Why Not Registering Your Guns is a Mistake

[Gordon]

"NO FREE MAN has to follow any Unconstitutional Law.

In California we just passed to the Governor SB374 that bans ALL semi-auto, center fire, magazine fed rifles. Registration of ALL LEGALLY purchased and possessed rifles must be registered by 7/1/2015.

I will NOT register. I will defend my home and my property from "Actors or the State" who may attempt confiscation.

I am willing to die for what I believe in...are you?

Bring it on."


Got your back, front and flanks my brother! I am NOT letting the reconquista of my beloved turf go down with out a very Alamo like action. I do not believe in static defense, however so the outcome prayerfully will be different. Every gun owner I know around these parts feels the same, the blood is up and my children may taste the chance to regain their liberty, or death. Deopresso Liber !

 

[shafter]

Where has gun registration anywhere reduced violent crime? Show me.

When has gun registration turned out for the good of gun owners? At worst it results in genocide and death, at best it means more restrictions on our freedoms and I neither are acceptable to me.

I'm sick and tired of all the walking on eggshells by gun owners. Oh we can't say this or it will hurt our cause! Don't open carry because it's playing into the anti's hands. You know the drill. We have to be super careful of what we do and say so we don't offend anyone. I don't care who is offended, we're in the right, the Constitution protects us and if more people over the years had the courage and nerve to stand up and be counted we wouldn't be in this mess today. How come we're the only ones compromising? We are getting compromised to death here. It's time to dig in our heels and say not one more inch!

 

[BSA1]

How is my quoting your own words falsely asserting anything?

Post 74 you said “You link registration with reduced crime in your initial post.”

I did not and challenge you to post my comment stating so.

You're the one who brought this up in the context of registration and arguing for compliance with registration.

Again I never said that either and challenge you to post my comment stating so. I have repeatedly tried to point out the trap gun owners in California are now facing.

That's probably true. But again, you show that you're stuck in a box of your own construction.

Not my box. The box millions of residents of California are trapped in. I live in a pro-gun state.

It seems to me that once you get to the point of registration, gun owners are already trapped. The only difference is whether they get you next week when you don't comply or ten years from now when you do comply… In other words, with registration, there is no winning.

Finally! It took you a long time to get there but you finally got my point.

Although I’m sure some (many?) will disagree with me the fight is California has gone badly for gun owners and, imho, they have no good choices left. Well, moving probably is the best choice but packing up and moving isn’t always possible.

The point which many seem to keep missing is about one of the strategies the antis are using against gun owners. By understanding their strategies we can check (even checkmate) them in our states.

p.s. Good luck on your job search. I was recently unemployed for 20 months and it sucks.

 

[goon]

BSA1 - I mean you no personal offense, but this has to be one of the most exasperating conversations I've ever engaged in with anyone.
I've seriously quoted you twice already from your initial post associating registration with fighting crime. It's like you're in a parallel universe or someone edits your posts without telling you or something.

Some basic principles;

First of all I think most, if not all, Americans, regardless of political parties, share concern about the crime rate in America and believe it is much too high.

Second I think most, if not all, Americans, regardless of political parties, agree in principle that guns should be kept out of the hands of criminals.

Third most, if not all, Americans, regardless of political parties, agree that criminals need to be taken off the street. This is supported by the push across the nation for stiffer penalties such as less probation/parole, jail time and longer sentences.

That is from your original post, right up there where you start advocating compliance with registration.
It's the third time I've quoted you saying it and you still haven't clarified how that fits into a discussion on registration.


It's like we've all told you the same thing half a dozen times, quoted you saying things that you then argue you didn't say, and still arrived at the same conclusion that we all started out with.

Finally! It took you a long time to get there but you finally got my point.

That is entirely the opposite of what I think happened here.
I think the rest of us were at that point long before this discussion started.

But I wish you continued luck in your future discussions. Take care amigo.

 

[22-rimfire]

BSA, I see little point in this discussion. Of course, gun owners and those believing in liberty and the Constitution are going to fight a new law through legal channels. That seems to be your big point which has been made 1000 times in the past here on THR and other forums regarding gun control issues. So, why did you even start this thread in the first place unless you are advocating registration. ("Why not registering your Guns is a mistake when required by law.") I don't advocate civil disobediance publically.

Gun control in the form of registration does not necessarily reduce crime. It is all about control of a tool owned by what is becoming a minority in our country. Good honest people do not hurt other people with firearms intentionally unless it is in self defense. So what is the point of registration if there is not another unspoken reason?

 

[MedWheeler]

Two things I cannot believe I'm seeing here:

1) the sheer number of THR-ers that still haven't figured out that the OP is not a supporter of registration laws, and..

2) that this thread is still open.

 

[BSA1]

Goon,

One more time around the block.

That is from your original post, right up there where you start advocating compliance with registration.

You believe that my following comments advocate compliance with registration;

Some basic principles;

First of all I think most, if not all, Americans, regardless of political parties, share concern about the crime rate in America and believe it is much too high.

Second I think most, if not all, Americans, regardless of political parties, agree in principle that guns should be kept out of the hands of criminals.

Third most, if not all, Americans, regardless of political parties, agree that criminals need to be taken off the street. This is supported by the push across the nation for stiffer penalties such as less probation/parole, jail time and longer sentences.

Yet in your Post #53 you state “I don't like crime.” There is nothing in my above comments about registering guns. So where do we disagree on my above statements?

It's the third time I've quoted you saying it and you still haven't clarified how that fits into a discussion on registration.

They are basic concerns that I believe many, if not most, Americans share. How many times do we hear politicians, especially when campaigning for office, make these comments.

Methinks you protest too much. In Post #79 you state “I comply with the registration of handguns in my state because it is required by law” and in Post #60 “And I wouldn't mind being "registered" as a user.” One of the things I learned from protesst in the 1960’s is often the ones that were screaming the loudest to disobey the law were actually undercover police officers or police informants.

Although this has nothing to do with a discussion on what I believe is one of anti’s strategies to ban guns I will make the comments about my personal beliefs;

1. I do not believe in registering firearms and/or their owners. That is one of big reasons I live in the State I do.
2. I do not believe that registering firearms and /or their owners has anything to do with lowering the crime rate.
3. I believe registration is about people control, not crime control.
4. I do not and will not make any public, Internet, Forum, Private message statements advocating civil disobedience or breaking the law.
5. I believe that man has free will to make his own choices.
6. And with making those choices comes the responsibility of accepting the consequences (good and bad) of those actions.

As I said in Post #76 “The only topic of my thread is too point out how current laws that are in effect can be used by anti’s and their willing collaborators in positions of power in Government to a trap for gun owners.”

Way back in Post #45 BaltimoreBoy disagreed with me about this strategy. We don't disagree about the intent of the anti's only about their strategy. BaltimoreBoy does present a good counterpoint as Patton once said "You shouldn't underestimate an enemy, but it is just as fatal to overestimate him."

 

[22-rimfire]

BSA, there have already been government estimates of casualities if push came to shove... 10 million. I won't quote a source. In can only be accomplished as part of a government response to another crisis of such magnitude that people will accept registration and eventually the elimination of firearms in the USA.

You really do favor registration regardless of what you say. Registration will not affect the changes One through three... it is a charade.

 

[goon]

Nevermind.


(My apologies to the Mods. I really should have stayed out of this whole discussion instead of fanning the flames. I knew I should have but I just couldn't keep my trap shut. Sorry gents.)

 

[Black Butte]

Focus on the seizure of UNREGISTERED firearms ....

The antis want ALL firearms seized, and they'll try to get them any way they can. They can register me as a firearms owner, but they won't be registering my guns. It's none of their business.

 

[BSA1]

Naw Goon,

It has been a pleasurable discussion with you. You made some good points. They just weren't germane to my topic.

p.s. You don't hurt my feelings any with insults and accusing me of twisted logic. I did serve over 20 years in prison (by choice even)!

 

[goon]

I did serve over 20 years in prison (by choice even)!

No wonder the idea of noncompliance doesn't appeal to you! lol.
Take care.

 

[jon_in_wv]

If the OPs point is that we follow the law in states where registration is the law I agree whole heartedly. If he is arguing that registration is a good thing and will result in less crime then he is sadly misinformed.

 

[powder]

The discussion is intended to point how choosing not to comply with the law and how using laws already existing on the books plays into the anti-gunners hands.

Talk about I'll never register my guns and "come and get them" plays right into the anti-gunners strategies.

Please allow me to explicate this couple of thoughts. Layman's terms: a dissection.

Level 1: OP may be concerned for your well being.

Level 2: OP taps into some readers' consciences as "good Americans", who do not want to break the law, with this basic manipulation of guilt and right vs. wrong.

Level 3: Creates a seed of fear that in NOT complying with how some people think, we may be giving them ammunition against us.

Level 4: You need to stop talking with other 2A advocates about resisting, and possibly fighting with those tools against this fascist tyranny.

Level 5: You need to stop organizing among your friends and orgs. like the NRA, as it will only result in loss, and you must OBEY.

Level 6: If you don't play this game as I have described it, you will lose your rights as a result-comply.

You know why the Japanese did not come to the U.S. mainland after Pearl Harbor? Yeah, so does our current state of corporate fascist government: they know.

 

[xxjumbojimboxx]

Dont speak for "most if not all americans"... those kind of statements infuriate me... did you do a study on these things? Did you make a little graph?

 

[kwguy]

It seems that the OP tried to lay out some assumptions, and then predict the anti-gunner strategy based on those assumptions, which focused largely on registration. I don't think any real point was made in the original post, except to lay out a possible course of action that could be taken by those who wish to disarm the populace.

I haven't read every post here, but there certainly is nothing positive that can come of registration. I do not consider 'use as a political tool' as being positive.

 

[another pake]

Here is a quote that I have hanging on the BB by my desk. I read it at least once a day, sometimes more. Think about it.

In Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567 (2003), Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reminded us that the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting:

“All too many of the other great tragedies of history – Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few – were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. … If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.”

“My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

 

[BSA1]

Please allow me to explicate this couple of thoughts. Layman's terms: a dissection.

Level 1: Anti-gunners may be concerned for your well being.

Level 2: Anti-gunners taps into some readers' consciences as "good Americans", who do not want to break the law, with this basic manipulation of guilt and right vs. wrong.

Level 3: Creates a seed of fear that in NOT complying with how some people think, we may be giving them ammunition against us.

Level 4: You need to stop talking with other 2A advocates about resisting, and possibly fighting with those tools against this fascist tyranny.

In today’s society you need to pick your words carefully when using the Internet, Twitter and even your cellphone. Who would have believed a few months ago the massive domestic evesdropping by the NSA? Or how about a secret court that allows the judge to issue search and arrest warrants to Federal agents?

Level 5: You need to stop organizing among your friends and orgs. like the NRA, as it will only result in loss, and you must OBEY.

Quite to the contrary As a result of the activities of pro 2A organizations and citizens some states have enacted very pro-active favorable gun laws (Kansas for example).

Level 6: If you don't play this game as I have described it, you will lose your rights as a result-comply.

We need to be very vigilant and wary of such things as tough on crime laws . For example many states have enacted laws that required a 10 year prison sentence without possibility of parole for breaking the law with a firearm. This law does serve a purpose when used against repeat violent offenders. But could it also be used against gun-owners that choose not to register their firearms when required by law?

And it is not necessary to arrest and convict all gun owners. Only enough to create fear of being arrested and suffering the severe consequences.

Also compliance does not mean surrender. Goon’s posts (and I would be proud to consider Goon as a friend) show that even though he is complying with the law he is still trying to get the law changed. But as history has shown us changing laws after they are enacted is long and tough up-hill battle.

 

[BSA1]

It seems that the OP tried to lay out some assumptions, and then predict the anti-gunner strategy based on those assumptions, which focused largely on registration. I don't think any real point was made in the original post, except to lay out a possible course of action that could be taken by those who wish to disarm the populace.

I haven't read every post here, but there certainly is nothing positive that can come of registration. I do not consider 'use as a political tool' as being positive.

Exactly! It is intended as food for thought.

Nor do I mean to suggest it is their only possible strategy. We are dealing with a shrewd, intelligent enemy with vast resources (money, a willing print and TV media, control of the education system, political and government power) that are prepared for a long battle to accomplish their objectives.

 

[BSA1]

Dont speak for "most if not all americans"... those kind of statements infuriate me... did you do a study on these things?

Point well taken. I was viewing it using my Christian faith, the culture I was raised in, the values I was taught when growing up. I do believe that in the little part of America I live in most folks believe as I do.

Clearly criminals do not share my beliefs hence the use of the word "all" is inappropriate.

And you most certainly have the right to have your own values and beliefs however different than mine.

 

[goon]

And it is not necessary to arrest and convict all gun owners. Only enough to create fear of being arrested and suffering the severe consequences.

Registration itself is the cause of that fear.
Eliminate the registration and a lot of the mistrust between gun owners and the government goes away. It simply has less fertile ground to grow in.

In today’s society you need to pick your words carefully when using the Internet, Twitter and even your cellphone. Who would have believed a few months ago the massive domestic evesdropping by the NSA? Or how about a secret court that allows the judge to issue search and arrest warrants to Federal agents?

Many people would have believed that this is exactly what is going on.
The only difference is that now there is hard evidence of it.

We've got a couple choices:
- ignore it out of fear, laziness, or indifference and deal with the consequences when they inevitably surface later. But if that happens and anyone says to me later "how could this have happened?!" with horror in his voice, I swear I'll slap him right across the side of his fat, stupid, empty head with all my might.
- get angry and use the system to pull these out-of-control elements back within acceptable bounds. Our system of government isn't perfect, but it's better than anarchy and it DOES give us the tools to fix things that are broken.

I honestly think a lot of people in this country across the entire political spectrum are fed up with so much government over-reach.
Secret courts, spying on Americans, suppression of the press, attacking the Second Amendment, and now pushing for more constant foreign war. Taken as a package it's quite disappointing. The people I know who supported the current administration must feel deeply betrayed... except for the ones who drink the kool-aid and wear shades that keep them from seeing the errors.
At any rate, I'm very hopeful for the continued growth of libertarian movements in both major parties. Maybe our next election will provide the chance to start rectifying all these wrongs.

Here is a quote that I have hanging on the BB by my desk. I read it at least once a day, sometimes more. Think about it.

In Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567 (2003), Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reminded us that the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting:

“All too many of the other great tragedies of history – Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few – were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. … If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.”

“My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Thank you for the quote. If I ever meet that judge, I'll buy him a beer.
I'm not paranoid, but I am a student of history.
And no one ever sees the bad stuff coming until it's too late.

 

[Krusty783]

There is 1 reason to create a firearms registration database, and that is because the government wants it as leverage.

It is already a felony (in every state I've ever heard of) to be in possession of or use a stolen firearm in a crime.

The utility of reporting stolen firearms is rather questionable, IMO. Unless some database of stolen firearms is maintained and made publicly available so anyone may check the status of a firearm by S/N. However, how would one know where it was stolen from unless it was originally registered to an individual. Thus, reporting a stolen firearm is only useful because it allows another charge to be added to the docket of an indictment.

So then, what other amicable argument can be found supporting the creation of a registration database???

We are not talking about motor vehicles. This is not something that is tracked and taxed by usage, and ostensibly, to maintain public infrastructure. We are talking about a right which was viewed as fundamental by the Founding Fathers because they fought oppression first hand and understood the consequences of a government that did not operate or concern itself primarily with the interests of it's constituents.

And no, If things go completely wacko, I don't expect to fight the US military with my weapons. I suspect that a good portion of the military will side with the populace.

All of us hope that type of situation never becomes reality. However, the potential of action is often more powerful than the action itself.

-----
Op, are you aware that your proposed anti-gunner strategy is basically the method used to legislate and outlaw firearms in the UK? And, since that time the violent crime rate has actually increased. That nanny state across the pond is currently in the process of, or has (I haven't kept up) outlawing pointy kitchen knives above a certain length for home-use because they have hand an alarmingly high rate of stabbings.

We all question the intelligence (and motives) of public officials, but given:
- The data from other developed countries that shows no correlation, or perhaps even an inverse-correlation of violent crime rate to firearms ownership.
- The recently published results of the study demanded by the Pres. himself and eagerly funded by the Anti's which actually yielded the exact opposite answer than what they wanted.

I think the political capital available for anyone in DC to embark on a meaningful attack of the 2nd Amendment in any form has done dried up: Elected Officials know there is no reputable evidence to support their actions, and they have a very high chance of losing their position in the next election of they sponsor or vote in favor of legislation.

 

[Midwest]

Registration itself is the cause of that fear.
Eliminate the registration and a lot of the mistrust between gun owners and the government goes away. It simply has less fertile ground to grow in.

Most Excellent Observation.

 

[BSA1]

Goon says “At any rate, I'm very hopeful for the continued growth of libertarian movements in both major parties.”

Aha! A fellow Libertarian. I knew we agree more we disagree.

Krusrt783 says “Op, are you aware that your proposed anti-gunner strategy is basically the method used to legislate and outlaw firearms in the UK?”

No I had thought about that. A most excellent point.

 

[powder]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W5l_8F8Eyk

Here is an interview with a CA designated A.P.P., who had his legal firearms confiscated by a team.

A. Look at the title of this thread-speaks for itself:OBEY.

B. Look at the graph, wherein states are listed that require registration-how many, and why? What

C. The unarmed are slaves. The mentally unarmed are just the same, which is the OP's point.

In my state I do not have to register my firearms, and here are my follow-up question(s) the OP will not answer: a.) Am I supposed to register all my firearms, anyway, in your opinion? b.) Do you believe I should be calling in all my serial #s to local LE, of currently owned and prospective purchases?

OP, your statements and back-pedaling indicate more than advocacy and playing devil's advocate.

Today, just while typing this response I received an NRA call for $ and I donated. Today the FISA courts are battling with the NSA over privacy matters and disclosure policies!