But then again I'm not stressing about stuff that started a decade ago like its something new.

No more encroachment on any of our rights.

Gun registration is not even close to the same as keeping the meta-data of everyones communications. Not a valid comparison at all.

Both are records of the exercise of a right

Keeping meta-data on everyone is an illegal invasion of privacy. Against the constitution.

Keeping track of guns is common sense. It does not restrict the 2nd in any way and people allowed by law to have a gun can still have one. The 2nd says nothing about registration so it is perfectly valid to allow for it.

Apples and oranges.

... is "common sense".

See how easy that is?

What part of the 2nd does it restrict? How exactly is it against the constitution?

But I understand those who don't

I've never seen anything even close to a rational or valid argument against it. Comparing it to the NSA keeping meta-data on everyones communications is just... Absurd.

or just throwing shit against the wall?

fits the definition nicely:

sophistry [ˈsɒfɪstrɪ]
n pl -ries
1. (Philosophy)
a. a method of argument that is seemingly plausible though actually invalid and misleading
b. the art of using such arguments
2. subtle but unsound or fallacious reasoning
3. an instance of this; sophism

It is the gun nuts that wield them that concern me. I take it you are against gun registration? If so, why?

car. they have no implied intent.

i am against all authoritarianism, first and foremost anything that restricts privacy or self determination.

bit of a student of both human nature and history. bad juju.

"i am against all authoritarianism, first and foremost anything that restricts privacy or self determination."

Yeah... You never know when the UN is going to come for your guns

i also find single issue hyperbolites (a new word i made up) so boring and predictable.

I'm sure there is no one who has ever seen me speak on any other topic

That was almost smooth how you just jumped out of the registration non-sense you were trying to pass off though... Just walked away from the topic at hand to try and throw an insult.

"i also find single issue hyperbolites (a new word i made up) so boring and predictable."

As boring as a post-hoc-ergo-prompter-hoc fallacies?

but my favorite latin quote is "Avarus animus nullo satiatur lucro".

cash a check from the issuing bank (fingerprints required), nor vote--the ultimate in constitutional "rights" imo-- without registering.

Yet, the most deadly purchase I am likely to ever make should not require registration?

No way do I have sympathy to those who oppose. Quite the opposite.

I'm specifically asking this of DU's newfound individual liberty supporters

That you have to do all of those things.

Also there is no right to vote outlined in the Constitution, just saying.

Either you are grotesquely unaware of state and Federal laws in many of these respects or have never tried to do any of the things I describe (at least legally )

Which laws?

But I think that there are no such Colorado laws and someone is just making this up.

Show proof of vaccines, and pay a licensing fee every time, too.

City Ordinance.

registering it? You can't sell a gold rings without registering?

That doesn't seem to be consistent with reality.

In all 50 states, you can keep and drive a car on private property without registering it. There are ranchers and farmers with large farms that do.

In all 50 states, you can sell gold rings without registering. The claim to the contrary is nonsense. If the contrary is true, where's your link for such authority?

In all 50 states, you can own one or more dogs without registering them. Again, if the contrary is true, where's your link for such a statement.

You say that you don't have "sympathy to those who oppose". Who, exactly asked you to ever have sympathy? Why would you believe that anyone would want your sympathy? If you want to have sympathy, give it to those who failed to obtain meaningful reform by over-reaching and making exaggerated claims for what they said they were going to accomplish. They didn't accomplish anything that was meaningful.

Let your dog be picked up with no proof of registration nor rabies vaccine and get back to me. Even if you live in a very rural area without municipal regulations, there is a requirement for rabies registration in each of the 50 states. You are very foolish if you think otherwise.

Try driving your car without registration and get back to me.


No... Damned guns need to be registered as the deadly tools that they are.

Or not. Because you've got nothing.

of having received rabies, drive your car on a public road without registration nor try to cash a check at the issuing bank you receive from a private sale and then come back to me that you did not have to provide registration of some type or fingerprints.

I'm done with the tiresome NRA talking points. That you seem oblivious to current laws and regulations, whether state, Federal or local hardly does anything to press your meme that "most gun owners" are "responsible and law abiding".

Boo

routine acts is so highly regulated and tracked is INSANE.

So act as though you are totally obtuse and don't follow the points presented here, but that only undercuts your cause further and demonstrates how tied you are to the talking points of NRA and even more extremist (usually far RW) gun groups-- at the expense of your fellow Americans.

citizens before they can own or even possess a firearm. Firearms are required to be registered, at least the firearms purchased by law-abiding citizens.

What is insane is the revolving-door prison system that lets gun-using criminals back on the streets. What is insane is locking up those who sell marijuana from state-approved dispensaries because Holder and the Administration wants to pursue them while letting some of the more violent criminals resume their violent criminal activities.

What is insane is not providing more mental health care for those who need it.

We don't have the type of real reform that is needed because Senator Feinstein and others want to show-up others and focus upon black-plastic pistol grips, emotional language (e.g., "assault rifles", etc.), and other issues.

The State of Illinois does not require gun registration. It's only required in the City of Chicago.

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/illinois.aspx

requires private individuals to maintain records of their private sales, you are off the point.

The State of Illinois does not require gun registration. Illinois only requires the seller to maintain a record of the sale -- the record is not submitted to any legal authority.

No problem, showed the dealer the coins, we agreed on a price, he handed me cash. Both of us were satisfied with the transaction.

Stuck in the past, unwilling to entertain or evolve new ideas. At least the Toomey/Manchin proposal on background checks deserves a vote in the House and Senate, but if these guys want to do more than strengthen gun laws in New York and California and pull off a "Hail Mary" in Colorado, they're going to have to do some serious retooling.

In the city where I live, if you keep a car in your driveway with expired tags for more than sixty days, it's considered abandoned and subject to towing at your expense.

The State of Illinois, for one, requires pawnbrokers to obtain the identification of any person who pawns items in the shop (gold or otherwise).

And just as the result of random Googling, in Washoe County, NV, all dogs over the age of four months must be licensed.




Swing and a miss...

Obviously, as you know, keeping a car in a driveway in a city is not equivalent to driving on your own ranch or farm in Texas or elsewhere.

Also, which should be obvious, a law which requires pawnbrokers to obtain identification of those who pawn items (regardless of the item) does not mean that gold cannot be sold to other persons unless the selling party somehow registers for the sale.

Also, obvious, for those people who do not want to register their dogs over the age of four months in Washoe County, NV, they can stay out of Washoe County, NV (wherever that is, as though someone should care).

In many municipalities (including Texas), you are not allowed to maintain a vehicle, even on your own property, without proper license and registration.

And the law absolutely does require pawnbrokers to keep meticulous records of every thing they buy and sell. Read the statutes from almost any city or state -- they're pretty uniform in that regard.

And if you tried Googling (and I assume you haven't) you'll find that dog license requirements are pretty ubiquitous -- you can move, but the registration requirement will follow you.

Strike two...

To the first point, there's really no comparison between vehicle registration and a criminal background check. States use registration fees to help pay the cost of maintaining roadways. A background check is to ensure that a criminal or mentally unstable person isn't purchasing a deadly weapon. In short, registration is tracking the thing, while a background check is tracking the person.

Here, let me help you:

"I can not legally own a dog without registering, drive a car, sell a gold ring"

be required to submit to a criminal and mental health background check (and you should know that), and since you are the one saying "So why shouldn't gun buyers be required to submit to a criminal and mental health background check?," you are the one arguing with yourself and the burden of proof is on you.

You'll have more credibility if you don't argue from ignorance.

Virtually every statement you've made on this thread has been factually incorrect on some level, and the only evidence you've provided has been cut-and-paste from Wikipedia.

Tell me more about my lack of credibility...

by references and quotes from other sources, does not mean that everyone should make unsupported statements.

Project much? I've provided information that one can easily confirm through a simple Google search.

You're just pulling "facts" out of your backside -- such as the phantom Illinois State gun registration requirement -- which a simple Google search confirms.

But I swung over within the past year once I realized we needed to defend our rights.

These latest incidents increase my alarm at the erosion of our rights. I now realize I need to defend them all or they will be whittled away to nothing.

How so?

I don't have a gun, but I will support others rights to have one.

Be funny if it wasn't so sad.

n/t

When someone can buy or see data they can use to end my life in a second I think it'll be easier to make that comparison.

Freedom is free of the need to be free, fellow DUers. Free your mind and your ass will follow.

maybe guns should have a tracking device too!

i also would like nuclear armament to be registered but don't care so much if cats are registered.

Anyone changed their minds about that?

I doubt it.

Guns have nothing to do with civil rights. In fact, conflating the two trivializes the importance of civil rights and privacy. Same as when right-wingers say that "freedom" means rich people not having to pay taxes.

See how easy that was?

pickup trucks and other vehicles when they drive them exclusively upon their own land.

Are you trying to claim that all cars must be registered even when they are kept on private property?

Thanks for saying so.

illogical. It would be helpful if people on the other side of the arguments put some thought into their responses before posting, to save themselves from embarrassment.

One need not register a vehicle simply to own it. Just like guns, in most places.

The "guns should be registered" crowd, asks for more than that where guns are concerned, and out the other side of their mouths, they imply, through the "is anyone concerned about registering cars" line of argument, that cars must be registered to simply own.

The moral of the story is:

Don't conflate usage in public with simple ownership, and people wont point out that its being done, basically.

FWIW, I live on a 5 acre farm, and I have a truck that I keep unregistered, and drive all over the farm on a fairly regular basis - its useful for moving heavy things from point A to point B, and was much cheaper than an ATV large enough to suit that purpose.

If you think this doesn't happen all over America on private properties both large and small and on a regular daily basis, you're wrong.

/applause

they are simply inconsequential to the larger issue. I really don't understand why you can't see that...

The two things are vastly different, and hardly inconsequential to those involved in the larger issue, those discussing it, and those effected by any public policy changes resulting from it.


Notions to the contrary are tantamount to an assertion that only one viewpoint is valid - the pro-lots-more-control viewpoint.

it suits you to be merely argumentative (I guess, but I don't really know), but it is NOT the real issue.

I am beginning to feel sorry for you, too...

But then, if the pro-lots-more-control crowd wanted to discuss the issue honestly , they wouldn't be conflating usage in public with simple ownership, when comparing legal requirements whether they be for cars of guns...in the first place.

Which was my point to begin with. Its an attempt to make things look different than they actually are. "See, we register cars, why shouldn't we register guns". Seen it a thousand times.

Comparing and conflating ownership with usage in public is a dishonest line of argument.

I will happily stop pointing that out, as soon as it stops happening.

Every state requires that an individual receive an eye exam before issuing a driver's license, to confirm that the individual will not be a danger to himself or others.

If we do that, why not require a criminal and mental health background check, to confirm that the individual will not be a danger to himself or others.





You're welcome...

"Every state requires that an individual receive an eye exam before issuing a driver's license, to confirm that the individual will not be a danger to himself or others."

Every state requires that an individual receive an eye exam before issuing a driver's license - which is a license to use a vehicle in public, and not required to simply own a vehicle, or use one on ones own property - to confirm that the individual will not be a danger to himself or others - in public" .


"If we do that, why not require a criminal and mental health background check, to confirm that the individual will not be a danger to himself or others."

Sure, lets do that, but lets make it like a license to drive - those with such licenses can carry concealed. Legally. In public.

No?

Then you are most definitely comparing ownership with usage in public.

What an idiotic canard that is.

When your five-year-old accidentally shoots his three-year-old sister, public-funded employees (police or EMT) are going to come to your house and drive down public-funded roads to take your kid to the public-funded hospital.

Unless you're just planning to let them bleed out on your private property.

Jesus Christ...

It's in the public interest to ensure that criminals and psychopaths don't have access to firearms. If you have a problem with that, I have little choice but to assume that you are either a criminal or psychopath yourself.

"How many people own a vehicle that they NEVER use on a public road? What an idiotic canard that is."

It is an idiotic canard, and its the wrong question, which puts it in line with the rest of the line of argument. Whats at issue here, is what is required by law to own a thing. Therefore, the right question is "how many people are required by law to register a vehicle simply to own it. The answer as far as I can see, is ZERO.

Beyond that, millions of people likely own vehicles which are never registered. I have owned several myself, and I'm just an average guy. Farm vehicles, race cars, off road mud and trail trucks...there are likely millions of them.

"When your five-year-old accidentally shoots his three-year-old sister, public-funded employees (police or EMT) are going to come to your house and drive down public-funded roads to take your kid to the public-funded hospital."

I'm sure their registrations in those vehicles are current. Of course, where I live, they better have 4 wheel drive if its rained within the last hour. Then again, my girls are grown up and moved out. They seem to have made it past their youth without being shot by one another - though both of them enjoyed many a day at the range shooting targets.

"It's in the public interest to ensure that criminals and psychopaths don't have access to firearms. If you have a problem with that, I have little choice but to assume that you are either a criminal or psychopath yourself."

Of course it is, did anyone say it wasn't? I support background checks for all gun sales, provided that there is no registration, licensing, etc. I don't support and have a problem with the anti-gun/pro-lots-more-control side of the debate arguing dishonestly. If you have a problem with that, I have little choice but to assume that you are either dishonest or a supporter of dishonesty yourself.

I'm only talking about background checks, and I assumed that you were opposed to that. My apologies for my mistake.

Registration of firearms is another subject altogether. I personally have no problem with it, specifically the fact that registration would make it easier for me to retrieve any firearms that might be stolen from my home. But in the spirit of "Guns don't kill, people do" I'm far more interested in whose finger is on the trigger and not the specific make/model/manufacturer of the trigger itself.

think it is a constitutional, civil right.

what with being in the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights and all. That might be the source of that thought process.

we can argue exactly what the 2A means but it is hard to argue that the BOR does not talk about guns.

So what kind of rights does the 2A protect?

However, the second amendment advocates pointed out that a) assault weapons constitute only a fraction of all gun deaths and b) limited bans are meaningless because they are seldom replace.

So, I've changed my mind: I believe that all firearms should be illegal. All of them, including mine.

Then I will follow the lead of our public officials

Guns are such dangerous objects and serve no purpose then why do cops need them

firearms in for destruction. Lead! Don't follow!

Let's take yours first.

caused you any discomfort.

I have sent emails to the DOJ, NSA, FCC, and other agencies....haven't been sent to Gitmo yet. The FCC has helped me a few times with greedy incompetent tele companies....Medicare is easy to deal with - Anthem was a nightmare. I have not been audited by the IRS, our refunds come super fast. The folks at the MMJ offices are really nice and helpful.

What does piss me off is every time I look up a retailer, I immediately see ads from that retailer for weeks on every site I visit.

I did cancel my Google+ account because I hate that it's tied to everything. Before I clicked the cancel button, Google asked are you sure you want to do this, you will not be allowed another Google+ acct. Really - that's how it works over there at Google, fuck that.

I have more discomfort from corporations than the govt.

I'm only required to register the ones I intend to drive on public roads.

I have a truck which is unregistered, which I use here on the property regularly.

If someone crashes into me on a public road and then drives off - chances of catching the driver increase if we know who owns the vehicle.

It was the first sign of our slipping into sheepdom. Now a majority are explicitly willing to give up their privacy rights.

Its sad what the country has come to.

And I'm not a lefty, but boy there is NO chance for change through protest anymore. Everyone is too scared to do so.

"Gun rights" have nothing to do with political freedom. It's a question of balancing public safety with self-defense and recreation. Simple as that.

Two or three espouse removal of all guns from everyone except for police and armed forces. One of 'em's in this thread.

Didn't see the one person who advocated this in the post above.

"
However, the second amendment advocates pointed out that a) assault weapons constitute only a fraction of all gun deaths and b) limited bans are meaningless because they are seldom replace.

So, I've changed my mind: I believe that all firearms should be illegal. All of them, including mine."


Post 36.

I'm waiting for him to spiral off into his lunatic fringe of "Ban everything, also, cameras on every street and a cop in every home" bit so I can quote it to you.

thats why no gun control is happening on the federal level

Authoritarian.

Since you're having some trouble, figured I'd help you out a bit.

the constitution is bullshit.

If you try to diminish one amendment, you open the door to diminishing them all.

I really find the poutrage over having your phone calls and network traffic logged quite humorous and ironic given that most people here could give a flying fahk about the second amendment.

I see these as separate issues.

The government as been condemned as uniformly corrupt in many a post - so why should it get to track all the guns?