Ladies and Gentlemen, Eunice Moscoso called as she said she would this morning. In talking with her I was impressed with her sense of fairness and ability to discuss both sides of the gun ownership issue. I will be sending her a link to this part of TFL for her to read some of the posts. I also invited her to post her questions here for responses. If she does, be good kindegardners and share your toys and play nice! I know you will. Bless all of you for the thoughtful words and I know you will give Eunice a lot of background for her article on licensure and registration.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ok, you got me into this... Continued
- Thread starter sumabich
- Start date
I'm walking a thin line here - don't want to clutter the board with a duplicate, but sometimes think just a URL is a turnoff.
Well, Ms. Moscoso, welcome to the board.
Here's an angle on potential abuse of licensing that would surely be turned against firearms.
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=27841
Well, Ms. Moscoso, welcome to the board.
Here's an angle on potential abuse of licensing that would surely be turned against firearms.
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=27841
Here's a few very simple points.
Ragistation is a precursor to confiscation.
Try this thought process. Hand someone a piece of paper with the model number and serial number of one of your handguns. Ask them to place it in their pocket.
Next, ask them, "How will that piece of paper keep me from comitting a crime with my firearm". After this point it is quite obvious that when it comes to criminals and psychos, they cannot be stopped from doing anything - so why the registration Mr. Governemnt?
Oh yes, it's that confiscation thing, isn't it?...
It is very important when discussing "registration" that there is a clear distinction made between "criminals and psychos" - and - law abiding citizens.
CMOS
------------------
NRA? Good. Now join the GOA!
The NRA is our shield, the GOA will be our sword.
Ragistation is a precursor to confiscation.
Try this thought process. Hand someone a piece of paper with the model number and serial number of one of your handguns. Ask them to place it in their pocket.
Next, ask them, "How will that piece of paper keep me from comitting a crime with my firearm". After this point it is quite obvious that when it comes to criminals and psychos, they cannot be stopped from doing anything - so why the registration Mr. Governemnt?
Oh yes, it's that confiscation thing, isn't it?...
It is very important when discussing "registration" that there is a clear distinction made between "criminals and psychos" - and - law abiding citizens.
CMOS
------------------
NRA? Good. Now join the GOA!
The NRA is our shield, the GOA will be our sword.
Coincidentally......... I just emailed to our Sacramento Bee newspaper editor regarding the new Field Poll that 75% of CaLi-phony-ans want registration:
Editor,
So, 75% of Californians are in favor of gun registration. (Bee 7/12/2000) Okay. I
have a .38 pistol. The serial number is 782317. Now....if some bureaucrat puts that
information on a piece of paper and puts it in a filing cabinet, exactly what crime can be
prevented?
I am also licensed by the state to carry that gun concealed anywhere (except a school
or a bar) but whenever I buy another gun, I still have to wait the 10 days, provide proof of
firearms knowledge, and have a background check. Now, what more “control” do we
need?
Do these people realize that a felon can NOT register his gun? Since he possesses it
illegally already, he would be violating his fifth amendment rights by incriminating himself
so, by law, no felons could register. What use is the registration then? Or is it just a
request for some more fees?
What are these people thinking? Are they thinking? Or are they just listening to
crazy rhetoric and fear mongering among the power elite who would be happier if there
were no private guns to offer resistance to further intrusions into our supposedly
“inalienable” rights?
I ask the 75% to consider that if they were in that McDonald’s in southern California
where the gunman killed many of the patrons several years ago and I had been in there
having a burger, many would probably not have died.
Please. Start thinking. Keep felons in jail. Register stupidity, not guns.
Editor,
So, 75% of Californians are in favor of gun registration. (Bee 7/12/2000) Okay. I
have a .38 pistol. The serial number is 782317. Now....if some bureaucrat puts that
information on a piece of paper and puts it in a filing cabinet, exactly what crime can be
prevented?
I am also licensed by the state to carry that gun concealed anywhere (except a school
or a bar) but whenever I buy another gun, I still have to wait the 10 days, provide proof of
firearms knowledge, and have a background check. Now, what more “control” do we
need?
Do these people realize that a felon can NOT register his gun? Since he possesses it
illegally already, he would be violating his fifth amendment rights by incriminating himself
so, by law, no felons could register. What use is the registration then? Or is it just a
request for some more fees?
What are these people thinking? Are they thinking? Or are they just listening to
crazy rhetoric and fear mongering among the power elite who would be happier if there
were no private guns to offer resistance to further intrusions into our supposedly
“inalienable” rights?
I ask the 75% to consider that if they were in that McDonald’s in southern California
where the gunman killed many of the patrons several years ago and I had been in there
having a burger, many would probably not have died.
Please. Start thinking. Keep felons in jail. Register stupidity, not guns.
CMOS, buddy...
I see your point, but your demonstration isn't fully representative of the registration and licensing situation. Let me see if I can improve upon it...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Hand someone a piece of paper with the model and serial number of one of your handguns. Ask them to place it in their pocket.
Next, ask them, "EXACTLY HOW will the government knowing that *I* have a handgun stop *criminals* (who won't register their guns) from committing crimes?"[/quote]
In addition, the President, HCI, the VPC, and other anti-gun organizations have PROMISED us for YEARS that once a certain law is passed, it will significantly impact criminals' ability to get guns.
However, after the law is passed, I've yet to see ANY of them hold a press conference with criminals testifying how hard it is to get a gun. I've yet to year, "Ladies and gentleman, it used to be easy to get a gun. I used to be able to walk down any street and buy a gun within the hour. But thanks to President Clinton and the Brady Law, I can't get a gun anymore. Since the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, we can't get our hands on assault weapons either. And even if I was lucky enough to get my hands on one, I'd be forced to keep it at home with a trigger lock on it. It's just too tough to be a criminal anymore and I've been forced to reform. I now teach Sunday school for a living."
Licensing and registration (just like the other 20,000 gun laws already on the books) will be just another failure to hinder the ability of criminals to get guns. It will, however, be another infringement on the rights of law-abiding gun owners along with a step towards them loosing their rights all together.
I see your point, but your demonstration isn't fully representative of the registration and licensing situation. Let me see if I can improve upon it...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Hand someone a piece of paper with the model and serial number of one of your handguns. Ask them to place it in their pocket.
Next, ask them, "EXACTLY HOW will the government knowing that *I* have a handgun stop *criminals* (who won't register their guns) from committing crimes?"[/quote]
In addition, the President, HCI, the VPC, and other anti-gun organizations have PROMISED us for YEARS that once a certain law is passed, it will significantly impact criminals' ability to get guns.
However, after the law is passed, I've yet to see ANY of them hold a press conference with criminals testifying how hard it is to get a gun. I've yet to year, "Ladies and gentleman, it used to be easy to get a gun. I used to be able to walk down any street and buy a gun within the hour. But thanks to President Clinton and the Brady Law, I can't get a gun anymore. Since the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, we can't get our hands on assault weapons either. And even if I was lucky enough to get my hands on one, I'd be forced to keep it at home with a trigger lock on it. It's just too tough to be a criminal anymore and I've been forced to reform. I now teach Sunday school for a living."
Licensing and registration (just like the other 20,000 gun laws already on the books) will be just another failure to hinder the ability of criminals to get guns. It will, however, be another infringement on the rights of law-abiding gun owners along with a step towards them loosing their rights all together.
Why don't we require unlicensed drivers to register? Shouldn't we require them to turn in their motor vehicles? How long will it take for criminals to register their firearms?
Perhaps we should consider a three day waiting period to commit a crime. Maybe we should just require the criminal to give three days notice to both the intended victim and the local law enforcement agency of their intent to commit a crime.
Registering vehicles has not stopped motor vehicle thefts. Licensing drivers has not stopped unlicensed drivers. Raising the drinking age has not stopped the underage from drinking. Sex education has not stopped AIDS and unwanted pregancies. Requiring licenses has not stopped the unlicensed from practicing medicine, law, contracting, or any other profession.
The problem is we have three types of citizens:
1. They do whats rights whether there is a law or not.
2. They only do what the law requires, nothing more, nothing less.
3. They do what they want regardless of the law.
The problem is the first group is growing smaller and the next two are growing larger.
Perhaps we should consider a three day waiting period to commit a crime. Maybe we should just require the criminal to give three days notice to both the intended victim and the local law enforcement agency of their intent to commit a crime.
Registering vehicles has not stopped motor vehicle thefts. Licensing drivers has not stopped unlicensed drivers. Raising the drinking age has not stopped the underage from drinking. Sex education has not stopped AIDS and unwanted pregancies. Requiring licenses has not stopped the unlicensed from practicing medicine, law, contracting, or any other profession.
The problem is we have three types of citizens:
1. They do whats rights whether there is a law or not.
2. They only do what the law requires, nothing more, nothing less.
3. They do what they want regardless of the law.
The problem is the first group is growing smaller and the next two are growing larger.
Come on, we all know that the leaders of the "registration" movement have confiscation of firearms as the ultimate goal. They rely on the uneducated sheeple out there to nod in agreement when "common sense gun control" is called for every time there's a tragedy. Even my lawyer friend who supports the second as a natural right sees nothing wrong with registration. He cites what's called the chilling effect. He doesn't see a chilling effect for the second amendment, but sees one for the first. For example, in the case of government licensing of newspapers, a "chilling effect" could be produced. This is where people may still have free speech, but the matter of licensing the press makes people feel uncomfortable in publicly criticizing the government because they're licensed by the government. I say that in the SPIRIT of the Second Amendment, registration WOULD have a chilling effect because the people are the Check and Balance AGAINST government tyranny and the act of registering makes your name accessible if a tyrannical government should arise. Thus the chilling effect would be NOT buying a firearm for fear of being targeted by a tyrannical govt. If you don't buy a gun, you won't be on the list and hopefully won't be targeted. In addition to this, if less of the population buys firearms for fear of a tyrannical govt having a list, there are LESS armed citizens to rise up against tyranny, thus reducing the effectiveness of the people as a final check on government. Comments? Suggestions?
------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.
------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.
A very good argument against registration and liscensing has nothing to do with the Second Ammendment. Our constitution specifically states all the powers of the Federal Government, such as maintaining post offices, regulating interstate commerce and coining money. The Tenth Ammendment states that all powers not granted to the federal government in the constitution are granted to the states and the people.
Absolutely nothing in the constitution gives the Federal Government the right to regulate who may own guns- not children, felons, idiots or anyone else. Congress has probably passed these laws under the guise of regulating interstate commerce, though the power to regulate interstate commerce has absolutely nothing to do with gun ownership. It's private, it's in state, and it is not commerce. Therefore, these laws are consitutionally invalid, like registration. It doesn't even matter if these laws are "good laws." I don't necessarily think all gun laws are bad, but I've been forced to the conclusion that the Fed government has no athority to make them. The states might be able to pass some of these laws constitutionally. Can anyone, by quoting the supposedly supreme Constitution, refute me?
Absolutely nothing in the constitution gives the Federal Government the right to regulate who may own guns- not children, felons, idiots or anyone else. Congress has probably passed these laws under the guise of regulating interstate commerce, though the power to regulate interstate commerce has absolutely nothing to do with gun ownership. It's private, it's in state, and it is not commerce. Therefore, these laws are consitutionally invalid, like registration. It doesn't even matter if these laws are "good laws." I don't necessarily think all gun laws are bad, but I've been forced to the conclusion that the Fed government has no athority to make them. The states might be able to pass some of these laws constitutionally. Can anyone, by quoting the supposedly supreme Constitution, refute me?
Article one Section 8 describes the power Congress has. There is one paragraph:
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the States in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings"
I interpret this section to mean that congress has more leeway when it comes to passing laws that would apply in Washington D.C., military installations, National Labs, etc. This seems to be the only section that gives the Congress expanded powers over an area of the country. Of course the Nanny-state crowd would argue that the line:
"insure domestic tranquility,..., promote the general Welfare,"
Gives them the power to pass all kinds of restrictive laws. They're confusing the beginning of the Constitution as the role of Congress instead of the role of "We the people"..
Of course others would dismiss me as a wacko because I took this from my pocket copy of the Constitution provided to me by the Boy Scouts of America. I must be an extremist!
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the States in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings"
I interpret this section to mean that congress has more leeway when it comes to passing laws that would apply in Washington D.C., military installations, National Labs, etc. This seems to be the only section that gives the Congress expanded powers over an area of the country. Of course the Nanny-state crowd would argue that the line:
"insure domestic tranquility,..., promote the general Welfare,"
Gives them the power to pass all kinds of restrictive laws. They're confusing the beginning of the Constitution as the role of Congress instead of the role of "We the people"..
Of course others would dismiss me as a wacko because I took this from my pocket copy of the Constitution provided to me by the Boy Scouts of America. I must be an extremist!
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.
Yesterday, I saw an interview with Hillary Clinton on WLIW TV. She said that a national licensing and registration system of guns and gun owners was an important step toward lowering crime.
When she was asked how she responds to critics that say that registration is a precursor to confiscation, she said that it simply isn't true. She said that this rhetoric and scare tactic works wonders for pro-gun organizations trying to increase their membership, but no one is going to land on people's lawns with a black helicopter and take their guns away.
Yet, just moments earlier, she was talking about how great the Democratic plan to lower crime was working. And one of the key parts of the plan she mentioned was that they banned assault weapons in 1994. So, in one breath she praises the Democrats for banning certain firearms, and in the next breath she says that no one is going to take people's guns away.
You might say that her remarks do not contradict each other because the anti-gunner's aren't going to take any significant number of firearms away. Instead, they'll continue to respect people's right to keep and bear arms, but will ban "a few, extreme, military-style, assault weapons that civilians have no legitimate purpose to own."
The evidence suggests otherwise. It's clear that the anti-gun movement is working hard to ban all firearms and that licensing and registration is an important step towards fulfilling this objective.
Proof #1 - I suggest you go to the White House's web site ( www.whitehouse.gov ) and search for President Clinton's "Good Morning America Roundtable" speech on June 4, 1999. In it, he was asked his position on semi-automatic firearms. He responded, "...I tried to ban them all in 1994...". He couldn't get the votes for that, so he got what he could get and he will keep coming back until he gets them all. Also, he wanted not just stop new sales, but that Americans should be forced to turn in the ones they already own.
Semi-automatic, pump, lever action firearms, and revolvers allow for quick, multiple shots to be made. Although I have no hard statistics for what portion of firearms these represent, I'd be willing to wager that they account for more than 50% of the firearms in American's hands.
Therefore, the Democratic plan is, at the very least, to ban the majority of firearms Americans already own and force them to turn them in.
Proof #2 - The Violence Policy Center ( www.vpc.org ) has called for bans on several types of firearms, including ALL handguns. In the article entitled, "Shooting at National Zoo Latest Proof of Need for Handgun Ban" ( http://www.vpc.org/press/0004zoo.htm ), VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann states, "...the only rational response is a national ban on handguns."
Proof #3 - Registration has ALREADY led to confiscation in California. For example, go to the government web site http://www.sksbuyback.org/ . The statement on the front of their home page says it all, "Pursuant to legislation enacted last year, you are required by law to turn in your SKS Sporter to the nearest Local Law Enforcement Agency...". Note that these firearms were registered just a few years earlier.
Proof #4 - Registration has ALREADY led to confiscation in New York City. New York City passed a licensing and registration system of all rifles and shotguns in 1967. In 1991, many semi-automatic firearms were banned. Gun owners were warned that the government knew who the owners are and they must turn in their firearms immediately. Some refused and the government forcibly took their guns away (see the Daily News article "Weapons ban defied: S.I. man, arsenal seized", September 5, 1992).
Proof #5 - Registration has ALREADY led to confiscation in many other countries. Why would America be any different? We all know that those that won't learn from the mistakes history teaches are doomed to repeat them.
Proof #6 - Many people at the Million Mom March supported not just the "common sense gun legislation" they advertise, but supported an outright gun ban. I was at the Million Mom March in Chappaqua, New York, and speaker after speaker said they were fighting hard for "a gun-free Chappaqua, a gun-free Westchester County, and a gun-free New York State". One speaker said that no one should ever be allowed to own a gun. They even went as far as to say that police officers should not carry guns. People should be able to "talk out their problems" instead. The audience loudly cheered these speakers on! Marchers chanted "no more guns" and wore buttons with pictures of guns with a red slash through it. Their message was clear that these "common sense gun measures" were just another step towards their final goal to ban all guns.
Proof #7 - The United Nations is working hard at limiting citizen's right to own firearms. While there are many sources on this information, I suggest you review [url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19991207_xex_un_coming_yo.shtml"]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19991207_xex_un_coming_yo.shtml[/url][/url] for an overview. The United Nations even has a home page for their "Department of Disarmament Affairs" ( http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/CAB/index.htm ).
There are many more examples of the fact that registration has lead to confiscation and that the anti-gun community is working hard to completely disarm us. This is not just some rhetoric or paranoid delusions. The above are all verifiable examples of our legitimate concerns.
If you need more specific information on any topic, feel free to ask.
[This message has been edited by Tortuga (edited July 14, 2000).]
When she was asked how she responds to critics that say that registration is a precursor to confiscation, she said that it simply isn't true. She said that this rhetoric and scare tactic works wonders for pro-gun organizations trying to increase their membership, but no one is going to land on people's lawns with a black helicopter and take their guns away.
Yet, just moments earlier, she was talking about how great the Democratic plan to lower crime was working. And one of the key parts of the plan she mentioned was that they banned assault weapons in 1994. So, in one breath she praises the Democrats for banning certain firearms, and in the next breath she says that no one is going to take people's guns away.
You might say that her remarks do not contradict each other because the anti-gunner's aren't going to take any significant number of firearms away. Instead, they'll continue to respect people's right to keep and bear arms, but will ban "a few, extreme, military-style, assault weapons that civilians have no legitimate purpose to own."
The evidence suggests otherwise. It's clear that the anti-gun movement is working hard to ban all firearms and that licensing and registration is an important step towards fulfilling this objective.
Proof #1 - I suggest you go to the White House's web site ( www.whitehouse.gov ) and search for President Clinton's "Good Morning America Roundtable" speech on June 4, 1999. In it, he was asked his position on semi-automatic firearms. He responded, "...I tried to ban them all in 1994...". He couldn't get the votes for that, so he got what he could get and he will keep coming back until he gets them all. Also, he wanted not just stop new sales, but that Americans should be forced to turn in the ones they already own.
Semi-automatic, pump, lever action firearms, and revolvers allow for quick, multiple shots to be made. Although I have no hard statistics for what portion of firearms these represent, I'd be willing to wager that they account for more than 50% of the firearms in American's hands.
Therefore, the Democratic plan is, at the very least, to ban the majority of firearms Americans already own and force them to turn them in.
Proof #2 - The Violence Policy Center ( www.vpc.org ) has called for bans on several types of firearms, including ALL handguns. In the article entitled, "Shooting at National Zoo Latest Proof of Need for Handgun Ban" ( http://www.vpc.org/press/0004zoo.htm ), VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann states, "...the only rational response is a national ban on handguns."
Proof #3 - Registration has ALREADY led to confiscation in California. For example, go to the government web site http://www.sksbuyback.org/ . The statement on the front of their home page says it all, "Pursuant to legislation enacted last year, you are required by law to turn in your SKS Sporter to the nearest Local Law Enforcement Agency...". Note that these firearms were registered just a few years earlier.
Proof #4 - Registration has ALREADY led to confiscation in New York City. New York City passed a licensing and registration system of all rifles and shotguns in 1967. In 1991, many semi-automatic firearms were banned. Gun owners were warned that the government knew who the owners are and they must turn in their firearms immediately. Some refused and the government forcibly took their guns away (see the Daily News article "Weapons ban defied: S.I. man, arsenal seized", September 5, 1992).
Proof #5 - Registration has ALREADY led to confiscation in many other countries. Why would America be any different? We all know that those that won't learn from the mistakes history teaches are doomed to repeat them.
Proof #6 - Many people at the Million Mom March supported not just the "common sense gun legislation" they advertise, but supported an outright gun ban. I was at the Million Mom March in Chappaqua, New York, and speaker after speaker said they were fighting hard for "a gun-free Chappaqua, a gun-free Westchester County, and a gun-free New York State". One speaker said that no one should ever be allowed to own a gun. They even went as far as to say that police officers should not carry guns. People should be able to "talk out their problems" instead. The audience loudly cheered these speakers on! Marchers chanted "no more guns" and wore buttons with pictures of guns with a red slash through it. Their message was clear that these "common sense gun measures" were just another step towards their final goal to ban all guns.
Proof #7 - The United Nations is working hard at limiting citizen's right to own firearms. While there are many sources on this information, I suggest you review [url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19991207_xex_un_coming_yo.shtml"]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19991207_xex_un_coming_yo.shtml[/url][/url] for an overview. The United Nations even has a home page for their "Department of Disarmament Affairs" ( http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/CAB/index.htm ).
There are many more examples of the fact that registration has lead to confiscation and that the anti-gun community is working hard to completely disarm us. This is not just some rhetoric or paranoid delusions. The above are all verifiable examples of our legitimate concerns.
If you need more specific information on any topic, feel free to ask.
[This message has been edited by Tortuga (edited July 14, 2000).]
The fact the some people in Britian and a very few people in Japan still legally own guns- as well as many in Australia- demonstrate that "gun control" is not necessarily about banning all guns, but about eliminating their use for self-defense and "militia" purposes. I find it an unlikely that "all" guns will be banned in the next few decades, as there are too many sportsman. Our fight is not to preserve "guns" in general, but for specific types and uses of weapons- for liberty and safety, not sport.