Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Arguments Against Registration

Discussion in 'General Firearm Discussion' started by Ralgha, Mar 15, 2013.

  1. Ralgha

    Ralgha Portland Well-Known Member 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    392
    I'm looking for any arguments against gun registration that do not involve government confiscation. There's a particular anti that I'm trying to soften who simply won't believe that confiscation is a real threat. Rather than try to change her mind on that also, I'd like to have some other arguments to use. Any ideas?
     
  2. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    Canada tried it long guns, cost them millions more than anticipated and it didn't solve one crime plus the system was hacked and the info used to target gun owners to steal them. They've now stopped it. Most gun owners didn't comply either.
     
  3. OLDNEWBIE

    OLDNEWBIE State of Flux Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,827
    Likes Received:
    3,957
    I see scenerios where police are called to your home because you are arguing too loudly. They check your data before arriving on scene. What would have been a friendly check to see if all was well becomes a swat team situation. Also tell the wrong person you are depressed about losing your job or a family death and before you know it authorities are at your door.

    Mass confiscation, not right away. Extreme hassle for just owning a weapon, already here?
     
  4. osterr1999

    osterr1999 Silverton, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    234
    It's happening in CA right now. If you have something in your medical record about any mental health issue, the state is coming to your house and taking your guns. Not only that, they are taking your guns if the person who lives with you has a mental illness. That takes confiscation from theory to reality.
     
  5. Misterbill

    Misterbill Yakima County, Washington New Member

    Messages:
    1,308
    Likes Received:
    1,013
    How about this:

    What is it about guns which makes them so special they need to be treated with more care than poison, common items which could be used to make bombs or any of a thousand different other items?

    Why the fixation on guns when we know FOR A FACT that countries which have virtually no LEGAL gun ownership have higher crime rates than we do and have seen their "gun-crime" go UP since their bans?

    Why, when we've seen every category of violent crime decrease by 50% over the last 20 years in the face of RISING gun ownership, do we suddenly need to clamp down on guns?

    Why, when it has been conclusively proven that more guns DO NOT equal more crime, do people want to make me jump through a bunch MORE new hoops to exercise a fundamental individual right that's recently been upheld by the SC?

    Why is having obstacles placed in the way of a woman having an abortion, which isn't explicitly in the constitution, an unreasonable interference in freedom -But making me get permission to own an object used to protect my life, including classes, delays and cost, just fine and dandy?

    Why (to the Anti) are you so afraid of an inanimate object that you not only are afraid to have one, but insist that I can't either, even though legal gun owners commit fewer felonies than any other group?

    Why do you think criminals intent on committing violent crime will suddenly stop using guns because you've made the lives of law-abiding citizens harder?

    Why are all the 10 amendments to the constitution important to society except number two?

    ETA: Every time they DO have gun registration, it's followed by a ban of some kind. This isn't paranoia, it's the lesson of recent history, even in this country. (Look at California).

    And if the ban on private sales went through, WITH registration, you'd still have straw buyers. You'd just see a drastic uptick in reported thefts. The notion that people already willing to risk 10 years in federal prison wouldn't find an easy way around any paperwork obstacle is naive in the extreme. And since we don't prosecute people under existing law, adding another we also won't prosecute except against low-hanging fruit like legal gun owners, won't help either.

    If people are really worried about criminal use of guns, I have a simple answer that we know from experience is hugely efffective: Enforce the laws already there. If Schumer and Feinstein and McCarthy and the rest were in any way sincere about reducing violence or illegal gun possession, they'd be asking for massive funding for federal prosecutions of felon in possession charges and for straw-purchase prosecution and lying on 4473s.

    Neither state or federal authorities prosecute felon in possession charges very often and when it IS charged (almost always on a state level) it's usually given some throw-away status with only a few months in jail at most on conviction or plea-bargained away.

    The bottom line with all this stuff is that the people behind more regulation want fewer guns in the hands of the populace. they fear gun owners, they fear inanimate objects. They are under the delusion that simply passing a law makes everything wonderful.

    Show me a longitudinal study on any state before and after registration requirements and show me reductions in crime rates. You can't, because it's never worked out that way. I believe the National science Foundation published results to that effect a few years back.

    So if it infringes on a fundamental right, won't reduce crime, costs money and catches primarily "good guys" over paperwork errors, why is it a good thing? Unless your goal has nothing to do with crime or violence and everything to do with making it as hard as possible to legally obtain a firearm.
     
    robertg, PMB, iusmc2002 and 7 others like this.
  6. Yjacket

    Yjacket NE California New Member

    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ralgha here are a couple of ideas for the discussion --

    What is the point of registration? It is said so that police know where to look in the event of a murderer using a firearm. Not too practical. For example - let us say the murder took place in an urban area with the tool used being a 9mm handgun. Perhaps the police could go check every 9mm pistol in the area to see if they can get a ballistic striation match. To me anyway that does not sound too practical when the number of firearm checks could easily be into the thousands. Or perhaps the cartridge case is available but the search is still needed. To the best of my knowledge no case has been solved with presale fired brass on record.

    Then you have Haynes v. US decision, FindLaw | Cases and Codes, which says that convicted criminals are exempt from firearm registration because doing so violates their 5th Amendment rights. Why should law abiding citizens have to go through the hassle of registration when the criminals do not?
     
  7. kumabear17

    kumabear17 Issaquah Active Member

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    144
    My answer to people like your friend is to start my asking why does he think it’s necessary to register gun owners? Isn’t that an “infringement”? Maybe times people come back with the counter, “...but we restrict other Amendments like the First...you can’t yell fire in a public location (unless there is a fire)...” . This is a perfect response because now you can point out that people entering a public place like a movie theater are not judged up front as potentially going in to commit the crime of falsely yelling fire. They are assumed to be innocent and only judged if the crime is committed. They don’t register people, or gag them, as they enter a public location (unless it’s the White House – weird). Now with gun owners the “anti-gun nuts” want to register them up front and register their guns inferring that by the very nature of owning a firearm, gun owners will commit a crime and need to be tracked – kind of like we track sexual predators.

    If that doesn’t get him to react you can try the humorous old story. All women naturally have the equipment/tools to perform the oldest profession in the world. You would be risking your life to tell one that because they come equipped they need to be registered, their DNA taken and then they will be tracked because you just know they plan to go into business. At least you might get a laugh. If they still don’t get it, find a new friend.
     
  8. Ralgha

    Ralgha Portland Well-Known Member 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    392
    That one's perfect, I'd seen it before but forgotten about it.

    Some other good stuff too. I suppose the best way to approach it would be to ask why they think registration would help and then go from there.
     
    Nwcid and (deleted member) like this.
  9. Nwcid

    Nwcid Yakima and N of Spokane Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,593
    Likes Received:
    1,480
    Remind them that criminals by definition are people who break laws. Even if EVERY law abiding person did register their gun do you think the criminals will?

    How much would it cost to set up and maintain a registration system that big and where is all that money going to come from. Right now the ATF has a registration system for NFA items which I am guessing is 1% of the total number of guns in the US and it has all kinds of problems and errors.
     
  10. Wood Worker

    Wood Worker Linn County Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    51
    It is no ones business what tools I own or do not own.
    People need to learn to mind their own.
     
  11. MountainBear

    MountainBear Sweet Home, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,646
    Likes Received:
    2,371
    Well, since they're the ones advocating for the new law, perhaps you should ask them "Why?". Since it will cost the government billions of dollars that then won't go to (as our President likes to say) poor kids or disabled kids, isn't it their job to prove we need it rather than our job to prove we don't?

    In your case, I would go that direction. Since you have obviously already tried the logical arguments (i.e. confiscation), then perhaps turn the tables and ask her to defend her position...
     
  12. Spitpatch

    Spitpatch Forest Grove, Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,801
    Likes Received:
    836
    Ralgha, I would inquire about your estimation of your subject person's entrenchment in the anti-gun belief. If firmly entrenched, most often the mind is closed. Attempting to "soften" such a turtle will be nothing but frustrating to you.

    However, if "firmly entrenched" in the belief, and yet intelligent and gregarious enough to maintain an open mind, willing to seek knowledge and learn from different points of view, your effort may well be entirely rewarding. If this describes your subject, I would recommend that YOU be just as willing to listen to his (her?) arguments, and maintain the same open mind. I have a co-worker who is in this category, and we ALWAYS learn from each other, and acknowledge the value of the exchange. He has actually given some ground. I haven't (faced with the truth and smart enough to recognize it, he doesn't have a chance), but I HAVE learned much about the mindset of the anti-gunners.
     
  13. Ralgha

    Ralgha Portland Well-Known Member 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    392
    It may well be a useless endeavor in this case. They admit that they know very little about guns, don't know what an AR-15 is, or even a semi automatic is and yet they're ok with creating laws without even knowing what they're applying to.

    They'll admit that most gun owners are responsible and not the people we need to worry about, they'll admit that Amanda Collins (for example) having a gun would not place anyone in danger, yet they still think it's ok to ban "assault weapons".

    Most of their arguments boil down to "nobody needs them," or acts of violence are so rare that it's not worth worry about. She got kinda quiet when I suggested she say that to victims of violence.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus that ate your iPhone.
     
  14. mancat

    mancat Kitsap County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    334
    but see they don't have to prove any of it because it's simply "common sense."
     
  15. Yjacket

    Yjacket NE California New Member

    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    13
    The problem with good sense is that it not all that common.
     
  16. trainsktg

    trainsktg Portland OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,663
    Likes Received:
    798
    Just the fact that the data could be hacked, compromised and/or FOIAed by a newspaper looking to expose gun owners is enough of a red flag for me; the data could be used to systematically burglarize those homes where those weapons are stored as is already happening in New York.

    Keith
     
  17. oknow

    oknow amboy wa. Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,617
    Likes Received:
    3,573
    how many bad guys does she think obey the law :banghead:
     
  18. unklekippy

    unklekippy In The Mountains Near Sprague River Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Likes Received:
    854
    Shall Not Be Infringed. After that, why is there even a discussion?

    It definitely does not say "....Shall Not Be Infringed, Except When.....".

    And don't forget to remind the Pinkies that those First 10 ARE NOT like all the rest. The Second is not equal to The Eighteenth. The Second is MUCH GREATER than than The Eighteenth, for it cannot be retracted.
     
    oknow and (deleted member) like this.
  19. jeffery_1965

    jeffery_1965 Vancouver, Wa New Member

    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    8
    How about it being illegal per the Firearms Protection Act of 1986, which states something along the lines of:

    No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.


    Now they can try and change the laws, but it would seem like even the act of trying to change the law would go against this law. What a circular argument huh? :)

    Jeff
     
  20. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    Reading that means that the forms kept on file at a dealers can NOT be transferred to the BATF when a dealer goes out of business as is now required.