Opinion Poll: Should all new guns be tracked cradle to grave?

[all caps]

Then you're admitting there can be changes, and the second amendment is not an absolute?

Why are you so desperate to give away your God given rights? How does someone even come to this mindset?

 

[Bamboozled]

Then you're admitting there can be changes, and the second amendment is not an absolute?

It is absolute, shall not be infringed. How they worded and intended it was fine. That doesn't mean there isn't going to be civil war or civil unrest. I'm not going over the history leading up to the civil war because its a moot point.

 

[hillelslovak87]

It is absolute, shall not be infringed. How they worded and intended it was fine. That doesn't mean there isn't going to be civil war or civil unrest. I'm not going over the history leading up to the civil war because its a moot point.

Oh, so there are no limitations. Hmm. You don't seem to know their reasoning behind the amendment, and it's quite convenient you don't want to discuss things before the civil war, which happens to be the entirety of the context in which the amendment was wrote, but OK. Odd, given you're taking an absolutist position.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Why are you so desperate to give away your God given rights? How does someone even come to this mindset?

Firstly, who said I am?

Secondly, our rights are not god given. We had to fight a king who was the head of his own church in order to establish a secular Republic in which to give ourselves rights like the second amendment.

 

[all caps]

You know why theres a 2nd amendment? Because the guys who wrote it had enough evidence to know that confiscation was inevitable, along with whatever comes after that. They wouldnt have wrote it out of thin air. Give your head a shake.

 

[Bamboozled]

Oh, so there are no limitations. Hmm. You don't seem to know their reasoning behind the amendment, and it's quite convenient you don't want to discuss things before the civil war, which happens to be the entirety of the context in which the amendment was wrote, but OK. Odd, given you're taking an absolutist position.

You don't understand that it was a compromise to have state militias, not to disarm the general public.

 

[hillelslovak87]

You don't understand that it was a compromise to have state militias, not to disarm the general public.

It was a compromise to leave it to the states to regulate their own militias. I noticed you didn't address the unique quality in state by state regulation of the militia, in regards to the formentioned facilities in which muskets, cannons, and their ammo were stored until the need arose to use them, which in the south was often for slave patrols.

Was this not an infringement, or did the founding fathers, men of the enlightenment, see moderation?

 

[Bamboozled]

It was a compromise to leave it to the states to regulate their own militias. I noticed you didn't address the unique quality in state by state regulation of the militia, in regards to the formentioned facilities in which muskets, cannons, and their ammo were stored until the need arose to use them, which in the south was often for slave patrols.

Was this not an infringement, or did the founding fathers, men of the enlightenment, see moderation?

No, because they had just got done fighting the revolutionary war. So state militias were just citizens defending their lands together. That doesn't mean that non militia can't be armed. They wanted every man to be able to fight fire with fire. It's pretty simple. State by state regulation is absurdly vague. You're not having an honest discussion here. Be more specific, actually don't. I don't give enough of a shit about your poorly formed opinions.

 

[hillelslovak87]

No, because they had just got done fighting the revolutionary war. So state militias were just citizens defending their lands together. That doesn't mean that non militia can't be armed. They wanted every man to be able to fight fire with fire. It's pretty simple. State by state regulation is absurdly vague. You're not having an honest discussion here. Be more specific, actually don't. I don't give enough of a shit about your poorly formed opinions.

The state militias across the south were known as slave patrols. These states fought for the specific wording of "state" and not "nation" in the wording of the amendment so they could regulate their militias as they saw fit.

It wasn't about defending your land together, not in the South. They made this very clear, and you seem willing to simply brush all of their deliberations, even by Madison, aside.

 

[Long Dark Blues]

Seems like the difference between registration of things versus registration of people is lost on you guys.

I agree with Cubo on a lot of 2nd amendment issues but at the same time I think he makes some poor arguments in defense of them.

Me personally, I don't want the gubment tracking guns because I prefer less tracking of our personal information. Especially something as sensitive as firearm ownership given the potential confiscation concerns.

It's not really a poor argument.

The registry as outlined in the OP isn't "of things" but actually is "of people."

As outlined in the OP, the registry would use firearm metrics -- serial number, manufacturer, make, model, etc. -- as the unique key to identify a unique record in the registry. Providing the government all firearm owners' information for any and all purchases of that particular firearm, depending on the constraints used to query the registry.

There'd only be one record based on serial number, but many based on make, model, or platform.

The use of any metric considered part of the set of unique keys of a certain type firearm and, for instance, the state, town, zip, or even the race or sex together would allow for searching number of records unique to... say... black males in the city of Philadelphia who purchased an AR-15 of any manufacturer. Or white males in a rural county, etc.

The attributes of the thing would be markers for unique records of people.

 

[Whippy McGee]

Post Deleted.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

The state militias across the south were known as slave patrols. These states fought for the specific wording of "state" and not "nation" in the wording of the amendment so they could regulate their militias as they saw fit.

It wasn't about defending your land together, not in the South. They made this very clear, and you seem willing to simply brush all of their deliberations, even by Madison, aside.

The first militia act of 1792 literally is about defending the nation.

The people are also the militia. Not just the state or federal regulated ones. As in you could as last resort become your own militia to fight tyranny. There is early writings by founders and supreme court that support this.

 

[Fawlty]

Really seeming like a case of you preffering to be morally right (in your mind) than being factually correct. I know you'd love for a way to justify significantly less guns in America without having to be a "it's a 200+ year old piece of paper, why can't we just throw it out?" person. But this isn't it.

Well if you want to be factual, I don't actually argue that the second amendment was originally about personal self defense (iirc the majority of states did not say that in their charters, which is where the second's language is pulled from, a mashup of state laws of the period). There is still some legitimate debate around intent, but not all that much. I'm not going to sit here agreeing while you're messing up what I'm saying, and trying to tell me what I think, dude. I'm surprised people even try that with me anymore, tbh.

I do admit that I don't at all agree with a citizen militia as a bedrock right. But that's opinion and not a factual matter. It's going to be on the books for the foreseeable future anyhow. But in either case, I definitely advocate separating a right of self defense from the vague inference it now rests in. That's true whether or not the right to keep guns exists or doesn't. And I concede that there is no way we can have a right to self defense today without including guns, since it's the equalizer for so many vulnerable people.

The belief in self defense follows from American first principles (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness level shit) very directly. When something follows from American first principles, it cannot be mere post hoc rationalization of a position. It's not a coincidence that I'm arguing from that principle, that's a product of consideration. This is what I mean about being philosophically sound. The moral soundness comes from the possibility that one day, it may not be necessary to self defense to have the trigger-ready ability to launch metal into flesh to properly assert a right to self defense. That technology does not exist yet, but one day it likely will. And at that point, it becomes a moral imperative to reduce the availability of violent means. Linking self defense to modern military arms prevents arms reduction, and doesn't leave arms reduction as an option.

I do understand that it fits handily together that self-defense = guns = overthrow the gubmint and that's just the way many people want it. I disagree and I think that's driving a lot of gun fetishism and distrust of ourselves and constantly refueling the black market (every American gun used in a crime was once possessed by a "good honest hardworking law abiding citizen" after all). But that's a disagreement that will keep. I do think that gun control is a losing issue in America and will be for a long time to come.

But I insist that you get my argument right before you flippantly criticize it.

 

[Fawlty]

I voted 'No - other'. The core arguments have already been covered, but how about the idea of privacy? I don't need the state to watch my every move like I'm some kind of lab rat. The state works for me; it isn't some sort of distant manager of a population algorithm.

Yeah plain old privacy is a serious concern. With that in mind, do we now get rid of vehicle registration?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I may be wrong on this, but haven't we already kind of crossed this bridge concerning other owned items though? I don't know what it's like state to state in the U.S., but can you actually buy a car without it being tracked by the government? Maybe some old beater, but if you buy a new one isn't it basically under government view from first being bought to being a junker?

My point isn't whether this is right or wrong - and again, I may be wrong on my facts here - but rather that we already accept this in a certain context. I'm sure if I am incorrect on this, someone will correct my limited understanding though.

No car needs registered that isn't being operated on public roads. I bought a used car last year. The owner signed the the title, which relinquished his ownership. If I don't go get new plates and insurance then nobody knows shit. Seller doesn't even need to know my name.

I don't have an exact percentage. I will fully admit that it is my belief that reducing the firearms in circulation would lead to a reduction in firearms related incidents and crimes. My justification for the belief is looking at comparable 1st world nations with lower rates of firearm related crime and stricter gun control policies.

As for the shortfalls you listed:

• Theft from civilians and government - A database would help law enforcement understand the flow of stolen guns when/if they come back on the radar, which could prevent future trafficking. A responsible owner should report the theft of their firearms.
• Homemade guns - Not really an issue at the moment
• Black market imports - again, it would help understand the flow of the weapons and where they are coming from, especially if the data starts at the manufacturer
• Every firearm owner dies - You register the guns, not the owner. The guns are still around after they die. If they change ownership, that should be recorded.

Other first world nations are relative pussies compared to Americans, which is why we do all the fighting to keep world order. The long-term trend in murders is already downward. So could it make a difference? Sure. Just like stop and frisk.

• I don't see how reporting the theft or tracking the guns later does anything when it comes to future thefts and sales to criminals. Pretty sure El Chapo getting locked up didn't stop too many people from snorting coke.
• There's ten of thousands of 80% lowers (AR's, Glocks, Sigs) out there. 3D printing will make it even easier. You think it's not an issue because the legislation isn't there to make it one. Enact prohibitions and people going those routes will greatly increase.
• The cartels are building submarines. Pretty sure they can set up shop to make forged aluminum AR lowers. But no need when you can get one for $29.99.
• Saying the gun is registered, not the owner, is both ridiculous and irrelevant. What's important is to understand that some dead guy doesn't necessarily give a fuck about your registration. My state has a registry. I needed to place myself on that registry in order to legally exercise my 2nd Amendment right to purchasing a firearm. When I die I don't give a fuck about the registry and will happily transfer those weapons illegally. And even if I didn't have that mindset, some relative could swipe those guns from the estate and sell them illegally. In fact, when my dad passed he had at least two guns stolen that were to be among my inheritance. And the thief doesn't need to sell it for there to be violence, they could commit a crime themselves. They're already a thief, so....

Lastly, the registry does not one fucking thing to prevent me from engaging in violence with my weaponry. So no, a registry isn't gonna solve shit, unless you have the lowest bar possible for "solving" the problem.

What's been the leading cause of death for humans in the last 500 years?

Mosquitoes.

 

[Fawlty]

No, because registry is directly connected to confiscation. It’s extremely dangerous to promote these kinds of things for that reason, among others.

Due process should alleviate that concern.

 

[all caps]

The first militia act of 1792 literally is about defending the nation.

The people are also the militia. Not just the state or federal regulated ones. As in you could as last resort become your own militia to fight tyranny. There is early writings by founders and supreme court that support this.

And people forget that we are the government as well. They are literally the same exact people as us.

 

[PHATV]

A class 3 license isn't really a thing. There are 11 ffl types and 3 classes of sot (special occupational tax). A class 3 dealer is a dealer with sot that allows them to deal in nfa items. Class 2 is to manufacture and deal nfa items.

A civilian doesn't need any license to buy or own nfa items. Just do the atf paperwork and pay the nfa tax stamp.

Gotcha. They even say tax stamp. The guys I know with them. I've always heard/said class III since I was a kid so I have learned here, today.

 

[F1980]

How about this.

Mandatory gun buybacks for ALL guns.

In return, people who pass the background check and a rigorous mental health exam, and must have at least 5 people who aren't relatives to vouch for his/her temperment, will get a FREE handgun that has a built in GPS.

Mandatory gun yearly training, and you can go to the nearest gun range to practice in which the ammunition is heavily discounted. Also, an annual mental health check up will be required.

The handgun will come with 20 rounds of free ammunition to take home and a gun safe with a biometric lock. When the gun is taken out of the safe, it will send an alarm to the nearest police department to let them know something is wrong and that the owner is ready to use the gun, someone broke into the house.

 

[surrealworlds]

I agree that it isn't a viable solution, but I disagree that it would not have an effect. You might not see a difference in the short term because of the amount of firearms in circulation, but given enough time (granted, possibly decades), they'd eventually taper off.

So we should give up our constitutionally protected freedoms as well as giving more power to our "ruler" because maybe in decades mass shootings might "taper off"? That doesn't sound like much of a solution at all to me.