🚀 go-pugleaf

Registration as a law enforcement tool was shot down by Haynes v. US in 1968
I believe it was  The USOC basically said that to force a felon  to register
his firearm was a violation of his 5th amendment rights against self
incrimination. Therefore, registration would apply only to the law abiding
citizen. How would that reduce crime
?<83pmlh$oqh$1@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
>leroyg@my-deja.com wrote in message <83orgo$cka$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>In article <83nupr$bio$1@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>,
>>  "Anarchometer" <anarchometer@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Having to register a gun does not mean that you cannot own it. It
>>simply
>>> >means that there is a better chance of keeping guns out of the wrong
>>> >hands. Such an ability is also in the interest of the security of a
>>free
>>> >state, don't you think?
>>>
>>> No. Californians were told that they could keep SKSs if they
>>registered
>>> them.
>>> The moment Gray Davis took over as governor, he immediately ordered
>>the
>>> confiscation of SKSs. We don't believe assholes who say they "only"
>>want
>>> registration. YOU might "only" want registration, but the guys in
>>power will
>>> use
>>> that piece of paper to CONFISCATE. The NRA has been saying that for
>>years,
>>> and you pricks on the left have insisted you would never go so far as
>>> actually
>>> confiscating guns. Gray Davis EXPOSED your phony motives once and for
>>all!
>>
>>
>>Thanks for your kind words. It is nice to see that you are so civil
>>about discussions.>>
>
>I'm sure you were being sarcastic, which leads me to observe that
>while you don't mind someone pulling a gun on ME to force me into
>a cage for disobeying the letter of the "law" when it comes to my choice
>of self-defense weapon, you wet your pants if I point out your hypocrisy
>in less than flowery language. We're talking about my right to
self-defense,
>to protect my family, to survive. As long as I am doing nothong wrong,
>no one, not even a snot-nosed dickhead in Sacramento with a control
>fetish has the right to superimpose his morality over my best judgment.
>You're going to say, "but what if it's the law?" I don't CARE what the
"law"
>says if it is immoral. And any "law" that gives some cop the mistaken
>impression that he has a right to confiscate my guns is an initiation of
>force against me, and bound to cause trouble. Answer this question,
>please: Is any command inherently righteous by virtue of the fact that
>it is made in accordance with the "law"?
>
>Yes_ No__
>
>
> I said nothing about confiscating guns, but you are
>>too interested in branding me a leftist liberal to notice that.>>
>
>You didn't read what I wrote, then. I don't CARE what your motives are.
>You DO support blind obedience to the "law", so when you say today
>that you only want registration, and the next day someone else
>passes a "law" that goes farther than that, i.e., confiscation, you WILL
>support the new "law" over what you say today. That's a nice way of
>saying you're just being disingenuous, at least, and in my judgment
>dishonest about your real agenda.
>
>
>>> >Again, having a right does not exonerate people from responsibility.
>>> >Even though we have a right to free speech, we cannot say whatever we
>>> >please,>>
>>>
>>> Don't you even see the bleeding   C O N T R A D I C T I O N    in your
>>> own sentences???
>>
>>No. I don't. Everyone knows that totally unrestricted "free" speech
>>although it is mentioned in the First Amendment, is rarely completely
>>supported by legal decisions.
>
>
>I don't CARE what "legal" decisions have been made by lawyers. At
>one time slavery was "legal", so legality doesn't impress me as having
>any bearing on morality. I don't usually bicker about what the "law"
>says, but since you constantly bring it up, does the constitution mean
>business, or were the guys who wrote it just kidding? What does the
>phrase "NO LAW" mean to you? Explain how "Congress shall make
>NO LAW . . .abridging the freedom of speech" can be interpreted to
>mean, "Congress can make a law here and there, under special
>circumstances, abridging the freedom of speech" ?
>
>
>>> There is NO provision for registration in the constitution. If you
>>insist on
>>> calling "regulation of the militia" justification for registration,
>>then
>>> women
>>> wouldn't be allowed to have guns, because the law (Title 10) defining
>>the
>>> composition of the militia doesn't include women. Obviously women have
>>> the same right to own a firearm as a man does, therefore any argument
>>> based on that "regulated militia" crap is bogus, unless you say all
>>women
>>> must turn in their guns.
>>>
>>
>>We have been over what "well regulated" means, so I don't see why you
>>are still arguing about it. Even if "well regulated" means "operating
>>smoothly," as others have argued, you still have to explain why that
>>same militia is mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, under the power of
>>the Congress.>>
>
>The MILITIA is what is regulated. Women aren't IN the militia. And anyone
>who is NOT in the militia is immune from congressional regulation of their
>firearms. I'll ask you again, do women have the same right to own guns as
>men do, in your opinion?
>
> Gun owners argue that if you have a freedom, some will
>>abuse it. Well, if you have a governmental power, some will abuse *that*
>>too, but it doesn't negate its usefulness. I think you're being
>>inconsistent with your accusations of abuse of power.
>
>
>I think you're thrashing about wildly trying to hit me with a canard
because
>your argument is based on a blind faith in the supposed legitimacy of the
>"law" coupled with an appeal to fear of guns. In what way have I been
>inconsistent in accusing Gray Davis of treachery, and evil motives?
>
>-
>>Leroy Gonzalez
>>leroyg@my-deja.com
>>
>>
>>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>>Before you buy.
>
>