Why registering guns is not the same as registering cars

[abajaj11]

It seems that some conservatives may be leaning towards universal background checks, which we know can only be enforced by registering all firearms in the USA. The usual analogy is "cars are registered, so why not guns?"

Here are some reasons why this is a false analogy:
1. A car is a public good. It consumes public resources when it is used legally: highways, gasoline, pollution, etc). This public cost needs to be offset by state registering of cars. Notice there is NO FEDERAL registration of cars.
In contrast, a gun does not consume public resources when used legally. It is shot on a range, or kept hidden from public view. The only time it consumes a public resource is if it is used for hunting, and for which there is a state-issued license fee already (again, NOT FEDERAL).
There is no economic reason for gun registration.
The only reason for gun registration is if a government wants to know what arms its citizens legally possess. Why would a government want to know that? It is not going to prevent any crimes. Historically, the ONLY reason for gun registration has been to confiscate them.
Since the second amendment was create expressly to prevent a central tyrant from taking over the people, a database of who owns what can only be of use to such a tyrant.

Look at:
https://reason.com/archives/2013/12/11/how-government-officials-sealed-the-doom



The film above is excellent, though a bit graphic.

2. There are huge costs to setting up and maintaining the bureaucracy to maintain these records. Assuming ownership of 400 million firearms, even a 1% error rate will result in 4 million ownership records being incorrectly marked as out of compliance. This is not acceptable.

3. Driving a car is a privilege. It is not a constitutionally protected right. Registering your guns is equivalent to registering your Internet login names and passwords, from a constitutional standpoint.

Please consider emailing this to others and contacting your Congressperson and Senators to OPPOSE universal background checks, which lead to gun registration.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Driving and or owning an unregistered car isn't a crime. Operating an unregistered car on a public road is.

 

[JSH1]

Cars are registered to establish ownership and help prevent stolen cars from being sold back into the legal market
A gun registry could be used in a similar way as a more robust version of the current ATF tracing program.

 

[Doc7]

Cars are registered to establish ownership and help prevent stolen cars from being sold back into the legal market
A gun registry could be used in a similar way as a more robust version of the current ATF tracing program.

Historically, car registries have not been used to confiscate cars.

 

[denton]

There is no minimum age for owning a vehicle. And as long as you are private property, there is no requirement that the operator be licensed, or the vehicle registered, have license plates, or be insured.

 

[JSH1]

Historically, car registries have not been used to confiscate cars.

It happens every day.

I'm not sure why people get so worked up about registrations. If a ban is passed the battle is already lost.

 

[cp1969]

There is nothing in the Constitution saying "the right to keep and bear transportation shall not be infringed."

 

[Walkalong]

Cars are registered to establish ownership and help prevent stolen cars from being sold back into the legal market
A gun registry could be used in a similar way as a more robust version of the current ATF tracing program.

The only reason they want a gun registry is to know where to come get them all.

I'm not sure why people get so worked up about registrations.

Of course you know why, you have "debated" it here many times.

If a ban is passed the battle is already lost.

Not really.

They want the registry so if they can get the votes to ban a class of firearms they know where to come get them.

But that won't stop you from arguing the antis side for them.

 

[JSH1]

The only reason they want a gun registry is to know where to come get them all.

Or as a much better, cheaper, and faster version of the current ATF gun tracing system.

They want the registry so if they can get the votes to ban a class of firearms they know where to come get them.

You don't need a registry to ban something.

If a gun is banned it is useless to a law-abiding citizen. What is the point of keeping a gun you cannot use?

 

[abajaj11]

JSH1, You really need to watch the video in the original post on this thread. It will show you how gun registration has been used for the past 100 years across the world, including here in the USA. It has never been reported to have a positive effect on crime deterrence. Instead it has led to the homicidal deaths of over 170 MILLION people in the last 100 years.
Per your argument, if a gun is stolen from an owner and used to commit a crime, what is the point of knowing where it was stolen from? Does that add anything to the equation?

 

[warnerwh]

The real reason to register guns is so they know where they are so they can confiscate them. Otherwise it would be a waste of time. If it ever comes to registering our guns we are in deep poop because as sure as the sun comes up they will decide to take them from us. If there's another reason to register them I can't think of it. We should be glad hillary isn't president or we would be in trouble for sure.

 

[easy]

Or as a much better, cheaper, and faster version of the current ATF gun tracing system.

You don't need a registry to ban something.

If a gun is banned it is useless to a law-abiding citizen. What is the point of keeping a gun you cannot use?

Do you really believe the drivel I'm reading in your posts? Because if so, just turn yours in now and avoid the rush.

 

[AR-Bossman]

Everybody should read what JSH1 is writing and come up with sharp counter argument to his points. If you end up in a discussion about this topic, you can't just scream "Go watch youtube". We all need to sharpen our arguments against all possible counterpoints. It's embarrassing to be caught off guard and not be able to produce a clear concise counter point. I do like to read these discussions to help develop my counter arguments to possible anti-gun people.

As to the ATF tracing. Obviously there is merit in what you are saying. Like the idea of privacy vs. a camera on every corner and in every business. You could find instances where tracing the origin of a gun's sale or owner may lead you to other crimes. But it's also the same mechanism that allows leftists to know who has what guns, and in turn target those individuals for possible harassment. We saw something like this in at least one state, I believe.

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html

It becomes clear we should accept liberty over safety . There will be instances where having a giant database of gun owners may help solve some crime. Just like we accept some deaths are gonna happen because we allow an 80mph freeway speed limit, we need to accept that some crimes may go unsolved without the super database.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Everybody should read what JSH1 is writing and come up with sharp counter argument to his points.

Many will and have however, weak and invalid points don't inspire a lot of debate.

 

[doubleh]

Vehicle registration is mainly a form of taxation. Gun registration, if passed will also be a form of taxation. No one is going to confiscate vehicles. The nation would immediately grind to a halt and that would result in immediate revolt by the masses. Gun registration would result in eventual confiscation despite what we will be told as it's designed to do and about half the population would be happy and another 20% or so just wouldn't care one way or the other. The government would gladly give up the revenue brought in from firearm registration costs to be rid of the masses having anything better than sharps sticks to revolt with.

Registration fees , taxes by another name, always exceed the actual costs of this "service". Government always manages to skim something off the top of any "service" they provide us in their greater than us wisdom. Usually quite a bit off the top.

 

[tarosean]

There is no minimum age for owning a vehicle. And as long as you are private property, there is no requirement that the operator be licensed, or the vehicle registered, have license plates, or be insured.

This is the truth that 99.9% of people do not get..

 

[P5 Guy]

There is no minimum age for owning a vehicle. And as long as you are private property, there is no requirement that the operator be licensed, or the vehicle registered, have license plates, or be insured.

Also there is no limit to the modifications one can do to the privately owned automobile. DO NOT do the wrong modifications to a firearm.

 

[helitack32f1]

You don't need a registry to ban something.

If a gun is banned it is useless to a law-abiding citizen. What is the point of keeping a gun you cannot use?

This post shows more than most of yours that you aren’t paying attention. Of course you do not need a registry to ban things and no one is saying you do! You need the registry to go grab the things that were just banned. Really not that hard to understand.

You seem to be stuck in the category of “Those who forget the past (or never knew it in the first place) are doomed to repeat it”. This is a scenario that has already played out in history, as every knowledgeable person knows.

As for your last statement, are you somehow under the impression that firearms are rendered useless and unusable the moment they are declared “banned”? Hate to be the one to break it to you but they are still 100% useful, and probably far more necessary than ever before.

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

This ^^ is similar to the notion that when my car safety inspection sticker expires, my vehicle somehow inexplicably becomes a death trap and safety hazard to all.

As applied to firearms: Just because someone deems it so, does not make it so.

 

[ATLDave]

Additional reason: License plates are used to help identify cars that are driven away from accidents or crimes. Cars are large enough to accommodate plates that are legible from a considerable distance and to be read via security cameras. Firearms are smaller. Despite Ruger's best efforts (ha!), there is no feasible way to put lettering on a gun such that someone who witnessed a gun crime would be reliably able to report than number to aid in apprehending the criminal.

 

[DeepSouth]

I remember a few years back when AL started making it to where you must have a license to run a boat on public waters. I personally thought it was stupid, I’d been driving boats on rivers since I was 10 maybe 12. It just wasn’t a big deal. They were grandfathering older people and At the time all you had to do to get a license was go take a open book test that anyone could pass.

I was talking to a game warden on day right after it went into effect, I’ll never forget what he told me. “It’s not about knowing how to run a boat, it’s about giving people a license that we can take away if they act up.”

That made me realize that in reality anything you have to have a license to do is a revokable privilege, and therefore not a right.

The goal is make it easier to force compliance of whatever they decide down the road.

 

[Sistema1927]

Let's cut to the chase

You don't need to register, or obtain a licence, in order to exercise a right. Your mere existence is reason enough.

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

I remember a few years back when AL started making it to where you must have a license to run a boat on public waters. I personally thought it was stupid, I’d been driving boats on rivers since I was 10 maybe 12. It just wasn’t a big deal. They were grandfathering older people and At the time all you had to do to get a license was go take a open book test that anyone could pass.

I was talking to a game warden on day right after it went into effect, I’ll never forget what he told me. “It’s not about knowing how to run a boat, it’s about giving people a license that we can take away if they act up.”

That made me realize that in reality anything you have to have a license to do is a revokable privilege, and therefore not a right.

The goal is make it easier to force compliance of whatever they decide down the road.

This.^^

 

[TomJ]

One of the positives of the current gun debate is that the left is showing their cards. Their stated goal is unquestionably to do away with private gun ownership. Diane Feinstein has stated this, Hillary did when she referred to Australian type gun laws and within the past couple of days retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens called for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. The first step in confiscating guns is knowing who owns them and what they own, therefore registration. While other arguments may be made regarding benefits of registration (none that I consider valid), the anti's want to use it to be able to confiscate guns if they ever have their wish of private gun ownership being done away with come true. That's reason enough to push back on this.

Edit to add: In regards to explaining our opposition to this to others, I point out that our politicians can not be trusted. In pushing Obamacare, the dems promised lower premiums and the ability to keep our doctors and current programs. They lied. The republicans campaigned on repealing and replacing it. They lied too, as they still haven't done so. Trusting them to not use registration as a stepping stone to eventual confiscation is naive.

 

[theotherwaldo]

According to a recent case in Washington state, a vehicle can be declared to be a home, which makes it exempt from being towed and arbitrarily confiscated.
So far, you can't live in your gun.