Registration WILL lead to CONFISCATION. Don't trust the takers.

[USFREEDOM911]

I ended the argument ages ago; when I first posted on the thread, actually.

I'm hanging around a little because this is just fun now.

So you're a masochist and enjoy being bitch slapped.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

That said, since you answered... why do you support magazine capacity bans when a person can simply carry multiple clips? It is the same as the NY city attempt to ban large sodas. It doesn't limit ammo available to a user, it simply changes the format of how they carry it. If a person can change clips in a couple of seconds (max) or carry multiple weapons with fewer rounds, then how does the ban help anything?

Say the bans you want took place and a person walked in with two 45's and multiple clips and another Sandy Hook type massacre occurred. What would be your response with regards to those guns?

As far as registration goes, the registration simply would allow the government to force citizens to give up guns in the case of arbitrary bans... as we saw in the case in Canada.

What about if someone showed up with a small bag of revolvers, say 10 or 12.
Wouldn't that also give him the possibility of 60 to 72 shots?
All he has to do, is fire 6 / drop the gun / reach into the bag / grab another revolver / fire 6 more rounds / repeat

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I told you why...

And the premise of your "reason" was a load of crap, that you pulled out of your ass; unless you want to show a States vehicle registration laws, that shows the reason you stated.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I won a 1.4 million dollar verdict using this doctrine, thank you very much.

Sure you did and that's why someone with that much money spends so much time on a web site.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

I support bans on assault weapons and bans on magazine capacity I do not support the Constitution or America in general.

FTFY.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

How so?

Registration is only for vehicles that are being used on public roads, and the fee is to pay for the use of said roads.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Cars are registered because they are an inherantly dangerous machine and ownership requires certian responsabilities. They are not generally confiscated by the government unless they were used to commit a crime.

Guns should be registered because they are an inherantly dangerous machine and ownership should require certian responsabilities.

So should that apply to voting, religion, speech, being tried in court by a jury, or any other right?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

How is it different?

Registration is to pay for roads. Registration of guns would cost BILLIONS (the Canadian system cost over 2,000,000,000 a year), is unconstitutional (violates the 5A), and is not useful in the solving of crime. There is NO legitimate reason to deprive law abiding citizens of their privacy.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

How is it different? you buy a car, you register it...you buy a gun, you register it.

How is it different?

According the the title of this thread, which you claim is 100% accurate, registration WILL lead to confiscation.

I just want to know when they're coming for my car.

Or are you going to move the goalposts again?

LMAO... so are you going to try Lorax's silly little 'you are moving the goal posts' line of crap?

I am not moving the goal posts. You are trying to twist this to pretend we are saying 'any registration of anything will lead to confiscation'. No one has stated any such thing. Many things are registered that no one has any interest in banning. Guns are not in that category. I am sorry if you, Jarod and Lorax are too ignorant to comprehend that.

 

[christiefan915]

Disproving what claim? That cars have not been confiscated? His 'claim' has absolutely nothing to do with the topic being discussed. Nothing. That is why is has proven himself an idiot again. He reused someones else's bad analogy in some vain attempt to appear 'witty' or 'intelligent'. It was a stupid argument the first time around. Even stupider that he tried it again.

Explain why it's a bad analogy.

We're all registered to vote. Is this going to lead to our votes being cancelled? Young men are compelled to register with the SSS. What's the inevitable confiscation/cancellation/something coming from this?

The thread title is nothing but a correlation...causation fallacy.

 

[christiefan915]

false equivalency.

Why is it a false equivalency? Pretend I'm stupid and spell it out in detail.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Explain why it's a bad analogy.

We're all registered to vote. Is this going to lead to our votes being cancelled? Young men are compelled to register with the SSS. What's the inevitable confiscation/cancellation/something coming from this?

The thread title is nothing but a correlation...causation fallacy.

It has already been stated why it is a poor analogy.

1) No one is threatening to ban cars. No one is threatening to ban voting. People ARE threatening to ban guns

2) Registering cars has a purpose. Registering to vote has a purpose. Registering guns does NOT have a purpose

Hopefully this sinks in this time.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Explain why it's a bad analogy.

We're all registered to vote. Is this going to lead to our votes being cancelled? Young men are compelled to register with the SSS. What's the inevitable confiscation/cancellation/something coming from this?

The thread title is nothing but a correlation...causation fallacy.

There's plenty of historical evidence of registration being used for confiscation.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

There's plenty of historical evidence of registration being used for confiscation.

but but but, they haven't confiscated our cars...

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

It has already been stated why it is a poor analogy.

1) No one is threatening to ban cars. No one is threatening to ban voting. People ARE threatening to ban guns

2) Registering cars has a purpose. Registering to vote has a purpose. Registering guns does NOT have a purpose

Hopefully this sinks in this time.

Who's "threatening to ban guns"?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

but but but, they haven't confiscated our cars...

Honestly, they should confiscate yours. I can only imagine the road rage incidents you've been involved in...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Who's "threatening to ban guns"?

How many times must we go over this?

1) Many on this board, in DC etc... want to ban so called 'assault weapons' and mags over a certain capacity.
2) They are doing so in a knee jerk reaction to Sandy Hook
3) If they get that BAN on those guns and the next psycho comes in with several handguns and starts killing people, the next step of people like those is to ban the next level of guns.

4) The above cycle is retarded as it does nothing to stop the lunatics from killing people. It simply changes the means by which they do so.

Look at the UCF case, that kid killed himself before doing anything, but he had a bag full of bombs that he made. You are not going to stop anything by banning weapons that scare you or by limiting clip size. Yet idiots continue to pretend like that will accomplish something... ie... it will make them FEEL better. This, despite the fact that it will not affect the lethal capabilities of someone intent on killing. The Sandy Hook lunatic turns out to be a gamer type who created a detailed spreadsheet of past mass murderers and the number of victims each had. He was going for the highest score.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

How many times must we go over this?

1) Many on this board, in DC etc... want to ban so called 'assault weapons' and mags over a certain capacity.
2) They are doing so in a knee jerk reaction to Sandy Hook
3) If they get that BAN on those guns and the next psycho comes in with several handguns and starts killing people, the next step of people like those is to ban the next level of guns.

4) The above cycle is retarded as it does nothing to stop the lunatics from killing people. It simply changes the means by which they do so.

.

The above is emotive, paranoid nonsense. Many want to ban assault weapons, and have for MANY years prior to Sandy Hook. Your first & second statements taken together are just false - you enjoy making false statements and presenting them as fact.

Because those are false, #3 is completely unfounded. Innocent people are killed by handguns every day. Your paranoia is nothing but slippery slope fearmongering taken to the extreme.

You're really an embarassment.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

How many times must we go over this?

1) Many on this board, in DC etc... want to ban so called 'assault weapons' and mags over a certain capacity.

.

Banning assault weapons, is not "banning guns" though. Some cars have been banned too. Ever heard of the Pinto?

People on this board can't "threaten" to ban anything. They can only voice their own ideas.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

The above is emotive, paranoid nonsense. Many want to ban assault weapons, and have for MANY years prior to Sandy Hook. Your first & second statements taken together are just false - you enjoy making false statements and presenting them as fact.

Because those are false, #3 is completely unfounded. Innocent people are killed by handguns every day. Your paranoia is nothing but slippery slope fearmongering taken to the extreme.

You're really an embarassment.

How'd you like to be sitting in front of him at a red light with an "I'm pro-choice and I vote" bumper sticker on your car?