posted the OP with it's totally false titular claim

No "category" was established in the thread title...Grind made a mistake with his ridiculously open ended comment that could be applied to almost anything and now it's come back to bite him and you on the ass.
Click to expand...


Listen to the video in the OP Zappa... what is he discussing?
 
christiefan915 said:
The OP is about Canada and Grind's trying to say what happened in Canada WILL happen in the US. But there is no legal right to gun ownership in Canada. There's nothing in their Constitution about the right to bear arms. My point is that you have to compare apples to apples. Find another country with the right to bear arms, learn if the people have to register guns, and then see if it led to confiscation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
Click to expand...

i can give you one clear example in our own country, california. research what happened there after the passage of the roberti-roos act.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the 'will of the people' still isn't enough authority to deny basic and fundamental rights.
Click to expand...

There is broad disagreement on what constitutes "arms" as referenced in the 2nd amendment. Clearly, the founders did not mean any weapon that humans could create up to this point, or indefinitely into the future. People often use the hyperbole of nukes, but it is an extreme that I think most agree the founders didn't have in mind. And it goes down from there.

Absent clear defining criteria. the will of the people and their influence definitely has weight. Your view of fundamental rights as they relate to the 2nd is definitely different from that of many in this country. So, whose view should prevail? You'll apply certainty to the founders language where none exists, but the fact remains, there are no real clear definitions in the 2nd.
 
Thing1 said:
There is broad disagreement on what constitutes "arms" as referenced in the 2nd amendment. Clearly, the founders did not mean any weapon that humans could create up to this point, or indefinitely into the future.
Click to expand...
the founders were well aware of advancing technology as they were already able to use repeating rifles. If you have any evidence to the contrary about what they meant, please produce it.

Thing1 said:
People often use the hyperbole of nukes, but it is an extreme that I think most agree the founders didn't have in mind. And it goes down from there.
Click to expand...
i'm also not a fan of the nuke argument. my opinion is that 'we the people' are entitled by right to have access to and own any weapon that could be used by the government against us. I hardly think the US government would drop a nuke on it's own citizens, whether 'rebelling' or not. however, if someone has to stick with that argument no matter what, then hell yes we should have the right to own nukes as well.

Thing1 said:
Absent clear defining criteria. the will of the people and their influence definitely has weight. Your view of fundamental rights as they relate to the 2nd is definitely different from that of many in this country. So, whose view should prevail? You'll apply certainty to the founders language where none exists, but the fact remains, there are no real clear definitions in the 2nd.
Click to expand...
arms are arms. if 'shall not be infringed' get's redefined as 'reasonable limits', then it's entirely possible that 'arms' could be reduced to pen knives and some people would be satisfied with that. clearly something that is not the intent of the founders. the right must not be infringed in any way, shape, or form or the right has little to no meaning.
 
Once you acknowledge that Arms of the extreme kind can be limited, the rest is simply a debate about where to draw the line.
 
Well, registration will never lead to confiscation in this country. It's just fear-mongering nonsense, with Grind being the chief cheerleader. Even I don't support an actual ban on all guns. No one does. I mean you could probably find someone who does, but they would be like STY who finds the NRA too eager to give up their guns.
 
Jarod said:
Cars and car manufacturing are strictly regulated because of how dangerous they can be.
Click to expand...

I see you've decided to change your original stance that they are registered, because they are "dangerous".
I guess you finally saw how retarded your comment was/is.
 
Last edited:
Darla said:
Banning assault weapons, is not "banning guns" though. Some cars have been banned too. Ever heard of the Pinto?

People on this board can't "threaten" to ban anything. They can only voice their own ideas.
Click to expand...


Now now now...no fair calling him on his hyperbole!

How's he going to put forth any semblance of an argument if he can't post his ridiculous, overblown exaggerations?
 
christiefan915 said:
<sigh> Grind is comparing Canada to America and we already went over the differences between their Constitution and ours. Key word: Constitution. Which other countries with a Constitutional right to bear arms are confiscating guns?
Click to expand...

So your defense is that since other countries don't allow certain rights, we shouldn't either.
Why don't you list the contries that allow their population, the same rights that our Constitution does first?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top