|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | Had lunch today with a friend of mine who owns a couple handguns and knows about guns becauae he had prior experience in security.
Anyway, regarding bump stocks, he said you can accomplish the same thing and probably better with a shoe string or a belt loop. Is this true?? Jeezus. |
yeah, I guess kind of in the same way you could plug a dam with chewing gum....I mean in theory if all the elements were exactly perfect and stable, there is a chance you could create the same effect.....but its more likely to have a 99.9999% fail rate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, I follow you. I actually favor getting rid of external mags entirely, and I don't think we need the assault rifle form factor/accessories either. On the street that is.
You might be surprised to know that I'm ok with not banning guns, or even banning types of guns overall. I think the major thing is who can have them, how they are licensed, and where and how you can carry them. Some weapons just dont have a legit street use that outweighs the public interest.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | | Quote: | 12 Rifles in Gunman's Hotel Room Had Bump Stocks; 33 Guns Purchased in Past Year
(CNSNews.com) - The 64-year-old man who opened fire on Las Vegas concert-goers Sunday night installed bump stocks on 12 of the semi-automatic rifles found in his hotel room, an ATF agent told "CBS This Morning."
Bump stocks are among the devices, legal at the moment, that allow a semi-automatic weapon to fire continuously, but weapons equipped with bump stocks do not fall into the machine gun category.
"A semi-automatic weapon with a bump-fire stock on it is not an illegal machine gun," Jill Snyder, a special agent in charge at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told CBS's Norah O'Donnell.
On Tuesday afternoon, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Sheriff Joseph Lombardo told reporters that the gunman had modified his weapons to make them fire faster.
"ATF is participating in that evaluation," he told a news conference. "I can't give you an answer on whether any of them are automatic or not, but we are aware of a device called a bump stock and that enables an individual to speed up the discharge of ammunition. I don't want to give you any more details than that, but in partnership with the FBI, the ATF, they are sending those weapons back East to the FBI crime lab for further evaluation," Lombardo said.
ATF Special Agent Snyder was more forthcoming with information about the gunman's firearms:
"From October 2016 to September 28, 2017, he purchased 33 firearms, majority of them rifles," Snyder told CBS. "We wouldn't get notified of the purchases of the rifles, we would only get notified if there was a multiple sale, which would be two or more handguns in an individual purchase," she added.
Snyder also told CBS that the gunman used magazines holding 60 to 100 rounds each.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/12-rifles-gunmans-hotel-room-had-bump-stocks-33-guns-purchased-past-year |
So here's some good starting points that would actually address this specific incident, and no reasonable gun owner should be opposed to:
- very large (>30) capacity magazines
- ATF notification when someone tries to purchase weapons within a close enough time-frame (not just 2 or more each purchase)
- eliminate the legality of bump stocks and cranks
None of these items going away would affect any sport shooters. |
I have no issue with any of these...but we would need to flush out the 2nd point with specifics....and I have doubts we would agree. How would the ATF know if a person went to different locations? Records are only maintained at the POS location...and Federal law prohibits the federal government from collecting firearm sales records in a central repository. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | Quote: | 12 Rifles in Gunman's Hotel Room Had Bump Stocks; 33 Guns Purchased in Past Year
(CNSNews.com) - The 64-year-old man who opened fire on Las Vegas concert-goers Sunday night installed bump stocks on 12 of the semi-automatic rifles found in his hotel room, an ATF agent told "CBS This Morning."
Bump stocks are among the devices, legal at the moment, that allow a semi-automatic weapon to fire continuously, but weapons equipped with bump stocks do not fall into the machine gun category.
"A semi-automatic weapon with a bump-fire stock on it is not an illegal machine gun," Jill Snyder, a special agent in charge at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told CBS's Norah O'Donnell.
On Tuesday afternoon, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Sheriff Joseph Lombardo told reporters that the gunman had modified his weapons to make them fire faster.
"ATF is participating in that evaluation," he told a news conference. "I can't give you an answer on whether any of them are automatic or not, but we are aware of a device called a bump stock and that enables an individual to speed up the discharge of ammunition. I don't want to give you any more details than that, but in partnership with the FBI, the ATF, they are sending those weapons back East to the FBI crime lab for further evaluation," Lombardo said.
ATF Special Agent Snyder was more forthcoming with information about the gunman's firearms:
"From October 2016 to September 28, 2017, he purchased 33 firearms, majority of them rifles," Snyder told CBS. "We wouldn't get notified of the purchases of the rifles, we would only get notified if there was a multiple sale, which would be two or more handguns in an individual purchase," she added.
Snyder also told CBS that the gunman used magazines holding 60 to 100 rounds each.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/12-rifles-gunmans-hotel-room-had-bump-stocks-33-guns-purchased-past-year |
So here's some good starting points that would actually address this specific incident, and no reasonable gun owner should be opposed to:
- very large (>30) capacity magazines
- ATF notification when someone tries to purchase weapons within a close enough time-frame (not just 2 or more each purchase)
- eliminate the legality of bump stocks and cranks
None of these items going away would affect any sport shooters. |
I have no issue with any of these...but we would need to flush out the 2nd point with specifics....and I have doubts we would agree. How would the ATF know if a person went to different locations? Records are only maintained at the POS location...and Federal law prohibits the federal government from collecting firearm sales records in a central repository. |
That's the law that needs to change.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | That's the law that needs to change. |
(record screeching sound)....and we disagree once again  I would never support a central repository. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | That's the law that needs to change. |
(record screeching sound)....and we disagree once again I would never support a central repository. |
Why is owning a firearm a privacy issue?
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | Ok, I follow you. I actually favor getting rid of external mags entirely, and I don't think we need the assault rifle form factor/accessories either. On the street that is.
You might be surprised to know that I'm ok with not banning guns, or even banning types of guns overall. I think the major thing is who can have them, how they are licensed, and where and how you can carry them. Some weapons just dont have a legit street use that outweighs the public interest. |
One issue that rarely gets attention, and probably is outside the lines for this conversation....but the fact that we take 2nd Amendment rights away from non-violent criminals. If a person is convicted of felony tax evasion, is there really any relevant support that suggests it benefits society for them to not own a gun? Non-violent drug crimes that do not involve a weapon?
There is evidence that many of these laws were enacted to limit the ability of minorities to effect change....which is why the other "right" lost is voting rights. It is well known there was a time when many southern law enforcement agencies actively sought to strap felony convictions on minorities to ensure they could not have firearms or vote the elected officials out of office. Another complicating factor is that the felony conviction, especially of poor or unskilled/uneducated individuals often diminishes their income and causes them to reside in less safe neighborhoods....which increases their potential need for self defense in the home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fwiw, i dont believe in losing the right to vote...
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | That's the law that needs to change. |
(record screeching sound)....and we disagree once again I would never support a central repository. |
Why is owning a firearm a privacy issue? |
I could turn that around and ask that question about many other things that we choose to not make government aware of.....why do we not allow the government maintain records of who we vote for? Why do we not allow the government to maintain records on how much alcohol we consume?
It just simply is....I have the right to own a firearm, and unless I commit a crime the federal government has no business interfering with that right, which means they have no need for a registry to know that I own that firearm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | That's the law that needs to change. |
(record screeching sound)....and we disagree once again I would never support a central repository. |
Why is owning a firearm a privacy issue? |
I could turn that around and ask that question about many other things that we choose to not make government aware of.....why do we not allow the government maintain records of who we vote for? Why do we not allow the government to maintain records on how much alcohol we consume?
It just simply is....I have the right to own a firearm, and unless I commit a crime the federal government has no business interfering with that right, which means they have no need for a registry to know that I own that firearm. |
Ok, I understand that, but we do have to provide information to register and stay registered to vote. And I think you would admit that who I vote for and how much alcohol I bought are a significantly different bearing than owning a gun or many guns. The right to bear does not imply in any way the right to bear anonymously. There is ample precedent to requiring people to register to engage in their guaranteed rights.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | That's the law that needs to change. |
(record screeching sound)....and we disagree once again I would never support a central repository. |
Why is owning a firearm a privacy issue? |
I could turn that around and ask that question about many other things that we choose to not make government aware of.....why do we not allow the government maintain records of who we vote for? Why do we not allow the government to maintain records on how much alcohol we consume?
It just simply is....I have the right to own a firearm, and unless I commit a crime the federal government has no business interfering with that right, which means they have no need for a registry to know that I own that firearm. |
Ok, I understand that, but we do have to provide information to register and stay registered to vote. And I think you would admit that who I vote for and how much alcohol I bought are a significantly different bearing than owning a gun or many guns. The right to bear does not imply in any way the right to bear anonymously. There is ample precedent to requiring people to register to engage in their guaranteed rights. |
let's quit beating around the bush....we both know it is about potential confiscation. Irregardless of how much someone may claim that is unlikely....the fact is a national registry would make it infinitely times more easy....and lets not pretend societies have not taken this action previously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | That's the law that needs to change. |
(record screeching sound)....and we disagree once again I would never support a central repository. |
Why is owning a firearm a privacy issue? |
I could turn that around and ask that question about many other things that we choose to not make government aware of.....why do we not allow the government maintain records of who we vote for? Why do we not allow the government to maintain records on how much alcohol we consume?
It just simply is....I have the right to own a firearm, and unless I commit a crime the federal government has no business interfering with that right, which means they have no need for a registry to know that I own that firearm. |
Ok, I understand that, but we do have to provide information to register and stay registered to vote. And I think you would admit that who I vote for and how much alcohol I bought are a significantly different bearing than owning a gun or many guns. The right to bear does not imply in any way the right to bear anonymously. There is ample precedent to requiring people to register to engage in their guaranteed rights. |
let's quit beating around the bush....we both know it is about potential confiscation. Irregardless of how much someone may claim that is unlikely....the fact is a national registry would make it infinitely times more easy....and lets not pretend societies have not taken this action previously. |
I wasn't beating around the bush, I was just politely waiting for you to get there at your own pace, since itnisnt my argument. If we get to the point where they are illegally coming for your gun, a registry is the tiniest problem in that scenario. It ranks right up there with arguing having guns in case we need to stop a tyrannical government. Both of those are abstract issues with little to no real world application.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
My concerns over a national registry would be:
- The government. IMO, they're a bureaucratic mess and they can't even print me a driver's license without a typo on it. Can I realistically expect them to manage such a program without inaccuracies and mistakes? I don't really trust the government to get much right so I guess I admit to being a bit biased here.
- The expense. Seems like it would be an extremely expensive program (in the billions) and I'm not entirely convinced it would have much, if any impact at all. Are all those inner city gang members going to register their guns?
- Application. This is the one red flag for me. If there was a national registry, who would have access to it? Would it be available to the public? What about local police? I'd presume you'd have to give police access to it so they can check to see if a suspect owns a handgun (assuming it was even registered).
Would this give a police officer probable cause to search your vehicle or draw his weapon at you during a routine traffic stop if the database claims you're a handgun owner? Seems like it would, if the police officer knows you own a firearm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | I wasn't beating around the bush, I was just politely waiting for you to get there at your own pace, since itnisnt my argument. |
not accusing "you"....just saying we both knew where that debate was going.
| Omar Little wrote: | | If we get to the point where they are illegally coming for your gun, a registry is the tiniest problem in that scenario. It ranks right up there with arguing having guns in case we need to stop a tyrannical government. Both of those are abstract issues with little to no real world application. |
so basically that would never happen in America? Ok, but those words were also said by a Chinese American on February 18, 1942...only to find himself in a Japanese Internment Camp a week later (yes, our dumb government officials detained many Asian Americans that were not of Japanese descent).....or was that the statement that Jack Daniel made to James Beam in 1919? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | That's the law that needs to change. |
(record screeching sound)....and we disagree once again I would never support a central repository. |
Why is owning a firearm a privacy issue? |
I could turn that around and ask that question about many other things that we choose to not make government aware of.....why do we not allow the government maintain records of who we vote for? Why do we not allow the government to maintain records on how much alcohol we consume?
It just simply is....I have the right to own a firearm, and unless I commit a crime the federal government has no business interfering with that right, which means they have no need for a registry to know that I own that firearm. |
Ok, I understand that, but we do have to provide information to register and stay registered to vote. And I think you would admit that who I vote for and how much alcohol I bought are a significantly different bearing than owning a gun or many guns. The right to bear does not imply in any way the right to bear anonymously. There is ample precedent to requiring people to register to engage in their guaranteed rights. |
And there are many things we do keep records of such as motor vehicles. Every car that is bought - retail or private party - needs to be registered with the DMV. Also, you can't drive that car without training and being tested for your competency to drive that vehicle. You know why? Safety. There comes a point where public safety and security outweighs ones own anonymity - weapons that can kill should most assuredly be in that realm. It's both shocking and saddening that people would attempt to argue otherwise.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | I wasn't beating around the bush, I was just politely waiting for you to get there at your own pace, since itnisnt my argument. |
not accusing "you"....just saying we both knew where that debate was going.
| Omar Little wrote: | | If we get to the point where they are illegally coming for your gun, a registry is the tiniest problem in that scenario. It ranks right up there with arguing having guns in case we need to stop a tyrannical government. Both of those are abstract issues with little to no real world application. |
so basically that would never happen in America? Ok, but those words were also said by a Chinese American on February 18, 1942...only to find himself in a Japanese Internment Camp a week later (yes, our dumb government officials detained many Asian Americans that were not of Japanese descent).....or was that the statement that Jack Daniel made to James Beam in 1919? |
Yeah, i had a good idea where it was going, but again, trying not to pre-suppose your opinion. And I don't understand where I said it could never happen? Almost anything can happen. I'm just saying there's two contexts in which they would be coming to confiscate guns: a lawful banning of them, or an authoritarian takeover of government. And in either case, I don't see the registry being the issue you'd most likely have taking primacy.
I'm a big believer in individual freedom and privacy. I favor drug legalization, I oppose the patriot act (and Obama reinforcing it), I don't believe in stop and frisk or warrantless wiretapping, etc. I also don't believe you can ban guns under current constitutional provisions.
I do believe in the right if the government to regulate appropriately on public safety issues, and it would seem possession of deadly weapons is in that category, and I do believe we should be expecting someone who exrcises their constitutional right to arm themself to at least follow some proper procedures that provide some measure of safety and freedom to their fellow citizens as well.
Yes, they could come for your guns, but they could do a lot of things, and worst case doomsday scenarios, possible or not, are not the basis of prudent law.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | It just simply is....I have the right to own a firearm, and unless I commit a crime the federal government has no business interfering with that right, which means they have no need for a registry to know that I own that firearm. |
Responding to this and subsequent posts at once -- personally I think you're touting one huge slippery-slope fallacy. That said, let me ask one question. Leaving aside all of the potential downsides you might bring up for just a moment, I want to concentrate on your "they have no need..." for a second.
Do you think that IF a national registry existed, and IF it raised a red flag because Stephen Paddock bought 33 guns in a short period of time, that there could have been some downstream societal benefit? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17249
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | That's the law that needs to change. |
(record screeching sound)....and we disagree once again I would never support a central repository. |
Why is owning a firearm a privacy issue? |
I could turn that around and ask that question about many other things that we choose to not make government aware of.....why do we not allow the government maintain records of who we vote for? Why do we not allow the government to maintain records on how much alcohol we consume?
It just simply is....I have the right to own a firearm, and unless I commit a crime the federal government has no business interfering with that right, which means they have no need for a registry to know that I own that firearm. |
Ok, I understand that, but we do have to provide information to register and stay registered to vote. And I think you would admit that who I vote for and how much alcohol I bought are a significantly different bearing than owning a gun or many guns. The right to bear does not imply in any way the right to bear anonymously. There is ample precedent to requiring people to register to engage in their guaranteed rights. |
None of those rights were historically meant to be a check on the government though. You may say it's not relevant, and you may have a good argument, but that was one of the intents behind it, and it has to be considered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144474
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LarryCoon wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | It just simply is....I have the right to own a firearm, and unless I commit a crime the federal government has no business interfering with that right, which means they have no need for a registry to know that I own that firearm. |
Responding to this and subsequent posts at once -- personally I think you're touting one huge slippery-slope fallacy. That said, let me ask one question. Leaving aside all of the potential downsides you might bring up for just a moment, I want to concentrate on your "they have no need..." for a second.
Do you think that IF a national registry existed, and IF it raised a red flag because Stephen Paddock bought 33 guns in a short period of time, that there could have been some downstream societal benefit? |
Sure, if you could draw a parallel between buying a lot of guns in a short period and mass killing (I say if because I honestly don’t know if that parallel exists or not). I personally have no issues with registration, if the government gets to the point of seizing my weapons, those weapons are of no use to me, I won’t be defeating the government. What about existing guns? What information would they require? Some of us have owned them for years, I have no idea where or when some were purchased. I was surprised to learn that one was manufactured in 1875, of course I have no idea about its history. Will they be content in knowing I have it, or will they want to know if it was involved in a crime? They can make registration easy or extremely difficult, and if it is difficult, many would just ignore it.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67716
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I may be in a minority about this but I wish they'd stop constantly airing the Vegas shooting and likes, it may incentivize copycats.
For a time it may be solace for victims families but for how long? I'm for allowing the healing to start without constant media reminders.
I don't understand people of look at me mindset, they seldom survive to see that carnage they create.
Having said that I offer sincere condolences to the families affected.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | That's the law that needs to change. |
(record screeching sound)....and we disagree once again I would never support a central repository. |
Why is owning a firearm a privacy issue? |
I could turn that around and ask that question about many other things that we choose to not make government aware of.....why do we not allow the government maintain records of who we vote for? Why do we not allow the government to maintain records on how much alcohol we consume?
It just simply is....I have the right to own a firearm, and unless I commit a crime the federal government has no business interfering with that right, which means they have no need for a registry to know that I own that firearm. |
Ok, I understand that, but we do have to provide information to register and stay registered to vote. And I think you would admit that who I vote for and how much alcohol I bought are a significantly different bearing than owning a gun or many guns. The right to bear does not imply in any way the right to bear anonymously. There is ample precedent to requiring people to register to engage in their guaranteed rights. |
None of those rights were historically meant to be a check on the government though. You may say it's not relevant, and you may have a good argument, but that was one of the intents behind it, and it has to be considered. |
That's correct. The new US government enacted the same prohibition of and penalty for taking up arms against your country as the british did. Further, the second amendment was specifically put ofnthe bill of rights to induce two slave holding states to ratify the other 9 amendments, on the grounds of their concerns for the preservation of escaped slave hunting militias.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17249
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | That's the law that needs to change. |
(record screeching sound)....and we disagree once again I would never support a central repository. |
Why is owning a firearm a privacy issue? |
I could turn that around and ask that question about many other things that we choose to not make government aware of.....why do we not allow the government maintain records of who we vote for? Why do we not allow the government to maintain records on how much alcohol we consume?
It just simply is....I have the right to own a firearm, and unless I commit a crime the federal government has no business interfering with that right, which means they have no need for a registry to know that I own that firearm. |
Ok, I understand that, but we do have to provide information to register and stay registered to vote. And I think you would admit that who I vote for and how much alcohol I bought are a significantly different bearing than owning a gun or many guns. The right to bear does not imply in any way the right to bear anonymously. There is ample precedent to requiring people to register to engage in their guaranteed rights. |
None of those rights were historically meant to be a check on the government though. You may say it's not relevant, and you may have a good argument, but that was one of the intents behind it, and it has to be considered. |
That's correct. The new US government enacted the same prohibition of and penalty for taking up arms against your country as the british did. Further, the second amendment was specifically put ofnthe bill of rights to induce two slave holding states to ratify the other 9 amendments, on the grounds of their concerns for the preservation of escaped slave hunting militias. |
That's a relatively recent argument (based on a paper in 1998 and only really cropping up around the internet in 2013), and hotly contested. There are more arguments that it was not about slavery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | | That's a relatively recent argument (based on a paper in 1998 and only really cropping up around the internet in 2013), and hotly contested. There are more arguments that it was not about slavery. |
I think I commented on that article back when I still participated in The Political Thread. I won't call the article bogus (though the author was, in fact, named Bogus), but I did not find it persuasive. The author admits that no one ever said or wrote that the second amendment was about slavery. Instead, he points to a variety of surrounding circumstances as circumstantial evidence that it was about slave revolts. That's pretty thin. The Founding Fathers were usually fairly blunt about what they were doing. Even if this was an exception and they were being coy, wouldn't there be a record of someone from the south telling his constituents, "Look! This amendment helps us suppress slave revolts!"
It's not completely implausible, but I wasn't persuaded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough. I find the argument and evidence persuasive, but I can agreeably disagree with you on that. I do think we can agree that preparing to rise up against the government was not the purpose of the second amendment.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FWIW, I was always taught that a fledgling nation with broad borders with many hostile peoples (not casting a judgment on "hostile natives", merely denoting the thought process) and powers on or across them, having a relatively small military, and the time it would take to marshal and deliver troops to the site of attack, necessitated the idea of a citizen militia. There is alos the English common law idea of a man's home being his castle and all...
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
