Registration of firearms leads to confiscation

[BULLDOG]

So, you don't want us to be safer? After all, if you did, you'd advocate for registration, right?



I see. So, instead of basing your position on reality, you want to base it on some ignorant hypothetical?

Good to know...



I'm not saying some wouldn't. I'm saying many wouldn't...



So, in your mind, the rare instance it might help in some way is sufficient to require registration for all?



Okay, so let me make sure I understand:

I own a gun. Someone breaks into my home and somehow manages to steal one of my properly secured firearms. He then goes on a killing spree and then drops of the radar. My stolen firearm is never seen again.

Where in that scenario is there a benefit to the gun being registered to me?

See, if one of my unregistered firearms is ever stolen, I'm notifying the police. I'm giving them every bit of information I can; date and time I think it was stolen, make and model, the serial number of the gun, everything. That's what a responsible gun does.



Sorry, but your argument is wildly unconvincing. There's nothing about what you've said which would make us any safer.

There's only one reason to require gun registration, and it's laughable when liberals try to say it's in the name of safety...

Ok last time.
Of course I want us to be safer. I'm just not sure gun registrationis the best way to do that right now.

I'm basing it on the discussion and the question of whether registration could make us safer. It could in some circumstances.

How many wouldn't doesn't matter. Asking if it could help assumes guns are registered. The question wasn't if some guns were registered.

Obviously that would be one scenario where registration wouldn't help. Nothing we do will work as hoped every time. I already said that, you didn't read it?

I never tried to convince you of anything. You're a crazy gun nut. You're immune to logic. I answered your questions.

 

[GLASNOST]

Since the gun law changes have begun in New York, NYPD has sent a letter to time square business owner to bring in their firearms they can no longer have them in their business.
Letter Sent to NYC Business Owners Proves Registration Leads To Confiscation
So kiss my ass never going to register my firearms

Since my license is expired I'm not going to stop for any traffic control. Those who do not obey the law are criminals.

 

[BULLDOG]

I read it I called you a chickenshit bastard

Sure, but you're a babbling idiot.

 

[BULLDOG]

bigrebnc1775 op

drunk driving laws do not put wheel locks on everone’s car

But you want to take all the guns

link?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Ok last time.
Of course I want us to be safer. I'm just not sure gun registrationis the best way to do that right now.

I'm basing it on the discussion and the question of whether registration could make us safer. It could in some circumstances.

How many wouldn't doesn't matter. Asking if it could help assumes guns are registered. The question wasn't if some guns were registered.

Obviously that would be one scenario where registration wouldn't help. Nothing we do will work as hoped every time. I already said that, you didn't read it?

I never tried to convince you of anything. You're a crazy gun nut. You're immune to logic. I answered your questions.

You call me a "gun nut" because you're some idiot lib with no balls who's afraid of scary loud things.

Can you at least be honesty and acknowledge, if the government decided to do it, that requiring the registration of firearms could enable to confiscation of said firearms?

Because that FACT far outweighs any alleged safety benefit because, if and when the government confiscates privately owned firearms, no one will be safe...

 

[Mac-7]

link?

A link to what?

 

[Delldude]

Except for the need for being "regulated well."

It's right there IN the text!

So is this:

Amendment II​

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Since my license is expired I'm not going to stop for any traffic control. Those who do not obey the law are criminals.

Privilege versus rights.
What will happen if the directions of the NYPD are not followed?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sure, but you're a babbling idiot.

What will happen if the directions of the NYPD are not followed?

 

[Delldude]

Since my license is expired I'm not going to stop for any traffic control. Those who do not obey the law are criminals.

Don't tell anyone, but I went 56 in a 55 mph zone.
I have a privilege to drive and a right to speed.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Actually if you REALLY want to go down that road....the Second Amendnent doesn't say anything about anyone actually "owning" guns anywhere in it at all.

"Keep" means own. No wonder you fuckers can't understand the Constitution...lol

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

The federal government didn't lose the right to regulate abortion. It just chose to not exercize it at this time. Removal of overriding federal guidelines is currently allowing states to do as they will. At some time, I believe the federal government will reassert it's supremacy and override all the current state laws. No new authority was granted to the states. They are just taking advantage of a temporary lack of federal guidance.

There weren't any Federal guidelines regarding abortion.

 

[MagicMike]

So is this:

Amendment II​

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Thank you for proving my point.
As you prove here, James Madison did NOT write an individual's "right" to personal firearm ownership into the Second Amendment.

It was the SCOTUS legislating from the bench in 2008 that did it.

Very similar to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that made abortion a constitutional "right."

Lijewise, someday a less conservative court may very well decide to overturn Heller....just like Roe.

At the end of the day it's all more about fashion than the Constitution.
Whatever is "fashionable" with the court today.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Firearms do you no good when they in sitting at the police department. And just one step away from you no longer need your firearm we will destory it on this date.
But registering your firearms is a contribution to the second amendment
"Who is the Militia I ask? The whole people." George Mason well regulated = in working order as to be expected

...shall not be infringed

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thank you for proving my point.
As you prove here, James Madison did NOT write an individual's "right" to personal firearm ownership into the Second Amendment.

It was the SCOTUS legislating from the bench in 2008 that did it.

Very similar to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that made abortion a constitutional "right."

Lijewise, someday a less conservative court may very well decide to overturn Heller....just like Roe.

At the end of the day it's all more about fashion than the Constitution.
Whatever is "fashionable" with the court today.

George Mason wrote the bill of rights. Roe never was a Constitutionally protected right. Roe was judicial activism

 

[rightwinger]

The only ones who need to know are the members of your Militia group. Otherwise registration leads to confiscation

Militia Group?

Don‘t you want to defend your country if we are invaded by Commies?

Your community will need to defend itself against the Commie Horde…..they need to know who to call in a time of need

Why don’t you want them to know you are armed and ready?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Thank you for proving my point.
As you prove here, James Madison did NOT write an individual's "right" to personal firearm ownership into the Second Amendment.

It was the SCOTUS legislating from the bench in 2008 that did it.

Very similar to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that made abortion a constitutional "right."

Lijewise, someday a less conservative court may very well decide to overturn Heller....just like Roe.

At the end of the day it's all more about fashion than the Constitution.
Whatever is "fashionable" with the court today.

The 2nd Amendment literally says that keeping and bearing arms is "the right of the people". That makes it an individual right just every other amendment that says "the right of the people".

 

[rightwinger]

Been interpreted already. And I enjoy your freedoms.

Where has any court decided that registration is unconstitutional?

 

[Batcat]

How can we keep our well regulated militia if we don’t know who has guns and what type they have?

Don‘t you realize that well regulated militias are necessary for a free state?

Why do you hate America?

The Supreme Court has ruled you DO NOT have to be a member of a militia in order to own firearms.

Supreme Court strikes down 2nd Amendment, citing National Guard marksmanship

"Seriously, have you seen them shoot?”

www.duffelblog.com

WASHINGTON — In a stunning precedent-breaking case, the Supreme Court has overturned the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment, citing poor National Guard weapons skills.

“For over 200 years, the right to ‘keep and bear arms as part of a well-ordered militia’ has stood in the 2nd amendment,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts in a rare 9-0 opinion.

“This court debated if that clause limits gun ownership to just members of the militia, or the National Guard as it’s now called, or if all Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. Given recent information, this court sees that the framers were exactly wrong. This court ruled that literally, anyone but the militia should have the right to firearms because seriously, have you seen them shoot?”

Roberts added that if he wanted to see a shot group like that, he’d throw rice at a sticky rat trap.


Now for a serious link …

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitutionprotects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was intended for state militias.[2]

Because of the District of Columbia's status as a federal enclave (it is not in any U.S. state), the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution against the states.[3] This point was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), in which it was found that they are.

 

[Auld Phart]

Thank you for proving my point.
As you prove here, James Madison did NOT write an individual's "right" to personal firearm ownership into the Second Amendment.

It was the SCOTUS legislating from the bench in 2008 that did it.

Very similar to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that made abortion a constitutional "right."

Lijewise, someday a less conservative court may very well decide to overturn Heller....just like Roe.

At the end of the day it's all more about fashion than the Constitution.
Whatever is "fashionable" with the court today.

As you prove here, James Madison did NOT write an individual's "right" to personal firearm ownership into the Second Amendment.

and you still don't understand the phrase, "Keep and Bear Arms"