CDZ Are You For a National Registry of Gun Owners?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

WESTWALL SAID:

“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.”

No, this is wrong – it's 100 percent false comparison fallacy.

No guns have been 'confiscated' in any state in the United States as a consequence of registration – that would violate the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, rendering the notion of 'gun confiscation' in this country ridiculous idiocy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

2AGUY SAID:

“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…”

You have nothing but lies, no 'gun confiscation' has taken place in the United States, including New York or California.

 

[2aguy]

WESTWALL SAID:

“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.”

No, this is wrong – it's 100 percent false comparison fallacy.

No guns have been 'confiscated' in any state in the United States as a consequence of registration – that would violate the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, rendering the notion of 'gun confiscation' in this country ridiculous idiocy.

And you have no idea what you are talking about......time does not matter to gun grabbers, it took the Germans 20 years to end up confiscating the guns.....Britain and Australia did not immediately confiscate their guns either. The people who foolishly allow guns to be registered are rarely in power when the thugs come in and confiscate the guns.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

What we need is direct accountability locally, where people can decide and enforce responsibility for their own communities and systems of representing their interests.

All this business about "depending on federal govt at the top" is due to
LACK OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY at the bottom. So if we
EMPOWER local citizens on that side of the scale, we wouldn't NEED to
go RUNNING to federal govt to protect Constitutional rights and enforce laws.

We can do that ourselves.

One problem is City govts are not under Constitutional requirements, checks or balances.
The City of Houston is a private municipality and is run like a Corporation with its own interests,
even though they run on taxpayer money. There is no accountability directly to taxpayers.

So as long as there are corporations abusing resources to run things unchecked,
the citizens affected keep going up to the State or Federal Govt trying to protect themselves from abuse and violations.

That is backwards.

Instead, teach citizens and communities how to enforce the same Constitutional principles, standards and ethics as we want Federal Govt to protect for us. And quit running to Washington for that.

That's like running to the Principal's office instead of teachers running their own classrooms.
Or running back to Mommy or Daddy instead of growing up and running your own household.

We can't possibly stack all this LOCALIZED responsibility on the central govt in DC.

No wonder the govt is overburdened and backlogged with bureaucracy.

To reserve the Federal Govt with issues of national security that affects America as a nation,
we the people are going to have to take care of our own business locally and quit delegating
everything to Congress and the President to try to fix at the top.

Mental health issues especially cannot be fixed by centrally regulated govt. The work has to be done locally, and that's where the screening, registration and management of human resources is going to be more effective -- on a LOCAL level. Federal Govt isn't designed for "individualized" social programs.

 

[emilynghiem]

WESTWALL SAID:

“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.”

No, this is wrong – it's 100 percent false comparison fallacy.

No guns have been 'confiscated' in any state in the United States as a consequence of registration – that would violate the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, rendering the notion of 'gun confiscation' in this country ridiculous idiocy.

Says C_Clayton_Jones who claims ACA mandates don't violate choice or take away any liberties

 

[320 Years of History]

Says C_Clayton_Jones who claims ACA mandates don't violate choice or take away any liberties

Argumentum ad hominem

 

[Pogo]

"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.

So -------- you have no answer.

I expected as little.

 

[westwall]

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.

So -------- you have no answer.

I expected as little.

You presented nothing to argue against, ergo, you get nothing....

 

[Dan Daly]

I am against any registry at all...but the point is way past moot. Between NICS background checks, CCW permitting and good old fashioned data mining...multiple national registries already exist. Gun owners who have gleefully been "exercising their freedumb" by rushing out to buy guns, ammo and accessories at each and every drop of a panic...as well as literally falling all over themselves to register for government permission to carry like a thief...have done it to themselves faster and easier than even the most rabid gun-grabber would have ever imagined.

The real Pogo was correct....the enemy is us.

 

[Pogo]

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.

So -------- you have no answer.

I expected as little.

You presented nothing to argue against, ergo, you get nothing....

It's been out there since last week, as already cited. And as already observed you have no answer.

​

 

[Likkmee]

Yes. And a penalty for those who don't own at least one per person/per household to keep the scumbags from being released from prison.How about a $5000/yer fine ?

 

[Dan Daly]

Anyone who registers with the government for permission to exercise their unalienable right to keep and bear arms is a useful idiot who deserves neither security nor freedom. FREE MEN DON'T NEED PERMISSION.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There's no sound argument for the necessity of the state to know who owns each of eh 356,000,000 gun in the US.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[Staidhup]

And a national registry will accomplish what, reduce crime, murder? Only a fool or liberal with his head up a jackasses ass would assume so.

 

[emilynghiem]

Says C_Clayton_Jones who claims ACA mandates don't violate choice or take away any liberties

Argumentum ad hominem

320 Years of History
It's not by "association with a group" that I make this open ended comment.
but this is the ACTUAL CONTEXT in which C_Clayton_Jones <-- THIS particular person, not a group or affiliation/association
judges what is "free choice/liberty" and "whether or not it has been infringed."

It's called "consider the source"

If you ask someone WITH Atheist beliefs (not merely by association, but by that person's self-admitted beliefs)
to describe what the Bible means historically,
you are going to get a different answer, probably biased in SECULAR terms and views, from when
you ask someone WITH Christian beliefs in God (not merely by association, but by that PARTICULAR person's self-proclaimed beliefs)
to describe what the Bible means.

People are going to have a bias based on the spectrum of their beliefs.
This is called CONSIDERING THE SOURCE when you evaluate
what someone means by what they say IN THAT PERSON'S OWN CONTEXT.

So you are close, 320 Years of History
Had I just slammed C_Clayton_Jones PERSONALLY
based SOLELY on negative associations with either label, "associations with labels such as liberals", or affiliation with a group with "associations"
that would be a PERSONAL issue.

What I was citing was a particular belief, perception or bias of C_Clayton_Jones SPECIFICALLY
as I discovered on other threads. From C_Clayton_Jones statements that no liberty or freedom
was lost with the ACA mandates,
THIS SHOWS BIAS in what C_Clayton_Jones CONSIDERS TO BE FREE CHOICE OR DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY

So CONSIDER THE SOURCE

And guess what 320 Years of History
This PREVENTS making ad hominem attacks when you UNDERSTAND
where people are coming from. If C_Clayton_Jones just does not see any liberties or freedom lost to ACA mandates,
this person isn't TRYING to deprive people of anything, but just doesn't see it that way, as any harm being caused.
So this prevents someone from RESENTING a person like this
when you understand the BIAS on their PERCEPTION
which they cannot help.

Most atheists cannot help the fact they can't understand a personal God talking or guiding them.
That's like trying to explain color to a color blind person.
Or expecting a tone deaf person to sing in tune, that may not be within their range of senses.

I found your point helpful to make in general 320 Years of History
but it didn't apply to my particular clarification on C_Clayton_Jones

My main gripe with these differences in perception/belief
is that we don't account for them in legislative and democratic processes.

The more people recognize that we can't help the biases we have,
they will quit JUDGING people for these differences and
NOT make "ad hominem" attacks TARGETING people or groups by association.

I was speaking about a PARTICULAR bias that affects what C_Clayton_Jones
says and means; and I think that is valid for C_Clayton_Jones reality
but not fair to impose it on others through govt when it IS SEEN as depriving people of liberty to do so.

So no, 320 Years of History and C_Clayton_Jones
my comment did NOT have ANYTHING to do with any "perceived or attempted"
"ad hominem attack" -- I was putting CCJ's comment
IN PERSPECTIVE WITH THAT PARTICULAR PERSON'S
SPECIFIC BIAS WHICH I STATED AS FACT
NOT AS ANY KIND OF ASSOCIATION

Thank you for your comment anyway.
I know you mean well, and we and the forums would greatly benefit
by agreeing to stick to content and sharing corrections mutually and amicably,
and not targeting people personally with emotional associations.

You are still right in the point you are defending in general
even though it wasn't directly applicable in this case,
since my comments were specific about a particular bias CCJones actually has and has stated.

When you "CONSIDER THE SOURCE" it becomes more clear that CCJ is not trying
to ignore, deny or deprive anyone's free choice; but just doesn't see how there's
even any threat of that happening! How can you judge or be upset at someone if they honestly
don't see or understand there is any problem? What if they can't help not getting it?

Thanks!

 

[oldsoul]

The_human_being has come closest to my point, which I will make in a bit, but noone (this thread or any other I have read) really gets to the real problem. For those of you who are in favor of a gun registry for the purpose of reducing crime/gun-related-fatalities, please explain to me how the vehicle registry has done the same for auto thefts, or fatal accidents. It's really quite simple, it has done little to nothing. And now on to my point about the real issue.

The real issue is not guns, legal or not, it is how they are used. In most cases guns are used for their intended, legal purposes (ie. hunting, taget practice, self defense). In a relatively small number of cases, stats stated several times in posts above, they are used outside those intended purposes, and/or illegally. There enlies the real problem, not the gun, but the illegal/mis-use there of. So the real question, for me at least, is why is it that we are even having this debate, when it's not the guns that are the problem? Why are we not having a national debate on the root causes of violent crime, gun-related accidents, and suicide? Are these just not important enough? If we address these problems, would the gun-related death issue not fix it's self? If you where diagosed with cancer, would you only treat the symptoms, or would you treat the root cause, cancer?

To me, the whole gun rights/gun control issue is nothing more that a political football, used to gain support/attack opponents. I trust that someday, hopefully in my lifetime, "We the People" will finally realize we are being played like puppets, and the "political ruling class" is the puppet master.

Lest anyone try to use my past statements/posts in an attempt to discredit me, I will admit, this is a realization I have only recently come too. I now realize and see the folly of my foolishness as I fell into the trap of accually debating this issue. There really is no point. Some will argue the other side is trying to take away their guns(and maybe they are right), others will argue that the other side is a bunch of backwards, hayseed, gun nuts(and maybe they are right), but noone will ever "win" this arguement. It is the wrong arguement to be having, for all the wrong reasons.

 

[2aguy]

The_human_being has come closest to my point, which I will make in a bit, but noone (this thread or any other I have read) really gets to the real problem. For those of you who are in favor of a gun registry for the purpose of reducing crime/gun-related-fatalities, please explain to me how the vehicle registry has done the same for auto thefts, or fatal accidents. It's really quite simple, it has done little to nothing. And now on to my point about the real issue.

The real issue is not guns, legal or not, it is how they are used. In most cases guns are used for their intended, legal purposes (ie. hunting, taget practice, self defense). In a relatively small number of cases, stats stated several times in posts above, they are used outside those intended purposes, and/or illegally. There enlies the real problem, not the gun, but the illegal/mis-use there of. So the real question, for me at least, is why is it that we are even having this debate, when it's not the guns that are the problem? Why are we not having a national debate on the root causes of violent crime, gun-related accidents, and suicide? Are these just not important enough? If we address these problems, would the gun-related death issue not fix it's self? If you where diagosed with cancer, would you only treat the symptoms, or would you treat the root cause, cancer?

To me, the whole gun rights/gun control issue is nothing more that a political football, used to gain support/attack opponents. I trust that someday, hopefully in my lifetime, "We the People" will finally realize we are being played like puppets, and the "political ruling class" is the puppet master.

Lest anyone try to use my past statements/posts in an attempt to discredit me, I will admit, this is a realization I have only recently come too. I now realize and see the folly of my foolishness as I fell into the trap of accually debating this issue. There really is no point. Some will argue the other side is trying to take away their guns(and maybe they are right), others will argue that the other side is a bunch of backwards, hayseed, gun nuts(and maybe they are right), but noone will ever "win" this arguement. It is the wrong arguement to be having, for all the wrong reasons.

The problem comes from those who fear guns and fear people. Read the posts of those who oppose gun ownership…they will always say that people will snap and murder each other if they have a gun…..as you said, the statistics show that that is not the truth….but they believe it completely. So they want all guns gone or so limited that only a select few….which oddly includes them……will be able to own a gun…and only the police and military will be able to carry them….even after we have detailed the historical nightmare that happens around the world…...

 

[320 Years of History]

Says C_Clayton_Jones who claims ACA mandates don't violate choice or take away any liberties

Argumentum ad hominem

320 Years of History
It's not by "association with a group" that I make this open ended comment.
but this is the ACTUAL CONTEXT in which C_Clayton_Jones <-- THIS particular person, not a group or affiliation/association
judges what is "free choice/liberty" and "whether or not it has been infringed."

It's called "consider the source"

If you ask someone WITH Atheist beliefs (not merely by association, but by that person's self-admitted beliefs)
to describe what the Bible means historically,
you are going to get a different answer, probably biased in SECULAR terms and views, from when
you ask someone WITH Christian beliefs in God (not merely by association, but by that PARTICULAR person's self-proclaimed beliefs)
to describe what the Bible means.

People are going to have a bias based on the spectrum of their beliefs.
This is called CONSIDERING THE SOURCE when you evaluate
what someone means by what they say IN THAT PERSON'S OWN CONTEXT.

So you are close, 320 Years of History
Had I just slammed C_Clayton_Jones PERSONALLY
based SOLELY on negative associations with either label, "associations with labels such as liberals", or affiliation with a group with "associations"
that would be a PERSONAL issue.

What I was citing was a particular belief, perception or bias of C_Clayton_Jones SPECIFICALLY
as I discovered on other threads. From C_Clayton_Jones statements that no liberty or freedom
was lost with the ACA mandates,
THIS SHOWS BIAS in what C_Clayton_Jones CONSIDERS TO BE FREE CHOICE OR DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY

So CONSIDER THE SOURCE

And guess what 320 Years of History
This PREVENTS making ad hominem attacks when you UNDERSTAND
where people are coming from. If C_Clayton_Jones just does not see any liberties or freedom lost to ACA mandates,
this person isn't TRYING to deprive people of anything, but just doesn't see it that way, as any harm being caused.
So this prevents someone from RESENTING a person like this
when you understand the BIAS on their PERCEPTION
which they cannot help.

Most atheists cannot help the fact they can't understand a personal God talking or guiding them.
That's like trying to explain color to a color blind person.
Or expecting a tone deaf person to sing in tune, that may not be within their range of senses.

I found your point helpful to make in general 320 Years of History
but it didn't apply to my particular clarification on C_Clayton_Jones

My main gripe with these differences in perception/belief
is that we don't account for them in legislative and democratic processes.

The more people recognize that we can't help the biases we have,
they will quit JUDGING people for these differences and
NOT make "ad hominem" attacks TARGETING people or groups by association.

I was speaking about a PARTICULAR bias that affects what C_Clayton_Jones
says and means; and I think that is valid for C_Clayton_Jones reality
but not fair to impose it on others through govt when it IS SEEN as depriving people of liberty to do so.

So no, 320 Years of History and C_Clayton_Jones
my comment did NOT have ANYTHING to do with any "perceived or attempted"
"ad hominem attack" -- I was putting CCJ's comment
IN PERSPECTIVE WITH THAT PARTICULAR PERSON'S
SPECIFIC BIAS WHICH I STATED AS FACT
NOT AS ANY KIND OF ASSOCIATION

Thank you for your comment anyway.
I know you mean well, and we and the forums would greatly benefit
by agreeing to stick to content and sharing corrections mutually and amicably,
and not targeting people personally with emotional associations.

You are still right in the point you are defending in general
even though it wasn't directly applicable in this case,
since my comments were specific about a particular bias CCJones actually has and has stated.

When you "CONSIDER THE SOURCE" it becomes more clear that CCJ is not trying
to ignore, deny or deprive anyone's free choice; but just doesn't see how there's
even any threat of that happening! How can you judge or be upset at someone if they honestly
don't see or understand there is any problem? What if they can't help not getting it?

Thanks!

Yes, C_Clayton_Jones did himself write, whatever he wrote, but you wrote, "Says C_Clayton_Jones who claims ACA mandates don't violate choice or take away any liberties?"

Is Clayton's statement an accurate (or substantially so) one? Maybe it is; maybe it isn't. Whether it is or not has no bearing on your remark's being an illustration of ad hominem argumentation. That is, whether it is or not doesn't matter (as goes what I wrote in post #206) because the basis/substance and implication of your remark (the one to which I replied in post #206) is this...Because C_Clayton_Jones claims ACA mandates don't violate choice or take away any liberties, a claim on which he is wrong [whether his incorrectness is a fact or one's opinion doesn't matter], one should not accept that his statement about whether guns have been confiscated is true.

Yours is an ad hominem line of argument (albeit a very short argument). It follows the form of this one, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." That is, it uses an attribute associated with Mr. Jones -- what he thinks about the ACA's mandates -- as the basis for discrediting, refuting, the veracity of his statement, "No guns have been 'confiscated' in any state in the United States as a consequence of registration – that would violate the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, rendering the notion of 'gun confiscation' in this country ridiculous idiocy."

You are spot on in saying that your remark "considers the source," the source being Mr. Jones. However, that is one "flavor" of an ad hominem line of argument. So, yes, my remark, "agrumentum ad hominem," absolutely applied. Could it be that knowing enough about Mr. Jones might allow one to include the fact that he is the source in their refutation of his objective statement and, in so doing, not commit an ad hominem fallacy? Yes, it is possible. Bo Bennett's exception identifies the criterion that would make that possibility become a reality. However, your specific comment doesn't bring that exception into play. (I most often reference Mr. Bennett's "fallacy site" because he's among the very few writers who identify not only the fallacy itself but also their exception criteria.)

Remember, that Mr. Jones' assertion deals with whether or not an event -- the confiscation of guns -- has occurred. That's just a matter of fact. Either confiscations have or have not occurred. (Given the nature of Mr. Jones' statement, so much as one confiscation is enough to prove the inaccuracy of it.) Now he could be right or wrong about that, but the way to refute his claim is by showing that at least confiscation has occurred (within the context he identified), not by asserting "he was mistaken, misguided, misinformed, etc. re: ACA and, so he's wrong about the confiscation of guns." One could, however, say "Mr. Jones is wrong about a lot of factual things, so there's a good chance he's wrong about whether any guns have been confiscated." That's a very different statement; it's substance/implication is that Mr. Jones has a track record of being objectively wrong, so at the very least one should check to see if he's again objectively wrong about whether guns have been confiscated.

That may have been what you had in your head when you wrote the earlier remark, but it's not what you ended up posting/writing, and quite frankly, there's no way readers can know what you had in your head if that/those thoughts didn't make it onto the page. It's not that readers can't sometimes infer beyond the words one writes, but there's a limit to their ability to do so accurately. For instance, a grammatical error can often accurately be "inferred around," so to speak, but a whole thought cannot, even less so a whole thought that has nothing else (no other sentences, no emoticons, etc.) giving the reader a clue or two about the writer's tone and intent.

Could a reader make a good guess about what a writer "really meant?" Could, in guessing, the reader "get lucky?" At times, yes, and at times readers do and are. One such example is your presuming that my intent for my "argumentum ad hominem" remark was well meaning. It was.

Having mentioned that, let me close by saying TY for recognizing that what I'm doing is defending someone against a fallacious line of argument, fallaciously based "attacks" of one's remarks, not defending the verity (or degree thereof) of his remark. Truly, I didn't know then and don't know now whether his statement is true.