How NYC is using its Weapons Registration database

[Masbee]

but the act of registering the guns themselves within a database doesn't directly lead to confiscation. It has a different intended purpose. So is the registration itself unconstitutional?

First the German Jews were required to register their guns........,


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[barfo]

Bloomberg = Hitler. I always suspected it.

barfo

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

First the German Jews were required to register their guns........,


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Anyone wanna take a stab at it without resorting to meaningless hyperbole?

 

[Denny Crane]

Anyone wanna take a stab at it without resorting to meaningless hyperbole?

Shall not be infringed. The law infringes.

How about a 24 hour waiting period to get an abortion, or an ID card to vote? Those are minimally in the way of getting an abortion or voting. But those who are fine with gun registration surely oppose the waiting period or ID card. Go figure. The "H" word.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Shall not be infringed. The law infringes.

That's pretty hard line. Are you also in favor of personal nuke ownership?

How about a 24 hour waiting period to get an abortion, or an ID card to vote? Those are minimally in the way of getting an abortion or voting. But those who are fine with gun registration surely oppose the waiting period or ID card. Go figure. The "H" word.

Where do you get this stuff? Either you're watching too much cable news or I'm not watching enough.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

but the act of registering the guns themselves within a database doesn't directly lead to confiscation. It has a different intended purpose. So is the registration itself unconstitutional?

I find it objectionable.

What amazes me is that through knee jerk legislation, the population of the largest city in this country allowed the loss of a civil right with zero fight..all was done under the guise of the "We dont want your guns" rhetoric, and now they use the data base to tell people they do want their guns..

You excuse this? You claim that they are only "enforcing the law"..what is next, Hoo? Free speech? Assembly? What would outrage you? Where do you draw the line? I know the things I have protested..the draft, use of national guardsmen on collage campuses, the VN war, Watergate..and so on...where is your passion..when do you care..

 

[MARIS61]

Can explain to me how the registration of guns is unconstitutional?

It's an enormous infringement on the right to bear arms. It's also a deliberate threat from the government directed at gun-owners.

It's no different than having to register what your religion is.

 

[MARIS61]

but the act of registering the guns themselves within a database doesn't directly lead to confiscation. It has a different intended purpose.

Yes, it leads directly to confiscation, as shown in this thread. It has no other purpose.

 

[MARIS61]

Bloomberg = Hitler. I always suspected it.

barfo

Actually, pretty close as far as how their minds worked (or malfunctioned).

Both exhibit sociopathic traits and delusions of godliness. Probably a good thing they weren't born in the same era.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I find it objectionable.

What amazes me is that through knee jerk legislation, the population of the largest city in this country allowed the loss of a civil right with zero fight..all was done under the guise of the "We dont want your guns" rhetoric, and now they use the data base to tell people they do want their guns..

You excuse this? You claim that they are only "enforcing the law"..what is next, Hoo? Free speech? Assembly? What would outrage you? Where do you draw the line? I know the things I have protested..the draft, use of national guardsmen on collage campuses, the VN war, Watergate..and so on...where is your passion..when do you care..

objectionable doesn't mean it's unconstitutional

Why do you think there is gun control?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

It's an enormous infringement on the right to bear arms. It's also a deliberate threat from the government directed at gun-owners.

You are extrapolating. How is it unconstitutional to keep track of who owns firearms?

It's no different than having to register what your religion is.

Maybe if owning firearms is your religion, and sometimes I wonder.

Yes, it leads directly to confiscation, as shown in this thread. It has no other purpose.

It aids in confiscation if and when a ban is being enforced. It's stated purpose is to assist in criminal investigations.

 

[MARIS61]

Most 5 year-olds know how to play connect the dots.

hoojacks on the other hand...

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Most 5 year-olds know how to play connect the dots.

hoojacks on the other hand...

saying something is unconstitutional shouldn't require playing silly games

 

[Denny Crane]

That's pretty hard line. Are you also in favor of personal nuke ownership?



Where do you get this stuff? Either you're watching too much cable news or I'm not watching enough.

The first is a non-sequitur. The second is denial of reality.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

objectionable doesn't mean it's unconstitutional

Why do you think there is gun control?

I did not think I had to state the obvious

hmm I had expected more than shallow snark

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

The first is a non-sequitur.

I'll ask it a different way if you're going to play that card: are you in favor of any infringements on the 2nd amendment? Or do you think banning nukes, tanks, etc from personal use isn't a second amendment issue?

The second is denial of reality.

Yes, sir.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I did not think I had to state the obvious

hmm I had expected more than shallow snark

No, I can't read your mind.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'll ask it a different way if you're going to play that card: are you in favor of any infringements on the 2nd amendment? Or do you think banning nukes, tanks, etc from personal use isn't a second amendment issue?



Yes, sir.

Let me ask you a question. Are they having some sort of registration database of nuclear weapons owners in NY?

As for the second, you don't watch TV, read the newspapers, or anything?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Let me ask you a question. Are they having some sort of registration database of nuclear weapons owners in NY?

Keep dodging the issue. You can't be a hardliner with constitutionality and then refuse to discuss instances of where you'd prefer infringement to the alternative. "H" word indeed.

As for the second, you don't watch TV, read the newspapers, or anything?

I try not to. I prefer to base my opinions of people off of those I've met.

 

[Denny Crane]

Keep dodging the issue. You can't be a hardliner with constitutionality and then refuse to discuss instances of where you'd prefer infringement to the alternative. "H" word indeed.



I try not to. I prefer to base my opinions of people off of those I've met.

The "issue" that you accuse me of dodging is entirely meaningless and pointless in the context of the topic at hand: the NY law.

However, since you insist... I don't see the point in banning the citizens from owning an atomic weapon. It took the wealth of the nations of Iran or N. Korea to make one (Iran supposedly hasn't yet). May as well ban phasers, photon torpedoes, and light sabers too, as they are equally imaginary and unrealistic a scenario.

Explosives in general may be regulated, because they aren't particularly Arms. They are used to clear land, make tunnels through mountains, remove tree stumps, etc. They are volatile, too. That you may need explosives as part of a working atom bomb probably restricts ownership.

As well, like with any right, the right can be abused. Yelling fire in a crowded theater or printing libelous or slanderous material about someone or plotting to overthrow the government are examples of abuse of Free Speech. The response isn't to register everyone's vocal cords, but to accuse the violator of a crime and attempt a conviction.

In that light, the 2nd isn't a license to do bad things with guns. If you use a gun to terrorize people, it's almost certainly not some protected action. Owning a gun or any other Arm, carrying it most places, etc., likely is or should be protected.

The problem with this law is it is akin to registering everyone's vocal cords because some ridiculously small number might abuse the right.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

The "issue" that you accuse me of dodging is entirely meaningless and pointless in the context of the topic at hand: the NY law.

The topic shifted to the constitutionality of registering guns. You said it infringed on the 2nd amendment. So I'm trying to explore that.

However, since you insist... I don't see the point in banning the citizens from owning an atomic weapon. It took the wealth of the nations of Iran or N. Korea to make one (Iran supposedly hasn't yet).

You could feasibly cobble together a dirty bomb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

May as well ban phasers, photon torpedoes, and light sabers too, as they are equally imaginary and unrealistic a scenario.

What about chemical and biological weapons? Tanks? Missiles? Some Americans are exceedingly wealthy and can afford such things.

Explosives in general may be regulated, because they aren't particularly Arms. They are used to clear land, make tunnels through mountains, remove tree stumps, etc. They are volatile, too. That you may need explosives as part of a working atom bomb probably restricts ownership.

As well, like with any right, the right can be abused. Yelling fire in a crowded theater or printing libelous or slanderous material about someone or plotting to overthrow the government are examples of abuse of Free Speech. The response isn't to register everyone's vocal cords, but to accuse the violator of a crime and attempt a conviction.

In that light, the 2nd isn't a license to do bad things with guns. If you use a gun to terrorize people, it's almost certainly not some protected action. Owning a gun or any other Arm, carrying it most places, etc., likely is or should be protected.

The problem with this law is it is akin to registering everyone's vocal cords because some ridiculously small number might abuse the right.

Your vocal chords are "registered" because people have ears and can report your abuse of the first amendment. Owning a machine designed to kill people is different. If you abuse your second amendment rights, the person or people you kill can't report you. I'm no district attorney, but I would imagine being able to trace a gun to its registered owner could assist in an investigation.

 

[Denny Crane]

You're really reaching.

Your vocal cords aren't registered in any form. You don't require a license to post on a message board, for example, or to write a letter to the editor of the newspaper, or to write anything at all.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

You're really reaching.

Your vocal cords aren't registered in any form. You don't require a license to post on a message board, for example, or to write a letter to the editor of the newspaper, or to write anything at all.

But I am prohibited from yelling fire in a crowded theater, or from producing certain images, or from using speech to plot to overthrow the government. Just as I am prohibited from owning certain types of arms.

The whole analogy is flawed anyway. Guns != speech.

 

[Denny Crane]

But I am prohibited from yelling fire in a crowded theater, or from producing certain images, or from using speech to plot to overthrow the government. Just as I am prohibited from owning certain types of arms.

The whole analogy is flawed anyway. Guns != speech.

USING those arms.

You're prohibited from shooting someone or waving the gun in someone's face to threaten them, and so on.

You got it really wrong.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

USING those arms.

You're prohibited from shooting someone or waving the gun in someone's face to threaten them, and so on.

You got it really wrong.

Guns != speech. There is no other reason to have a gun other than to use it for its intended purpose: to kill.

 

[Denny Crane]

Guns != speech. There is no other reason to have a gun other than to use it for its intended purpose: to kill.

Rights == Rights.

Right to free speech, right to own guns.

Both in the Bill of Rights.

It's not broken, you don't have to insist on fixing it.

Guns' purpose isn't to kill people. That's proven by the fact that guns are rarely used to kill people. VERY rarely.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Rights == Rights.

Right to free speech, right to own guns.

Both in the Bill of Rights.

It's not broken, you don't have to insist on fixing it.

I'm not trying to fix anything, I'm just trying to figure out why the registration of guns is unconstitutional. How does the act of registering that you own a piece of machinery, much like you would an automobile, infringe on your rights to own it?

Sure, perhaps there is a law that says you can't own a certain firearm, and perhaps that law is unconstitutional. But how is being required to register a gun you legally possess unconstitutional? I'm not getting it.

Guns' purpose isn't to kill people. That's proven by the fact that guns are rarely used to kill people. VERY rarely.

Die Antwoord was right all along!

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not trying to fix anything, I'm just trying to figure out why the registration of guns is unconstitutional. How does the act of registering that you own a piece of machinery, much like you would an automobile, infringe on your rights to own it?

Sure, perhaps there is a law that says you can't own a certain firearm, and perhaps that law is unconstitutional. But how is being required to register a gun you legally possess unconstitutional? I'm not getting it.



Die Antwoord was right all along!

Infringe.

If it were written into the Bill of Rights that your right to own a car must not be infringed, then auto registration would be unconstitutional.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Infringe.

If it were written into the Bill of Rights that your right to own a car must not be infringed, then auto registration would be unconstitutional.

Other amendments have legal exceptions, why not the second amendment?

 

[Denny Crane]

Other amendments have legal exceptions, why not the second amendment?

Shall not be infringed.

The founders anticipated government's attempts to deny this right. They went to the extra length of adding those words to the amendment. They also felt is was the 2nd most important Right.

Stossel did a show recently where he tried to buy and register a gun in NYC with a carry permit. He has typical left-wing hate speech type threats posted on his WWW site, so it is reasonable that he'd want a means of self defense. It took months and he was denied in the end. Clearly the laws aren't there to benefit society but to block law abiding citizens from their 2nd amendment right.

There are exceptions to the 2nd. When SCOTUS ruled for the 2nd in its most recent cases, it mentioned exceptions for traditional "dangerous and unusual" weapons. Here common law goes back to well before this nation was founded (the traditional part).