Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 11/26/2001 9:00:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/28/2001 8:29:39 AM EST by Master_Blaster]
Just thought everyone should know where he stands - in case you didn't already know. I didn't. [url]http://www.gunlinks.net/bbs/index.cgi?read=2899[/url] Too bad. [V] Response comment: Kalifornya used registration to locate & confiscate rifles from its citizens in the not-so-distant past. I think that pretty well gives an idea of how "reasonable" a compromise it is. More to the point, precisely [i]how[/i] does registration prevent/eliminate firearms-related crimes? Is there any proof that can demonstrate a direct cause-&-effect relationship? Again - look at California: strict gun laws, school shootings. Lets clarify something: Psychotic/criminal/idiot profiles are not affected by ink on paper (laws). There has to be [b]action that is directly correlative to the problem[/b]. Registration doesn't target the problem (legal non-compliance). Rather, it only further impedes the freedoms of those who are [b]already in compliance[/b] with existing laws. Massachusetts, California. These states have among the most strict firearms laws in the nation, yet have not been able to eliminate firearms use in the commission of crimes. Reply: "That's because those criminals get their guns in other states." Rebut: Then why don't they also commit their crimes in those same states? Even closet liberal Bill Maher has admitted that CCW laws statistically correlate to lower crime rates. Has auto registration affected auto theft or other auto-related crimes? Seriously - examine the logic. Good intentions aren't good enough. Ever. Edited to activate the URL, and to respond to comments, which I am always grateful to read, whether or not they are in agreement with my own.
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 9:10:54 PM EST
[url]www.gunlinks.net/bbs/index.cgi?read=2899[/url]
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 9:44:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/26/2001 9:42:22 PM EST by Jewbroni]
Sounds reasonable to me. In around the year I've been here, I've sat and listened (and lurked) in many conversations, but I cannot really find a reason NOT to have sensible gun registration. Flame me if you will, but to any layman (gun owner or not) it makes sense. Now, I'm in no way for "assault weapon" bans, or ANYTHING that would EVER strip a civilian from owning WHATEVER they wish in the name of protection of self, family, and country. Give me a good reason why I should be pissed that my 9mm shouldn't be registered (for the purposes of me, say, losing it and not having it used illegally for criminal purposes), and I'll consider changing my mind - but I'm like O'Reilly: very reasonable, very sound, and very secure in my beliefs. >> I guess that only makes me %90 pro-gun, but I've never gotten into the anti-registration crowd too much, so I'll stick with that opinion for now...so convince me otherwise already, people!
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 10:23:36 PM EST
Originally Posted By Jewbroni: Sounds reasonable to me. In around the year I've been here, I've sat and listened (and lurked) in many conversations, but I cannot really find a reason NOT to have sensible gun registration. Flame me if you will, but to any layman (gun owner or not) it makes sense. Now, I'm in no way for "assault weapon" bans, or ANYTHING that would EVER strip a civilian from owning WHATEVER they wish in the name of protection of self, family, and country. Give me a good reason why I should be pissed that my 9mm shouldn't be registered (for the purposes of me, say, losing it and not having it used illegally for criminal purposes), and I'll consider changing my mind - but I'm like O'Reilly: very reasonable, very sound, and very secure in my beliefs. >> I guess that only makes me %90 pro-gun, but I've never gotten into the anti-registration crowd too much, so I'll stick with that opinion for now...so convince me otherwise already, people!
View Quote
FOIA. additional hassles, especially concerning moving. ease of potential confiscation, makes bans like a non grandfathered AW ban feasible. bureaucratic costs, it won't be free.
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 10:24:04 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 10:30:43 PM EST
Give me a good reason why I should be pissed that my 9mm shouldn't be registered (for the purposes of me, say, losing it and not having it used illegally for criminal purposes), and I'll consider changing my mind - but I'm like O'Reilly: very reasonable, very sound, and very secure in my beliefs.
View Quote
Total confiscation cannot happen without registration, which is why registration is bad. It's a pre-req for confiscation. By blocking registration, we block confiscation. There is a *tiny* bit more to it than that, though. Registration doesn't serve any other purpose at all, *except* confiscation. Registration does not, in fact [i]cannot[/i] under the Constitution, aid in the pursuit of criminals. This is because of a few odd facts:
Another fact Americans need to understand is that registration is directed to law-abiding citizens, not criminals. Not only do convicted criminals by definition fail to obey the law, but they are constitutionally protected against any registration requirement. In Haynes vs. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled 7-1 that compelling registration by those who may not lawfully possess firearms amounts to a violation of the Fifth Amendment's proscription against forced self-incrimination. In other words, the court said that if someone "realistically can expect that registration [of a firearm] will substantially increase the likelihood of his prosecution," the registration requirement is unconstitutional.
View Quote
That's the first odd thing. The second odd thing? Subsequent courts have ruled this only applies to lawbreakers. Law-abiding citizens, who have no expectation that registering their firearm will increase their chances of being prosecuted, have no fifth amendment protection. So registration in the United States would only apply to law abiding citizens, not criminals at all; which would make it's use as a crime-fighting tool somewhat suspect. Beyond that, there's the fact that registration itself just doesn't work that well as a crime fighting tool, even setting aside the above concerns.
(Source: Edmonton Sun) Canada's controversial gun registry has more than a few ghosts in its machinery. Opponents say the system is so rife with errors it's a waste of many millions of tax dollars. Indeed, cost of the registry has hit a whopping half-billion dollars despite original estimates of $85 million back in 1995. Justice Minister Anne McLellan insisted user fees would eventually cover the entire cost of the registry. Less than $30 million has been collected from fees so far. "This law is simply a waste of money that will take police off the street in order to run a paper-pushing operation," says Saskatchewan Alliance MP Garry Breitkreuz, a leading national critic of the system. "If saving lives were really the government's goal then they could have bought, installed and operated 140 MRIs with the money wasted on the gun registry," said Breitkreuz. "To say the $585-million gun registry is a mess is a gross understatement. It's a disaster," said Breitkreuz.
View Quote
Now, keep in mind that America has a population many times that of Canada's, and that population holds about forty times more guns. (80 million estimated guns in the U.S.) I've heard estimates that the 585$ million figure is roughly ten percent of Canada's entire yearly police budget. Just keep that in mind, while you think about the fourth odd thing:
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 10:31:26 PM EST
(source: article by John Lott.) In theory, if a gun is left at the scene of the crime, licensing and registration will allow a gun to be traced back to its owner. Police have spent tens of thousands of man-hours administering these laws in Hawaii (the one state with both rules). But, amazingly, there has not even been a single case where police claim licensing and registration have been instrumental in identifying the criminal. Why? Criminals very rarely leave their guns at the scene of the crime. This really only happens when the criminals have been seriously wounded or killed. Would-be criminals also virtually never get licenses or register their weapons. So will at least licensing allow for even more comprehensive background checks and thus keep criminals from getting guns in the first place? Unfortunately, there is not a single academic study that finds that background checks reduce violent-crime rates.
View Quote
So, basically, registration of firearms would divert many, many [b]billions[/b] of dollars away from programs that put cops on the street, for the sole benefit of compiling large lists of people who are totally innocent of any actual crimes, and without actually furthering the prosecution of real crimes in any significant way. Big Brother anyone? _________________ ----------------------- [url]www.anotherpundit.com[/url]
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 10:39:18 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/26/2001 10:53:07 PM EST
Well, I just had a *long* debate on another board re: all this, with some people who din't know enough about the issues involved to even do that kind of asking :P I just saw the question here, too, and copy-pasted. (the thread I posted this in originally is here : [url]http://player2player.net/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=67&forum=10&39[/url]. A small little video-game discussion board, where I'm known as "the gun guy," pretty much.)
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 12:33:01 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 12:38:43 AM EST
Yeah. What's even scarier? They're far, far closer to the norm than we are, especially among kids.
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 12:58:36 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 7:59:15 AM EST
Hey, AP, truly excellent answer, but you're off on the gun estimate a bit (unless you meant only handguns). Last numbers I saw were about 240,000,000 +/- 40,000,000. Handguns were estimated to be 60,000,000 +/- 10,000,000. The wide variation is due to the [/i]lack[/i] of registration. Here's another problem I have with registration, sort of a subset of universal confiscation. You're an owner of legally registered firearms, and for whatever reason you don't renew in time and your registration lapses. The government comes and takes your now illegal, "unregistered" firearms. It's already happening where states have registration schemes.
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 8:00:51 AM EST
As to Canada and their scheme, they've required handgun registration since 1935. The current push is to register rifles and shotguns. Here's what the Edmonton Journal (11/9/01) had to say:
"The Canadian Firearms Program began actual implementation in December of 1998. Since that time it has proven to be of significant public benefit," or so claims the Department of Justice's performance report for the year ending March 31, 2001, tabled Thursday in the House of Commons. The report then offers an explanation of just how the national gun registry and licensing program is producing these sanguine results on behalf of Canadians: "The Canadian Firearms Program is achieving its public safety objectives by keeping firearms from those who should not have them. Over 3,000 licences have been refused or revoked by public safety officials." That's typical of Liberals, confusing activity with achievement. The number of firearms murders has gone up by over 20 per cent since their registry opened. Yet merely because the registry has rejected 3,000 of more than two million applicants (a mere 0.15 per cent), the whole scheme is pronounced a roaring success. In truth, even this rejection rate isn't much of an accomplishment. While the government likes to boast it has refused and revoked vastly more licences since the program began than were rejected and revoked in the years before, this is a slight of hand. The volume of applications has been upwards of 10 times higher, too. A corresponding increase in the number of refusals and revocations is to be expected. Indeed, the refusal/revocation rate before the Liberals' firearms scheme commenced was typically 0.09 per cent a year, now it is 0.15, a little bit more than a 50 per cent increase (hardly the 2,700 per cent the Liberals claim), and a lot of that is due, no doubt, to the vast increase in clerical errors caused by the convoluted new licence application. The Firearms Program has done nothing to keep guns out of the hands of those intent to do harm with them. The proof lies in Statistics Canada's homicide statistics for 2000, which came out last week.
View Quote
(cont'd)
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 8:01:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/27/2001 8:00:42 AM EST by KBaker]
(cont'd)
The Liberals may be keeping guns out of the hands of cranky hunters who refuse to answer all the intrusive questions on the licence application, or divorcing men whose vindictive wives file malicious complaints against them in hope the government will help hurt their former husbands by confiscating their firearms, at least temporarily. But the Liberals are doing nothing to prevent those who wish to murder, rob or wound from obtaining guns. Fortunately, there were just 542 homicides in Canada in 2000. That's up slightly over 1999, when 536 murders were committed. But the population rose slightly, too. So the increase in overall murders is neutral. Murders with firearms, though, have risen each year since the implementation of the Liberals' firearms program. Indeed, they've risen 21 per cent in just the two years since the Liberals' licensing and registration schemes went into effect. And since, during that same period, the population has risen only 1.7 per cent, there has been a net rise in gun murders of nearly one-fifth since 1998. Statistically, that's a significant increase, though the numeric increase has not been huge. Canada still has very few gun murders -- just 183 in 2000, up from 151 in 1998. It remains far more likely that Canadians will die by drowning or car accident or household fall than firearms murder. But imagine the handsprings the Liberals' would be performing if there had been a 20 per cent decrease since their registry opened. Instead, there is no fanfare, no coverage at all of the statistics. It is dishonest to insist the firearms program has provided a "significant public benefit" if, during its lifetime, murders committed with guns have gone up nearly 20 per cent, in real terms. Garry Breitkreuz, the Alliance MP from Saskatchewan's Yorkton-Melville, points out another glaring fact in the StatsCan numbers: Exactly two-thirds of firearms murders committed in Canada are committed with handguns (58 per cent of the total), which have been subject to registration for 67 years, or sawed-off shotguns and automatic firearms, which were illegal to own even before the registry. Only one-third of firearms murders are committed with shotguns and hunting rifles. And it's not as though the handguns used in murders are registered handguns, either. StatsCan admits the vast majority were never registered. The Liberals have spent $685 million since 1995, and have 1,800 employees working to license Canadian firearms owners and guns that pose little if any threat to Canadians. And there's a good chance those totals are low. The total spent is probably nearer $900 million and other gun-control employees are likely buried in various government departments so the astonishing total is not obvious to voters and taxpayers. The registry is a sham, especially at a time when more money is needed to fight real threats to our security.
View Quote
All that to register what the Candians expected to be about 3 million gun owners and maybe 12 million shotguns and rifles. We've got maybe 45 million gun owners and some 240 million guns. Extrapolate if you would?
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 8:10:58 AM EST
Well, I always knew that Bill O'Reilly was not a HUGE fan of the Second Amendment, so I'm not at all disheartened by what he's said in the past on his show. I still watch and hope that clearer thoughts on the subject might bring him around to the RKBA. It just goes to show you that no one, repeat, no one has a monopoly on the Truth. Eric The(ExceptMe!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 8:17:51 AM EST
Sorry for being so long-winded on this, but it's one of my hot buttons. Finally, the UK has had registration since the 1920's - and it hasn't made them any safer. What it has done is made ownership more and more difficult until very few people are willing to jump through the hoops. It also allowed them to take every [i]registered[/i] handgun in the country. Since confiscation, handgun related crime (including homicide) has gone [b]up[/b]. Canada has had [i]handgun[/i] registration (as I said) since 1935, and it has had no noticeable effect on their crime rates - criminals still get handguns. Our crime rates are going down - without registration. Now, I ask you, in a country as heavily armed as ours, with a significant portion of the gun-owning population convinced that "registration=confiscation", what kind of compliance do you think you'll get? And what kind of "unintended consequences" will result? Registration is a bad idea, it is completely ineffective as a crime prevention measure, it is [b]way[/b] too expensive (both monetarily and in side-effects), and it's [i]far too late[/i] to have any chance of success even in developing a confiscation database. There are too many guns and too few people willing to comply. It is a law that, like Prohibition, would serve only to make criminals out of common people.
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 8:27:31 AM EST
Anyone else notice this is from 23 May 2000? Who knows what his opinion is now after 9/11. Maybe more conservative or liberal. Anyway, as a member of the C3 community, I already have 5 guns "registered" along with my photos and fingerprints. No problems yet. Hell, they have had registration requirements for C3 since what, 1936 when you had to pay the first tax stamp? I don't know of any that have been "confiscated". Now I'm not advocating any type of registration or bans either, and never have. But, if it were to be passed in the future, we still have a great country compared to many others out there. How many of us have Concealed Weapon Permits? We're registered with them. At least in Alaska you turn over your photos and fingerprints. Face it, if the feds ever decided to "confiscate" guns, they would have a good starting place b/c of the CCW permits. I wouldn't like it, but it also wouldn't be the end of the world.
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 8:40:14 AM EST
Originally Posted By MGNiko: Anyone else notice this is from 23 May 2000? Who knows what his opinion is now after 9/11. Maybe more conservative or liberal. Anyway, as a member of the C3 community, I already have 5 guns "registered" along with my photos and fingerprints. No problems yet. Hell, they have had registration requirements for C3 since what, 1936 when you had to pay the first tax stamp? I don't know of any that have been "confiscated". Now I'm not advocating any type of registration or bans either, and never have. But, if it were to be passed in the future, we still have a great country compared to many others out there. How many of us have Concealed Weapon Permits? We're registered with them. At least in Alaska you turn over your photos and fingerprints. Face it, if the feds ever decided to "confiscate" guns, they would have a good starting place b/c of the CCW permits. I wouldn't like it, but it also wouldn't be the end of the world.
View Quote
Looks like you double-posted. Yes, Class III holders are registered, as are their Class III weapons. So are C&R license holders and their C&R weapons. CCW permit holders, and people who live in states requiring FOID cards and the like are registered. But the Federal government does not have a list of [i]every[/i] firearms owner, nor do they have a list of [i]every[/i] firearm they possess. (I assume you own weapons other than Class III types - does Uncle know exacttly what you've got?) Nor is that what is being proposed. They just want a list of Joe and Jane Law-Abider, and everything [i]they[/i] own. Marvin the Mugger need not register (and you can be sure he won't.)
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 8:55:38 AM EST
Originally Posted By Jewbroni: I cannot really find a reason NOT to have sensible gun registration.
View Quote
The problem is that "sensible" is defined by those creating the laws. To our dismay, those that push for any registration laws are anti gun and will try to utilize registration as a stepping stone for confiscation. Look at the nations that have had registration; most have confiscated the guns that they registered. If there is any fear that a person in office may try to take something from you, don't let him know you have it in the first place!
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 9:21:31 AM EST
Originally Posted By KBaker: Yes, Class III holders are registered, as are their Class III weapons. So are C&R license holders and their C&R weapons. CCW permit holders, and people who live in states requiring FOID cards and the like are registered. But the Federal government does not have a list of [i]every[/i] firearms owner, nor do they have a list of [i]every[/i] firearm they possess. (I assume you own weapons other than Class III types - does Uncle know exacttly what you've got?) Nor is that what is being proposed. They just want a list of Joe and Jane Law-Abider, and everything [i]they[/i] own. quote] Good point, and you're right that criminals will not register. Here's my question. If all of those other people/guns are registered already, and I have 5 guns that are registered C3's, and I have a CCW permit, why should I care if my other 6 guns get registered? I'm joe law abiding citizen too, but I'm already in the registered pot. The feds already know I'm a gun owner with machine guns and supressors. Is you're outlook that we C3 owners, FOID card, FFLs, CCW permit people should not want registration because we should be out to protect folk that don't have any type of current registration restrictions? I could see that.
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 9:35:39 AM EST
Originally Posted By MGNiko: Good point, and you're right that criminals will not register. Here's my question. If all of those other people/guns are registered already, and I have 5 guns that are registered C3's, and I have a CCW permit, why should I care if my other 6 guns get registered? I'm joe law abiding citizen too, but I'm already in the registered pot. The feds already know I'm a gun owner with machine guns and supressors. Is you're outlook that we C3 owners, FOID card, FFLs, CCW permit people should not want registration because we should be out to protect folk that don't have any type of current registration restrictions? I could see that.
View Quote
Yes, you should oppose additional registration. Let's say, for example, that Uncle decides that the $200 transfer fee just isn't enough to keep the BATF registry going, and decides that you should pay $200 [i]annually[/i] on [i]each[/i] of your [i]five[/i] registered C3 weapons? You have a spare $1,000 per year to support your hobby? There's very little to stop them. It would simply be a change in the tax code, and wouldn't require a bill to go through Congress. Or would you try to sell your (now greatly depreciated) inventory to get out from under an onerous tax burden? Or would you just give them up to Uncle when you couldn't find a buyer? Is that confiscation? What would you call it? Think you'll get a great outpouring of support in fighting such a change? You're the owner of "evil machine guns" - and the general public ain't your friend. "No one needs these weapons of mass destruction". "There is no sporting use for fully-automatic weapons". "Nobody hunts Bambi with an Uzi". Registration allows this to happen to all guns - once they know who has what, they can control the flow, and then tax the property. Out of existence. Take a good look at what is required in England to have a firearm permit. I don't [i]ever[/i] support the idea that I have to get my government's [i]permission[/i] to own a gun. The Class III restriction may not be to onerous now, but it doesn't mean it can't become so tomorrow. I obey (to the best of my ability) the gun laws currently on the books - and I have made sure that I live somewhere that the laws are such I can live with - but I draw the line at registration. That one I will [i]not[/i] comply with.
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 9:39:33 AM EST
I didn't know O'Reilly's position on gun control. Thanks M_Blaster
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 9:44:17 AM EST
1) If I could get those who favor gun control to accept one thing that one thing would be.." Criminals will always have guns as they don't obey the law - else they would not be criminals." 2) Gun registration makes criminals of honest, honorable citizens. (See Australia for confirmation.)
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 9:55:31 AM EST
Here's the bottom line..... It aint nobodys damn business what firearms i own!!!
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 10:01:24 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/27/2001 10:00:24 AM EST by cnatra]
Originally Posted By ARben:
Originally Posted By Jewbroni: I cannot really find a reason NOT to have sensible gun registration.
View Quote
The problem is that "sensible" is defined by those creating the laws. To our dismay, those that push for any registration laws are anti gun and will try to utilize registration as a stepping stone for confiscation. Look at the nations that have had registration; most have confiscated the guns that they registered.
View Quote
Yeah! What he said!
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 10:57:24 AM EST
Originally Posted By Jewbroni: Sounds reasonable to me. In around the year I've been here, I've sat and listened (and lurked) in many conversations, but I cannot really find a reason NOT to have sensible gun registration. Flame me if you will, but to any layman (gun owner or not) it makes sense. Now, I'm in no way for "assault weapon" bans, or ANYTHING that would EVER strip a civilian from owning WHATEVER they wish in the name of protection of self, family, and country. Give me a good reason why I should be pissed that my 9mm shouldn't be registered (for the purposes of me, say, losing it and not having it used illegally for criminal purposes), and I'll consider changing my mind - but I'm like O'Reilly: very reasonable, very sound, and very secure in my beliefs. >> I guess that only makes me %90 pro-gun, but I've never gotten into the anti-registration crowd too much, so I'll stick with that opinion for now...so convince me otherwise already, people!
View Quote
I'm sure your grandparents felt the same way when Adolph registered them....
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 11:07:10 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/27/2001 11:02:59 AM EST by Torf]
This thread got hijacked a little. Back to the point. Bill O'Reilly is a populist first and foremost. He will never take a position that he feels is not popular with a large portion of the nation. Some examples of his populist opinions. 1. SUV's and trucks ought to be banned from civilian ownership, failing that, they should be taxed into rarity to combat environmental destruction. 2. Driving with Cell Phones should be made a crime. 3. Cigarette and gun manufacturers should be held strictly liable for their products. 4. Large dog breeds should be controlled. German Shepherds, Dobermans, Rottweilers, Pit Bulls, are dangerous and should be strictly regulated. Civilian ownership should be banned. 5. Global Warming is real and the US is at fault primairly because of our SUV's. The Kyoto treaty should be ratified by every nation on earth. 6. HMO's and Insurance companies are evil, across the board. 7. Campaign Finance Reform should be the law of the land. 8. Only working people (defined as anyone who is making $1 less than you)deserve tax cuts. The rich (You, and those making more than you) don't need tax cuts. Companies (Individual taxpayers under federal law) don't need tax cuts. 9. Wearing fur is wrong. 10. He accused Bush of trying to poison kids' drinking water by adding arsenic. 11. Only hunters have a legitimate need for guns. Semi-auto and auto guns are not needed. No one has any legitimate need for a military style weapon. Bill is beginning to see the need for handguns for defensive purposes, but only after extensive state or federal training and background checks. Disclaimer: These are not direct quotes. These are opinions I have gathered and summarized from watching a couple years worth of the "Factor". He says things I agree with also, but his fundamental belief in the Constitution is different than mine, hence any agreements with him are purely coincidental.
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 11:11:51 AM EST
Originally Posted By Torf: 8. Only working people (defined as anyone who is making $1 less than you)deserve tax cuts. The rich (You, and those making more than you) don't need tax cuts. Companies (Individual taxpayers under federal law) don't need tax cuts.
View Quote
Hmm... I don't agree with that one. Bill's earned himself a [i]very[/i] good income, and everything [b]I've[/b] seen him say about taxes is that they're too high across the board, and that waste in government is the reason. Bill's rich and doesn't like his tax bracket. Other than that, I think you hit his positions square on the head.
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 11:15:14 AM EST
Originally Posted By KBaker:
Originally Posted By Torf: 8. Only working people (defined as anyone who is making $1 less than you)deserve tax cuts. The rich (You, and those making more than you) don't need tax cuts. Companies (Individual taxpayers under federal law) don't need tax cuts.
View Quote
Hmm... I don't agree with that one. Bill's earned himself a [i]very[/i] good income, and everything [b]I've[/b] seen him say about taxes is that they're too high across the board, and that waste in government is the reason. Bill's rich and doesn't like his tax bracket. Other than that, I think you hit his positions square on the head.
View Quote
I don't claim to represent his positions 100% accurately, but I have detected a little opposition to Bush's tax cut. It seems like he is always trying to get tax cuts more targeted towards the lower end. Your point is taken however. I probably exaggerated a little.
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 12:12:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/27/2001 12:08:55 PM EST by shooterX308]
Originally Posted By Jewbroni: Sounds reasonable to me. In around the year I've been here, I've sat and listened (and lurked) in many conversations, but I cannot really find a reason NOT to have sensible gun registration. Flame me if you will, but to any layman (gun owner or not) it makes sense. Now, I'm in no way for "assault weapon" bans, or ANYTHING that would EVER strip a civilian from owning WHATEVER they wish in the name of protection of self, family, and country. Give me a good reason why I should be pissed that my 9mm shouldn't be registered (for the purposes of me, say, losing it and not having it used illegally for criminal purposes), and I'll consider changing my mind - but I'm like O'Reilly: very reasonable, very sound, and very secure in my beliefs. >> I guess that only makes me %90 pro-gun, but I've never gotten into the anti-registration crowd too much, so I'll stick with that opinion for now...so convince me otherwise already, people!
View Quote
Shit. From a Jew, yet - you haven't learned much from your history, making you the dumbest thing since a bag of rocks. Either that, or Imbroglio need to step down as chief button pusher. I guess you [i]are[/i] all cool GIFs and tag lines. Come get'em, [i]goya[/i]. Don't look at this as a failure to communicate logically and with a cool head; consider this a much needed dope-slap upside your nappy, pointed head. shooter [devil]
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 12:40:47 PM EST
I don't think what Jewbroni said deserves a bitch slap. He was simply stating his opinion. Just like I stated my opinion. If you really want to convert people to your train of thought, treating them like garbage is not the right first step. If someone asks a question or states an opinion, spouting off like a moron gets you no where. I have seen good reasons against registration posted here and have seen people with high blood pressure act like little kids. Good topic though. I agree with Bill O about 80% of the time.
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 12:58:40 PM EST
Hate to rain on some of your parades but Jewbroni is not jewish, its just a nickname. Ask him sometime.
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 4:16:41 AM EST
Jewbroni raises a good question about whether registration is as evil as people make it out to be. Previous posters have already demolished the value of registration as a crime fighting tool. Let me ask a few constitutional questions. The Second Amendment protects the inalienable right of the people to bear arms. The government requires that all arms be registered. If this does not violate the Second Amendment, I have the following questions: Will requiring you to register your books, video movies, writings and newspaper subscriptions violate your First Amendment rights? Will the mandatory registration of church officials and church members violate the First Amendment? Will the mandatory registration of newspapers, publishers and journalists violate the First Amendment? Bear in mind that in every gun registration law that exists today, failing to register your guns - your own property - is a [u]crime[/u] and punishable with jail time, and usuallly with forfeiture of the unregistered firearms. Would similar punishment make First Amendment registrations unconstitutional by exerting on chilling effect on people attempting to exercise their rights? If and when the Supreme Court rules that the Second protects an individual right to own guns, be prepared to make these arguments. Jewbroni, thanks for bringing this up.
Link Posted: 11/30/2001 1:21:32 PM EST
Originally Posted By shooterX308: Shit. From a Jew, yet - you haven't learned much from your history, making you the dumbest thing since a bag of rocks. Either that, or Imbroglio need to step down as chief button pusher. I guess you [i]are[/i] all cool GIFs and tag lines. Come get'em, [i]goya[/i]. Don't look at this as a failure to communicate logically and with a cool head; consider this a much needed dope-slap upside your nappy, pointed head. shooter [devil]
View Quote
I would make comment about your ancestors picking cotton seeds in my great grandfather's front yard, but I'll save it for another place off of the boards. Grow up, inferior.
The problem is that "sensible" is defined by those creating the laws. To our dismay, those that push for any registration laws are anti gun and will try to utilize registration as a stepping stone for confiscation. Look at the nations that have had registration; most have confiscated the guns that they registered. If there is any fear that a person in office may try to take something from you, don't let him know you have it in the first place!
View Quote
I completely agree. All of you know that I'm as pro RKBA as any other red-blooded American here on this board, and in know way would I agree with anything that would strip away our 2nd Amendment - registration included. If the day comes where men in black come to steal my registered guns, then I'll have definately made a mistake in my judgement. The point I make in weapon registration is similar to the point I make in Communism - I like it, and it's inherintly "good", but it [i]ONLY works in theory[/i]. I'm apalled by today's version of gun registration, the time restraints, the red tape, and all of the hassles it brings with it. But in ideal, I like the idea of gun registration for the sheer fact of proving me innocent of any crime if I were to lose my weapons. Would I call today's gun control reasonable? Nope - so like Bill, I too "am in favor of [b]reasonable[/b] gun control". ARBen hit it on the head: reasonable is in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder is usually a knee-jerk liberal [:\]
Link Posted: 11/30/2001 1:33:25 PM EST
Originally Posted By Jewbroni: ARBen hit it on the head: reasonable is in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder is usually a knee-jerk liberal [:\]
View Quote
"The only thing worse than knee-jerk conservatism is knee-jerk liberalism. At least with knee-jerk conservatism, you know what the problems will be after you take their advice."
Link Posted: 11/30/2001 1:49:15 PM EST
Originally Posted By ckapsl: Jewbroni raises a good question about whether registration is as evil as people make it out to be. Previous posters have already demolished the value of registration as a crime fighting tool. Let me ask a few constitutional questions. The Second Amendment protects the inalienable right of the people to bear arms. The government requires that all arms be registered. If this does not violate the Second Amendment, I have the following questions: Will requiring you to register your books, video movies, writings and newspaper subscriptions violate your First Amendment rights? Will the mandatory registration of church officials and church members violate the First Amendment? Will the mandatory registration of newspapers, publishers and journalists violate the First Amendment? Bear in mind that in every gun registration law that exists today, failing to register your guns - your own property - is a [u]crime[/u] and punishable with jail time, and usuallly with forfeiture of the unregistered firearms. Would similar punishment make First Amendment registrations unconstitutional by exerting on chilling effect on people attempting to exercise their rights? If and when the Supreme Court rules that the Second protects an individual right to own guns, be prepared to make these arguments. Jewbroni, thanks for bringing this up.
View Quote
Now that's how to argue, point well taken [:)]
Top Top