You have a gun? Get Insurance. (Y/N)

[Canarr]

yup because firearms are 100% unregulated, I can head to a sporting goods store and buy a rocket launcher

Nice strawman there

My comment was in response to Andara's worry that the government assembling lists of gunowners through their insurance might go against the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. At no point did I make any claims about the regulations concerning firearms purchases.

no but what stops certain cities from declaring bans and doing house to house searches because they have a list.

DO NOT SAY IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN, IT ALREADY HAS!

It took 3 years, a lawsuit, and an act of congress to get the illegally confiscated firearms returned to their rightful owners.

Did they have a list in New Orleans? Seems to me they managed just fine without one.

Apparently, nothing stops your government from performing illegal searches and seizures. But, also apparently, your legal system was up to the job, got it stopped and rescinded. Would be nice if the perpetrators were also punished, but can't have everything, I guess.

Seems to me as if everything went as it should: someone broke the law, someone else reported him for it, the courts pronounced him guilty and ordered restitution. Sure, it took a few years, but that's the court system for you.

[Andara Bledin]

Did they have a list in New Orleans? Seems to me they managed just fine without one.

Yes, New Orleans had a list. They went to the doors of registered gun owners, not just random people who hadn't evacuated.

^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

If the government is going to go out and seize all the guns, and they don't care if they do it legally, then they will just do that. The US government has enough resources to figure out who all the gun owners in an area are, and take them, if they want to.

So, your argument is, because it can happen anyway, why do anything to prevent it? Seems to me when the other side uses that argument you go ballistic.

You have used apathy as an argument, your argument is invalid.

[Greenday]

So, your argument is, because it can happen anyway, why do anything to prevent it? Seems to me when the other side uses that argument you go ballistic.

You have used apathy as an argument, your argument is invalid.

So when it concerns private citizens, it's okay to create tons of laws to restrict what they can do despite the fact that criminals won't listen. But if it's the government, we don't create laws because the crooked politicians won't listen?

[Andara Bledin]

So when it concerns private citizens, it's okay to create tons of laws to restrict what they can do despite the fact that criminals won't listen. But if it's the government, we don't create laws because the crooked politicians won't listen?

This is actually a bit sideways of what is really happening.

In the case of not making laws because criminals ignore them, it's a matter of not wasting the resources to create something that will not provide the benefit desired.

In the case of refusing to let the government force gun registration/insurance/lists, it's a matter of preventing them from using those resources to create the thing that will lead to abuse.

It's the difference between creating something that is wasteful and preventing the creation of something that has more potential to cause harm than good when the main goal can be accomplished in other ways.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

So, your argument is, because it can happen anyway, why do anything to prevent it? Seems to me when the other side uses that argument you go ballistic.

I do not "Go ballistic." You have not ever SEEN me go ballistic.

Okay, maybe you have. Once. I did, once 'go ballistic' on Ghel in an argument. Afterwards, I reported myself for it because my behavior was a personal attack and it was entirely uncalled for. I have not gone ballistic in this thread. I have not gone ballistic in any other thread on here, and I resent that description of politely saying that I disagree with an argument as "Going ballistic." Please, show me where I "Went ballistic" on here. And if you're referring to the gun debate in another thread, that was not "the other side" using it. I made pretty damn clear in the post where I was talking about not liking an argument that I was actually ON THE SIDE of the people making the argument.

I also did not use apathy as an argument, thus invalidating my argument by the Grand Laws of... Oh, excuse me, who says that my argument was invalid? Was that one of the moderators? Or any other actual authority, or just you? I mean, I'd like to know whose rules I'm debating by, or I can't have a debate! Could you at the very least SET OUT the rules, so I'm not playing a game of Operation in the dark and getting buzzed for hitting a wall I wasn't told about?

The argument I used was ineffectiveness. That is not the same as apathy. Unless you're saying that my conclusion that I think that the benefits outweigh the risks is 'apathy.' It is not apathy. I understand your concerns. I think your concerns are valid. I just do not agree with you that they are cause to not have a gun registry, because I don't think it is a common enough occurrence.

Yes, it has happened. And it also, quite often, HASN'T. There are an awful lot of times where it hasn't. My conclusion is that if people are determined to do that, they will anyway. I do not think that it does ENOUGH to stop people from doing it.

Apathy would be "I don't care if that happens." This is not apathy. This is a weighing of the pros and cons and coming down on a side you disagree with. I do not think that makes me apathetic.

But if you can just show me the rules that say it does, and thus my argument is invalid, we can probably put that to rest.

[Barracuda]

The phrase "Well regulated" in the Second Amendment has been deliberately misconstrued for some time now. The fact is, "well regulated" back in 1781, when the Constitution was signed, meant something completely different than it does now. "Well regulated" meant, "in good order" or "well disciplined". It meant much the same thing that "professional" does now, which is why army soldiers were called "Regulars" to distinguish them from "Irregulars" or undisciplined forces, such as allied Indians or poorly trained militia. If the Amendment was written today, it would most likely read something like, "A professional and well trained militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall Not be Infringed." There is also the fact that the preface (well regulated militia) is more of a statement of fact than a legally controlling phrase. The legally controlling phrase of the Amendment is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We have ignored this language for years now, and pretended that somehow the Second Amendment isn't as "firm" as the First or other parts of the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is the document which created the federal government's power and authority. If they ignore it, which they have, they lose the legitimacy behind that power and authority and become a government which rules by fear and power, not by rule of law. Dictatorships and tyrannies rule this way, legitimate governments are subject to rule of law and not even the head of government is above the laws.

[Hyena Dandy]

That's one argument, but the Supreme Court has found that the section about a well-regulated militia being necessary is entirely independent from the section about the people's right to bare arms not being infringed.

Furthermore, a militia is by definition not a government organization. There would be no way that I can think of to ensure that a militia is indeed well-regulated, as a militia's regulation would not be subject to government standards.

[EmiOfBrie]

If it's done against the constitution, it's done illegally. The constitution is the highest law of the land.

Actually, there is a provision in the Constitution that says international treaties, if agreed to, trump the Constitution. So if Congress were to have us join a UN treaty banning guns, for example, the 2nd Amendment would be null and void.

[BlaqueKatt]

Actually, there is a provision in the Constitution that says international treaties, if agreed to, trump the Constitution. So if Congress were to have us join a UN treaty banning guns, for example, the 2nd Amendment would be null and void.

this is so wrong I don't even know what to say

Fact checking

The Constitution gives the US Senate authority to ratify treaties with other nations. Americans have been propagandized into believing that those treaties become the supreme law of the land superseding the Constitution. Let's examine this deception closely and dispel the myth once and for all further reading.

The powers granted by the Constitution cannot sanely be construed to provide the authority to usurp, pre-empt or eradicate it.

[BlaqueKatt]

I just do not agree with you that they are cause to not have a gun registry, because I don't think it is a common enough occurrence.

and the side against firearm registries also has fact on our side the mass shootings are most definitely not a common enough occurrence to justify registering all firearms.

Do you see the hypocrisy here? That's what makes it an invalid argument.

and apathy is also saying "well, we can't do anything to stop these registration lists from being used illegally to seize firearms, so I'm not at all concerned about that" And yes we can do something, how about NOT making lists that can be used for that?

You are essentially arguing to legislate personal beliefs, by saying:
"my fear of a statistical anomaly is justified(because it's my belief, and I understand it), but your fear of a statistical anomaly is just silly(because it's not mine and I don't understand it)."

And I'm not even going to get into the fact that it would be a government mandated list, which falls under the "freedom of information act" which means ANYONE can have access to MY PERSONAL INFORMATION, and I don't know, publish it in a newspaper, complete with a map, thus endangering my safety, and the safety of my family, with zero repercussions.

[Hyena Dandy]

I am not concerned about mass shootings. I don't think it's possible to prevent mass shootings. I don't even think I said mass shootings in this thread at all. I might be wrong, but mass shootings is not my issue. You're strawmanning my point into a fear of mass shootings, something I never mentioned, and I quite honestly can't have a debate if you don't reply to things I actually say.

[BlaqueKatt]

I am not concerned about mass shootings. I don't think it's possible to prevent mass shootings. I don't even think I said mass shootings in this thread at all. I might be wrong, but mass shootings is not my issue. You're strawmanning my point into a fear of mass shootings, something I never mentioned, and I quite honestly can't have a debate if you don't reply to things I actually say.

And considering I just reviewed the thread and you haven't even once stated why any kind of registration is a good idea, just shot down why people are against it as more or less being paranoid-so technically you aren't debating, as you have not in any manner defined your stance. You're asking for "rules of debate" when you haven't even defined any kind of starting point.

[protege]

And I'm not even going to get into the fact that it would be a government mandated list, which falls under the "freedom of information act" which means ANYONE can have access to MY PERSONAL INFORMATION, and I don't know, publish it in a newspaper, complete with a map, thus endangering my safety, and the safety of my family, with zero repercussions.

That's the problem that I have with the registry list. We all know about how information has been leaked to the press (think Wiki), and the fallout that resulted from it. Even though I don't currently own any firearms, I really don't like the idea that someone could take my personal info and publish that shit all over the place. Nor do I like the idea that someone could then use that info and break into my place to do me harm...or decide that my possible having a firearm isn't "with the neighborhood's best interests." Sorry, but fuck that shit.

[BlaqueKatt]

I really don't like the idea that someone could take my personal info and publish that shit all over the place. Nor do I like the idea that someone could then use that info and break into my place to do me harm

Or even worse, break in when your not home, steal the firearm*, and use it in the commission of a crime, and hey, since it's registered to you, your insurance has to pay for something that was 100% not your fault.

*Locks of any kind can be defeated.