Pelosi Calls For Gun Registration

[Peejay]

We don't have inspections in SC. They tried it once. The arguments to do away with it mirror gun arguments.

 

[Amanda]

We don't have inspections in SC. They tried it once. The arguments to do away with it mirror gun arguments.

So.... that's your answer?

 

[Peejay]

We don't have inspections in SC. They tried it once. The arguments to do away with it mirror gun arguments.

So.... that's your answer?

I'm not sure if we are following each other.

The reasons for auto inspections started out on the same issues as gun control: safety. Automoblies were thought of as dangerous things and their owners were believed to be not intelligent enough to know when a vehicle was safe or not or how to handle a vehicle safely. So we inspect everyone's vehicle with the assumption that no one is smart enough to know if a vehicle is safe or not.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Wrong emphasis if you're quoting the US Bill of Rights.

You do realize that is subjective. And language changes, are you sure the use of people has the meaning you assign to it.

Madison says you are supposed to understand the meaning of the language at the time it was written not engage in the foolish process of using what the language my mean at the time it is read.

The people who wrote the Bill of Rights could not know what the words they wrote would meaning 100, 200 or 500 years, but they damn well know what they meant when they wrote them. It is not some arcane art to determine the mean of the words as they were written. The only people that have difficulty are the ones who wish to alter the meaning. If we were going to just do whatever we wanted to, there would not have been much purpose to having a written Constitution.

 

[Tech_Esq]

How is a firearm registration going to keep anyone safe?

Then why does obeying the law keep anyone safe? Not that hard to understand.

"Only 2 of the 743 gunshot deaths occurring in the home involved an intruder killed during an attempted entry, and only 9 of the deaths were determined by police/courts to be justified (FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48). The evidence revealed in the Kellermann study is consistent with data reported by the FBI. In 1993, there were 24,526 people murdered, 13,980 with handguns, yet only 251 justifiable homicides by civilians using handguns. (FBI, Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports 1994, 1995)."

A Case for Gun Control

Why would law abiding people be opposed to law. You guys often ask that question, now answer it. No right is written in stone - life and the world changes.

Why would a law abiding people be opposed to law?

You ask that respecting a part of the Constitution? You do understand that the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the land, don't you? So, by proposing to infringe upon a right granted by it, YOU are the one who is opposed to the law.

"No right is written in stone"

Unless that right is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States. That's the point of having a WRITTEN constitution. You don't like the right, then feel free to amend the Constitution. If you can't do it, then feel free to whine in the corner about it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

We don't have inspections in SC. They tried it once. The arguments to do away with it mirror gun arguments.

So.... that's your answer?

I'm not sure if we are following each other.

The reasons for auto inspections started out on the same issues as gun control: safety. Automoblies were thought of as dangerous things and their owners were believed to be not intelligent enough to know when a vehicle was safe or not or how to handle a vehicle safely. So we inspect everyone's vehicle with the assumption that no one is smart enough to know if a vehicle is safe or not.

Peejay,

The problem with your car/gun analogy is the basic reason for the 2nd amendment being in the Bill of Rights in the first place. If you look at all of the Rights granted in the first 10 Amendments, they are positive assertions of individual or in the 10th Amendment's case, state's rights vis-a-vis with national government.

The Anti-Federalists were adamant that the Constitution not just rely on the fact that the federal government's powers were limited to only what their grant was in the Constitution as a protection against an all powerful central government. They demanded positive rights be given to the people. To get the anti-federalist's votes in the Constitutional conventions, they were told that immediately upon passage of the Constitution, a Bill of Rights would be set out.

The 2nd amendment does not exist so you can go huntin' and it doesn't exist because the founders worried that you might not be able to protect yourself from burglars. Like every other right in the Bill of Rights, it exists as a check on the national government. Granted, it is a check of last resort, but remember Thomas Jefferson was one of those that wanted the Bill of Rights and he said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Back to government inspection, regulation etc, with the foregoing being the basis, I'm sure you can distinguish why cars are treated one way and guns another. If the government is the one to be checked by having the gun, wouldn't it be a mistake to have them be in charge of regulating and inspecting that which provides the means to check it?

 

[Amanda]

We don't have inspections in SC. They tried it once. The arguments to do away with it mirror gun arguments.

So.... that's your answer?

I'm not sure if we are following each other.

The reasons for auto inspections started out on the same issues as gun control: safety. Automoblies were thought of as dangerous things and their owners were believed to be not intelligent enough to know when a vehicle was safe or not or how to handle a vehicle safely. So we inspect everyone's vehicle with the assumption that no one is smart enough to know if a vehicle is safe or not.

Well... right... but the assumption with guns is that they are dangerous to others because of their nature. I don't think it's quite the same with cars. And an inspection of guns doesn't seem to me to be as much about the safety of the owners as much as a way to track the owners.

 

[Peejay]

I completely agree with your asessment. I have long held that the hunting/sporting argument that is made so many times by the right is the COMPLETE wrong argument. The purpose of the 2nd ammendment is indeed to keep an armed citizenry AGAINST the Government.


However, the right to freedom of travel is also part of our rights to not be oppressed by the government. The Supreme Court actually held this view with regard to whatever the current standard of transportation might be, at one time.

Just as your gun rights have been infrindged on the basis of safety, so has your right to travel. A right has been turned into a priviledge. This argument has been made successfully on more than one occasion.

 

[Peejay]

So.... that's your answer?

I'm not sure if we are following each other.

The reasons for auto inspections started out on the same issues as gun control: safety. Automoblies were thought of as dangerous things and their owners were believed to be not intelligent enough to know when a vehicle was safe or not or how to handle a vehicle safely. So we inspect everyone's vehicle with the assumption that no one is smart enough to know if a vehicle is safe or not.

Well... right... but the assumption with guns is that they are dangerous to others because of their nature. I don't think it's quite the same with cars. And an inspection of guns doesn't seem to me to be as much about the safety of the owners as much as a way to track the owners.

Eh...inspections are more of a revenue tool, under the guise of safety, these days. But vehicle registration is exactly that: a way to track and montior travel of the owners of vehicles.

Again, your right to freedom of travel is promised in the same documents and in the manner as your right to bear arms. The fact that we have allowed our right to this freedom to be so heavily restricted is a reasonble thing to mention and point out. It should serve as a valuable example of not only how a right is converted to priviledge, but how, with tiny steps, the population will accept it.

When I was a kid, there were movies that demonized the USSR and the common scene was a family traveling somewhere and a burley man with a gun and a badge would utter in a thick accent "let me see your papers". That never happens here huh? I can tell you, as I have traveled the whole contry, you damn well better have your papers straight, a beleivable strory about where you are coming from and going to. If you don't beleive me, next time you get stopped and they ask, "where are you going", and they will ask, just tell them you are free to travel and it's none of their business where you are going. Send me a post card from whatever jail you are detained in.

 

[zvhorn]

I don't understand why it's a bad thing to make people register guns. Guns are not being banned. You can still own them. They are just making it harder for people with criminal records and mental imbalances to get their hands on one. Or am I mistaken?

Registration in itself is not so bad..BUT here is the problem. The far left use this registration process first as a step to keep guns out of the hands of criminals...which is fine. The only problem is once this legislation is passed, eventually the regulation on who is considered "mentally unstable" or "not fit" to own a gun can easily change. This is simply another LEFTIST ploy to find a peaceful way to eventually disarm the public. They know they can't just ban guns...there would be way to big of an uproar. On the other hand they know if they slowly start to regulate who gets guns and who can't that they can eventually fade them away with more and more regulation. Not to mention, I don't know where in the second ammendment that it says I can keep and bear arms if I am registered to do so? It just says its my right..period!

 

[zvhorn]

I'm not sure if we are following each other.

The reasons for auto inspections started out on the same issues as gun control: safety. Automoblies were thought of as dangerous things and their owners were believed to be not intelligent enough to know when a vehicle was safe or not or how to handle a vehicle safely. So we inspect everyone's vehicle with the assumption that no one is smart enough to know if a vehicle is safe or not.

Well... right... but the assumption with guns is that they are dangerous to others because of their nature. I don't think it's quite the same with cars. And an inspection of guns doesn't seem to me to be as much about the safety of the owners as much as a way to track the owners.

Eh...inspections are more of a revenue tool, under the guise of safety, these days. But vehicle registration is exactly that: a way to track and montior travel of the owners of vehicles.

Again, your right to freedom of travel is promised in the same documents and in the manner as your right to bear arms. The fact that we have allowed our right to this freedom to be so heavily restricted is a reasonble thing to mention and point out. It should serve as a valuable example of not only how a right is converted to priviledge, but how, with tiny steps, the population will accept it.

When I was a kid, there were movies that demonized the USSR and the common scene was a family traveling somewhere and a burley man with a gun and a badge would utter in a thick accent "let me see your papers". That never happens here huh? I can tell you, as I have traveled the whole contry, you damn well better have your papers straight, a beleivable strory about where you are coming from and going to. If you don't beleive me, next time you get stopped and they ask, "where are you going", and they will ask, just tell them you are free to travel and it's none of their business where you are going. Send me a post card from whatever jail you are detained in.

I agree with your statement about travel and it is only getting worse. That is the problem I see with guns also. Its not simply just a Gun issue...the real underlying issue is that the government has become to involved in our everyday lives. I shouldn't have to tell anyone where I am traveling too it I don't want to...on the same token I shouldn't have to register any gun with the government...IT IS NOT THEIR BUSINESS!! Once the precedent has been put in place it will affect all of our liberties. If the government thinks they can register you guns...next they will want to register your children and who knows what else. The scary thing is that this is not that far fetched of a scenario anymore. Our liberties are slowly being taken away...

 

[Gunny]

I don't understand why it's a bad thing to make people register guns. Guns are not being banned. You can still own them. They are just making it harder for people with criminal records and mental imbalances to get their hands on one. Or am I mistaken?

it's about control, dude. Plain and simple. More government control = bad thing.

 

[Gunny]

Wrong emphasis if you're quoting the US Bill of Rights.

You do realize that is subjective. And language changes, are you sure the use of people has the meaning you assign to it.

What you mean is you lefties like to change the language as it suits you. The statement is clear. Nothing subjective about it at all.

 

[oreo]

We already have something like that in Arkansas. In order to carry a pistol, you have to get a concealed carry license which costs almost $300. For that, you get fingerprinted and extensive background checks are performed. If you get pulled over by a cop for whatever reason, they have their gun ready and order you to get out of the car with your hands so they can see them because they know you might have a gun. You also get your name posted on the internet by Libtards like this guy:

Concealed carry permit holders in Arkansas Assaulted by Arkansas Times Editor - Topix

Carrying a gun appears to make you a very dangerous person.

We have the same law in Colorado. One takes an extensive background check, & they then are able to carry a concealed weapon. I haven't heard about a cop pulling someone over yet, "knowing" that they may be carrying a concealed weapon though?

 

[Tech_Esq]

I completely agree with your asessment. I have long held that the hunting/sporting argument that is made so many times by the right is the COMPLETE wrong argument. The purpose of the 2nd ammendment is indeed to keep an armed citizenry AGAINST the Government.


However, the right to freedom of travel is also part of our rights to not be oppressed by the government. The Supreme Court actually held this view with regard to whatever the current standard of transportation might be, at one time.

Just as your gun rights have been infrindged on the basis of safety, so has your right to travel. A right has been turned into a priviledge. This argument has been made successfully on more than one occasion.

I'm late returning to this but it was an important point and I wanted to address it. You are correct in stating that the Supremes have "found" a "right to travel" and they have anointed the "right" with oil in the way that only our out of control activist judiciary could. They have used the "right to travel" to force states to allow welfare payments to be immediately paid to people who move from one state to another because failure to do so would inhibit their "right to travel." This is another case where we may have a conflict between an actual right - (one that you can look at the Constitution and point at i.e. the freedom to assemble) and an invented right - (like the right of privacy and the right to travel). Should an actual right and an invented right come into conflict, which would win?

This is not really a hypothetical. The made up right to privacy has come into conflict with free speech rights in the case of abortion clinic protesters and people going to the clinic to get abortions. In that case the free speech rights were curtailed and the "privacy" rights were unabridged.

Regardless of how you feel about the objects of the case, setting "found" rights against actual rights and allowing the found rights to curtail actual rights sets a dangerous precedent that makes us all less free.