# Gun Registries and Privacy



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Another thread raised a paradoxical question I have about gun registries and government surveillance in America, it's for all the right-wingers on this forum. I don't really know much about gun registries in America because I'm neither American or a gun owner, and I'm indifferent to gun control.

1) If the government proposed a gun registry that kept track of all the gun owners and all the guns they owned, would you object? Let's assume there would be no actual limits on ownership, waiting periods, etc, just the government keeping track of what you own.

2)The second part of my question is do you object to the government surveillance measures FrankDC referred to in his recent post?

I get the impression some people on this forum have different answers to the 2 above questions which seems paradoxical. *Can these differences be reconciled?*


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I'm not a right-winger, but I'll answer.
1. no
2. yes

You have the choice to buy a gun or not.


----------



## PennGlock (Mar 14, 2006)

The government already imposes and illegal and unconstitutional gun registry. 

I oppose both questions you bring up. Im probably in the minority, though.


----------



## Trilby (Aug 11, 2004)

PennGlock said:


> The government already imposes and illegal and unconstitutional gun registry.


What's the basis for a gun register being unconstitutional?


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Trilby said:


> What's the basis for a gun register being unconstitutional?


The Fourth Amendment:

_The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized._


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Jolly Roger*

Gentlemen, Jolly Roger,

Right on the money Jolly Roger. To answer your question, I just picked up a Para Ordinance Warthog, in 45 cal.
I own about 6 handguns, mostly Sig Sauer or Para.
I also am a member of the NRA.

Nice day my friends
Have nice weekend


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Jolly Roger said:


> The Fourth Amendment:
> 
> _The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized._


If this is your rather bizarre interpretation of the 4th ammendment, you must then, of course, be opposed to automobile registration, property titles being recorded, birth and death certificates and, that ultimate of all government registrations: the social security number. Anything less would brand you as a hypocrite, a tap-dancer amongst registrations.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Inconsistency*



Jolly Roger said:


> The Fourth Amendment:
> 
> _The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized._


My own inconsistency, not Jolly Roger's post. I agree with JR's interpretation of the Constitution, but I would not have a problem with requiring all guns to be registered, or in having the ballistics recorded for al firearms sold in the U.S. I do think the Constitution would need to be changed in order to accomplish this.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Just another thread to troll the right here. 

It is not just "right wingers" that own guns (GASP!). It is not just "right wingers" that have concerns with privacy (GASP!). When someone with no horse in the race, i.e. non-US resident, non-gun owner, sets up something into such a loaded (no pun intended) framework, the desire is obviously just to be a puppet master and troll you folks.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Just another thread to troll the right here.
> 
> It is not just "right wingers" that own guns (GASP!). It is not just "right wingers" that have concerns with privacy (GASP!). When someone with no horse in the race, i.e. non-US resident, non-gun owner, sets up something into such a loaded (no pun intended) framework, the desire is obviously just to be a puppet master and troll you folks.


Yeah, but it's a beautiful day and what the hell else do we have to do? And no, it certainly isn't just right-wingers who have concerns about privacy. It is the right, after all, who have moved us into this "Imperial Presidency", not the left. The current rush to surveil the entire populace of the US isn't the work of a left-leaning administration and their lackeys in Congress (of course, the Republican lackeys in Congress have been joined by equally compliant Democrats, it seems).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

omairp said:


> Another thread raised a paradoxical question I have about gun registries and government surveillance in America, it's for all the right-wingers on this forum. I don't really know much about gun registries in America because I'm neither American or a gun owner, and I'm indifferent to gun control.
> 
> 1) If the government proposed a gun registry that kept track of all the gun owners and all the guns they owned, would you object? Let's assume there would be no actual limits on ownership, waiting periods, etc, just the government keeping track of what you own.
> 
> ...


1) Object? Yes Comply? Hell No

2) So, Fraud had some suggestions? I'm sure I disagree with them even without looking.

I'm sure they can because most of us have principles on which our positions are consistently based like Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> And no, it certainly isn't just right-wingers who have concerns about privacy.


Holy shyte, you agreed with me on something! I guess I better go home fast and cover my beautiful saguaros as I am expecting it to freeze over here today!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

omairp said:


> Another thread raised a paradoxical question I have about gun registries and government surveillance in America, it's for all the right-wingers on this forum. I don't really know much about gun registries in America because I'm neither American or a gun owner, and I'm indifferent to gun control.
> 
> 1) If the government proposed a gun registry that kept track of all the gun owners and all the guns they owned, would you object? Let's assume there would be no actual limits on ownership, waiting periods, etc, just the government keeping track of what you own.
> 
> ...


Logic dictates those two positions cannot be reconciled, yet some people are able to. I mean, we have a professed anarchist who claims tax bills, gun laws etc -- every one of which is proposed and voted on by our Congress -- is totalitarianism, while he also defends our government's use of military spy satellites on our civilian population. Apparently a vote isn't required for that latter proposal. And even if it was required, he like most other Americans is too busy running from 19 guys with box cutters to care.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

omairp said:


> Another thread raised a paradoxical question I have about gun registries and government surveillance in America, it's for all the right-wingers on this forum. I don't really know much about gun registries in America because I'm neither American or a gun owner, and I'm indifferent to gun control.
> 
> 1) If the government proposed a gun registry that kept track of all the gun owners and all the guns they owned, would you object? Let's assume there would be no actual limits on ownership, waiting periods, etc, just the government keeping track of what you own.
> 
> ...


1): Yes I'd object. If they know what you have, it makes it that much easier to take it away.

2): Yes I object to this too. No one should be subject to surveillance without probable cause. The fact that I'm doing nothing "illegal" is beside the point.

See, total internal consistency (at least on this point). :icon_smile_wink:

Vote NRA!


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

1 - I'm against gun registration, but I'm for background checks. I think there should be an amendment making it illegal for convicted felons to own a gun (there's already a federal law but it's wishy-washy.) It should be an instant, non-persistent check - does this person have a felony conviction? No records or details.

2 - I'm against government surveillance without a court order. I guess I don't care much about CCTVs in public places, as long as they aren't recorded or analyzed beyond an officer watching the monitors. I don't even have a problem with them if they start recording if they see a crime in progress, but they shouldn't be allowed to record everything everybody does for no specific reason.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

My answer is yes, I would object on both questions. This is supposed to still be America but lately, it seems a lot different than the country, the society and the values that I once fought for. Thank God we still have family!


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

omairp said:


> Another thread raised a paradoxical question I have about gun registries and government surveillance in America, it's for all the right-wingers on this forum. I don't really know much about gun registries in America because I'm neither American or a gun owner, and I'm indifferent to gun control.
> 
> 1) If the government proposed a gun registry that kept track of all the gun owners and all the guns they owned, would you object? Let's assume there would be no actual limits on ownership, waiting periods, etc, just the government keeping track of what you own.
> 
> ...


1) No. Also think there should be background checks or even psych tests.

2) No. What are you doing that you would actually worry about this???


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


No one asks an unarmed man to what he may or may not consent.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Canadian Views....*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_gun_registry#Initial_opposition



> Opposition to the registry, particularly outside of Canada's major cities, was immediate. It was argued that the registry would not make Canadians safer and that it was only a step on the way to the confiscation of all guns in Canada.[citation needed] Small scale confiscations of some firearms after the registry took effect and Prime Minister Paul Martin's 2006 election promise of a national ban on handguns seems to have confirmed this fear.


https://www.pierrelemieux.org/arthudson.html



> How do you kill civil disobedience? It's quite simple: just forbid it. This was done on January 30 by a criminal court in the Province of Ontario (Canada). Among the conditions for his release until his trial, Dr. Edward Hudson has been ordered "not to participate in any public rally or public gun protest in Canada."


https://www.gunpolicy.org/Articles/2002/081202.html

https://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20030106/gun_registry_030105?s_name=&no_ads=



> Nova Scotia is joining other provinces in calling for a suspension of Ottawa's $1-billion program to register rifles and shotguns. The province's justice minister Jamie Muir is calling the program "the prototype government foul-up."


There is a million more articles. Thoughts?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

https://www.mcall.com/sports/outdoors/all-bergcolumn0410apr10,0,1735275.column



> At best, Pennsylvania's proposed registration system is a duplication of government oversight already in place. For example, instant criminal background checks already are required every time a person buys a gun. And existing gun owners who lose their right to own firearms because of a felony or domestic violence conviction have their guns seized through the court system.
> 
> At worst, the registration proposal is an overbearing, unconstitutional invasion of privacy. You have to ask yourself, why does the government need a list of guns owned by honest, law-abiding citzens anyway?
> 
> I can think of several reasons, but none that make me feel more secure -- either in terms of my personal safety or my Second Amendment rights.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

This has all been hashed and rehashed.

Instead of repeating previous statements, see this post for my opinion:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=461330&postcount=13

in this thread https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=62918

and also this thread for some facts about guns & crime 
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=60314


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

JRR said:


> 2) No. What are you doing that you would actually worry about this???


 A totally absurd question. Would you ask this about freedom of speech? or any other section of the Bill of Rights?


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

rip said:


> A totally absurd question. Would you ask this about freedom of speech? or any other section of the Bill of Rights?


Yet you don't care about gun rights???

Anyway, to answer your question, freedom of speech has limits as well.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

no problem with either.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

yachtie said:


> 1): Yes I'd object. If they know what you have, it makes it that much easier to take it away.
> 
> 2): Yes I object to this too. No one should be subject to surveillance without probable cause. The fact that I'm doing nothing "illegal" is beside the point.


I agree with both.

If a nut wants to kill people, there are plenty of ways to do it, including attacking a crowd with a gas-powered chainsaw or blowing up a truck full of fertilizer and petrol. If guns were harder to get, gang members would still kill each other and criminals would rob people at knifepoint instead. I don't think guns are the problem.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

rip said:


> If this is your rather bizarre interpretation of the 4th ammendment, you must then, of course, be opposed to automobile registration, property titles being recorded, birth and death certificates and, that ultimate of all government registrations: the social security number. Anything less would brand you as a hypocrite, a tap-dancer amongst registrations.


Your non sequiturs aside, there's nothing "bizarre" about abiding by the 4th Amendment. What is "bizarre" to me is that people like yourself are so constitutionally and historically illiterate that you are willing to throw away the hard-won privacy rights for which our Revolutionary forefathers fought and died.

Abiding by your 'logic', where does it stop? Shall we have a federal register of radios? Television sets? Computers? _Anything_ that could ultimately prove a threat to the federal government's complete consolidation of control?

For that is the ultimate purpose of a federal gun registry. State-worshipping drones like yourself fail to understand one very simple and apparent fact: The framers of the Constitution guaranteed us the right to keep and bear arms to protect us from the government as much as anything else.

If I stand accused of a _crime_, then fine. Bring forward witnesses and swear out a warrant against me. Grant me my right to a speedy trial, produce the evidence, and allow me to confront my accusers. Until then, _no one_, not even the almighty federal government, has the right to make an inventory of my personal effects.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Let me tell you about firearm registration. I previously owned a Costa Mesa AR 180 and FN FAL. Both were legally purchased and registered. When sturmgewar was demonised I was faced with yet another registration with additional fees. At first I decided to register, went to my local Police Station and was informed they hadn't received the forms yet. While waiting I came very close to passing the deadline. I elected to send my property, still registered mind you, out of state. Then I had a financial hiccup and sold 5 handguns to a local gundealer with who I had long conducted business. He went out of business and was later convicted of attempted murder on police officers when his boobytrapped PCP lab blew up. Guess what? A few years ago I get a call from LAPD Homicide. One of those pistols was used in a gang shooting in Lancaster, AND WAS STILL REGISTERED IN MY NAME. I explained the facts and was told BATF had no less than 7 handguns registered currently to me. I asked him the models, having at one time or another owned, traded or sold easilly 30 fireams. At this point, having secured his information he abruptly told me I had to talk to BATF, that he wasn't a free information service. Registration? I now subscribe to the SMLE in the roof thatching philosophy of my great grandfather.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Jolly Roger said:


> Your non sequiturs aside, there's nothing "bizarre" about abiding by the 4th Amendment. What is "bizarre" to me is that people like yourself are so constitutionally and historically illiterate that you are willing to throw away the hard-won privacy rights for which our Revolutionary forefathers fought and died.
> 
> Abiding by your 'logic', where does it stop? Shall we have a federal register of radios? Television sets? Computers? _Anything_ that could ultimately prove a threat to the federal government's complete consolidation of control?
> 
> ...


Hmmm, I must have touched a nerve. Or perhaps you are unable to understand an implicit question. I'll assume the latter and spell the question out in interrogatory form. Do you also oppose automobile registration, the registration of property titles and birth and death certificates? Note that this is followed by a question mark, so there should be no question on your part that this is a question, and it is a question designed to explore your consistency vis-a-vis government registration. Of course, your previous response was quite predictable, Absent answers, attack.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Jolly Roger said:


> The framers of the Constitution guaranteed us the right to keep and bear arms to protect us from the government as much as anything else.
> 
> .


here is what I don't understand - how is the fact that a bunch of old farts keep shotguns and shiny handguns around going to protect us from the federal government?

doesn't it make more sense that the meaning was that if the army was a citizens army, and that all americans had the right to serve in the military, then the government would not be able to develop into a tyrant?

I am all for the right of the people to keep and bear arms in a well regulated militia.

I am all for every male citizen to be trained and armed as a combat soldier.

I think that it makes sense for "militias" of friends to keep well armed companies that train together and keep arms and communications equipment, in the event of a need.

what I don't understand is how buying lots of guns and not letting he govenment know about it does anybody any good in terms of their rights.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

rip said:


> Hmmm, I must have touched a nerve. Or perhaps you are unable to understand an implicit question. I'll assume the latter and spell the question out in interrogatory form. Do you also oppose automobile registration, the registration of property titles and birth and death certificates? Note that this is followed by a question mark, so there should be no question on your part that this is a question, and it is a question designed to explore your consistency vis-a-vis government registration. Of course, your previous response was quite predictable, Absent answers, attack.


You didn't answer my question, why should he answer yours???


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> here is what I don't understand - how is the fact that a bunch of old farts keep shotguns and shiny handguns around going to protect us from the federal government?
> 
> doesn't it make more sense that the meaning was that if the army was a citizens army, and that all americans had the right to serve in the military, then the government would not be able to develop into a tyrant?
> 
> ...


Stop being logical...


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

rip said:


> Hmmm, I must have touched a nerve. Or perhaps you are unable to understand an implicit question. I'll assume the latter and spell the question out in interrogatory form. Do you also oppose automobile registration, the registration of property titles and birth and death certificates? Note that this is followed by a question mark, so there should be no question on your part that this is a question, and it is a question designed to explore your consistency vis-a-vis government registration. Of course, your previous response was quite predictable, Absent answers, attack.


Being openly confronted by the constitutionally illiterate _does_ touch a nerve; after all, it is more than disturbing to watch your countrymen (or are you?) argue for willingly handing over our hard-won rights to an increasingly invasive and tyrannical government.

And again, the connection you draw between a _federal_ registration of firearms and the registration of automobiles by the various state governments, the registration of property titles with county governments, and the filing of birth and death certificates with state and county governments is specious at best.

You are simply attempting to bait us into a philosophical argument to distract us from the fact that you have no real argument against the fact that it is patently unconstitutional for the federal government to assume rights it is not granted by Constitution, which states that all rights _not specifically granted to the federal government_ by that document are reserved to the states or to the people.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

globetrotter said:


> here is what I don't understand - how is the fact that a bunch of old farts keep shotguns and shiny handguns around going to protect us from the federal government?


The fact that you falsely conceive of gun owners as "old farts" who "keep shotguns and shiny handguns around" aptly demonstrates that you have no real understanding of the patterns of gun ownership in this country, nor of its implications in continuing to secure our Liberty.



> doesn't it make more sense that the meaning was that if the army was a citizens army, and that all americans had the right to serve in the military, then the government would not be able to develop into a tyrant?


Sure.

So, go out there and try to form a Citizens' Army. I'm sure Uncle Sam will be thrilled.

Even better, try to do it without guns.

Good luck.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JRR said:


> You didn't answer my question, why should he answer yours???


+1. Toss in a fact or two and he just stops posting in that thread.

For instance: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=69713


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I think It's wrong to own a gun unless you have a gun license.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Howard said:


> I think It's wrong to own a gun unless you have a gun license.


What is a gun license?

Do you mean a Concealed Weapons Permit AKA a license to carry?

There is a huge world of difference between owning a gun and keeping it in your home/auto and carrying a gun.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

JRR said:


> Yet you don't care about gun rights???
> 
> Anyway, to answer your question, freedom of speech has limits as well.


You have no idea whether I care about gun rights, nor can you infer it from my question. What I do care about is logical consistency, of which I find very little here. You haven't answered my question, which was, framed as simply as possible, if faced with a discussion about freedom of speech, would you ask what someone was doing that they might worry about their freedom of speech?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

ksinc said:


> What is a gun license?
> 
> Do you mean a Concealed Weapons Permit AKA a license to carry?
> 
> There is a huge world of difference between owning a gun and keeping it in your home/auto and carrying a gun.


Yes but I think it's illegal in some states.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> +1. Toss in a fact or two and he just stops posting in that thread.
> 
> For instance: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=69713


The problem is I get really bored with the stupidity and inanity of most of the posters here, those who constantly mistake assertion for fact and attack for argument. If you wish to beat dead horses, have at it. I, for one, actually have a life apart from this forum.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

rip said:


> You have no idea whether I care about gun rights, nor can you infer it from my question. What I do care about is logical consistency, of which I find very little here. You haven't answered my question, which was, framed as simply as possible, if faced with a discussion about freedom of speech, would you ask what someone was doing that they might worry about their freedom of speech?


Ok...

I assert that I support gun control along with govt programs that would use survaillance techniques on citizens.

You answer by NOT commenting on the gun part, but asking whether I would have issues with restrictions on the other parts of the Bill of Rights.

I deduced from this lack of comment regarding the gun restrictions that you supported gun control. After all it is a Bill of Rights issue since it is a Second amendment issue. How the heck my deduction/inference isn't consistent I don't know.

And again with the Freedom of Speech issue, YES I would ask the same question since Freedom of Speech has limits.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

rip said:


> The problem is I get really bored with the stupidity and inanity of most of the posters here, those who constantly mistake assertion for fact and attack for argument.


...says the crank who flew into this thread and immediately went on the offensive, accusing me of hypocrisy and being "a tap-dancer among registrations", basing these attacks on his unfounded _assertion_ that one must be philosophically opposed to all forms of registration of property at any level of government if he makes an argument in support of the federalist system laid out in our Constitution.

And all of this when all I had done was post the text of the Fourth Amendment...


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

+100 for the dread pirate Jolly Roger!

I'm even quite leary of states rights to record firearm ownership since the feds and state governments are so in bed with each other. In this day and age, if any local, state or federal government agency has something on you, rest assured they can all get it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> The problem is I get really bored with the stupidity and inanity of most of the posters here, those who constantly mistake *assertion for fact* and attack for argument. If you wish to beat dead horses, have at it. I, for one, actually have a life apart from this forum.


We have some very quant oriented posters here. Could any of you hazard a guess what the statistical probability of this poster becoming "really bored with the stupidity and inanity of most posters here" to have a 1:1 corelation with being presented an *undisputable fact(s)* that runs contrary to his *assertions* is?

:teacha:

Edit: Yet another example of this in action: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=585955#post585955


----------



## Title III Guy (Mar 18, 2007)

rip said:


> Hmmm, I must have touched a nerve. Or perhaps you are unable to understand an implicit question. I'll assume the latter and spell the question out in interrogatory form. Do you also oppose automobile registration, the registration of property titles and birth and death certificates? Note that this is followed by a question mark, so there should be no question on your part that this is a question, and it is a question designed to explore your consistency vis-a-vis government registration. Of course, your previous response was quite predictable, Absent answers, attack.


With all due respect, Mr. rip, there is no law requiring one to register an automobile merely because you own it. You are free to purchase as many of them as you wish and not register a single one with the state. Ah, but to use it on a public way, well, sir, then you _must_ register it. Why? Well, because the courts have ruled it a privilege to operate a vehicle upon their ways. And because it is found in law to be a privilege, you have no right to operate it without registration (excepting, of course, on your own property). Possession of a firearm, however, is not a privilege. It was very specifically made a right - an important one, if one may judge any significance by its position in the list of the Bill of Rights - and so registration of it for mere possession does not equate to automobile registration, as you suggest.

Regards,
T3G


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

globetrotter said:


> here is what I don't understand - how is the fact that a bunch of old farts keep shotguns and shiny handguns around going to protect us from the federal government?


Certainly, it was the belief of the Founding Fathers that an armed populace was the best guarantor of liberty.

This, of course, has been a standard argument of the pro-gun crowd. I suppose it has a specious plausibility. I bought into it for many years, although I will have to say that with all the many guns I have purchased over the years, I never once bought a gun with the idea that it could be a useful tool for overthrowing a government grown oppressive.

On reflection, I really wonder how this would work out: If the military and police remain loyal to the government, I wonder how effective a bunch of unorganized guys with shotguns, pistols and even AR-15s are going to be against them.

I also wonder how true the old argument is: Contrary to popular belief, civilian gun ownership was widespread in Nazi Germany. Unlike the USA, firearms were manufactured for commercial sale to civilians almost to the end of the war. Moreover, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was teeming with firearms, mostly AK-47s, which are deemed much too dangerous for sale to the general populace here in the USA. I have had some friends on the Hard Right suggest that maybe Saddam's regime wasn't such a wicked tyranny after all. Otherwise the example of Saddam's Iraq does knock the old "[privately owned] guns are Liberty's teeth" argument into a cocked hat!


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

*Wow! 43 Responses in less than 24 hours!*

Well thanks to everyone for replying and sharing their views. I know there have been numerous threads on gun control before, but my question is not "should there be gun control?" but rather *"Can people agree with one form of government monitoring and disagree with the other?" *I'm surprised no one has come out and point blank said yes to one and no to the other. It looks like all the responses were either yes to both or no to both, or attacked the question as being wrong to ask. Oh well.

Cheers!
Omair


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I suppose it's a sad commentary that many of our oldest human remains are victims of violence, most well known and studied being Oetzi. Tools, including the knife, fire and the wheel quickly became utilised for weaponry as our social skills apparently decreased. The personal firearm is no more nor less than the current equal to a danish flint dagger, english yew longbow, biblical Judean sling or spear thrower of native, indigent, first peoples of Australia ( sounds sooooo much less confrontational and un PC than ABO.) Frankly, I care little for the 4th ammendment argument, well worded and thought out as it is. Documents come and go. Governments come and go. Cultures come and go. The one constant, sad as it may be is the possibility of another human wishing me physical harm by physical, financial or social force. I am blessed by a more or less stable society, though a boyfriend of a woman killed her little boy by stabbing him in the head with a meat cleaver not 5 minutes drive from here a few days ago. I don't wake up in condition red and write gun articles like one pundit who sounds so tightly wrapped the Weaver Stance would be impossible. But I'm not foolish enough to dismiss the option of a fiream when all others are invalidated by some immediate threat.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> When someone with no horse in the race, i.e. non-US resident, non-gun owner, sets up something into such a loaded (no pun intended) framework, the desire is obviously just to be a puppet master and troll you folks.


I didn't know I wasn't allowed to pose a question unless I'm directly involved. That must be a new forum rule. If it's such a trick to troll you that should be ignored, how comes you've already responded 5 times?


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> The Fourth Amendment:
> 
> _The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized._


Following this argument, we shouldn't have to register vehicles, have driver licenses or register for the draft. I will give you credit though, the 4th Amendment isn't the usual argument thrown out there.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Just another thread to troll the right here.
> 
> It is not just "right wingers" that own guns (GASP!). It is not just "right wingers" that have concerns with privacy (GASP!). When someone with no horse in the race, i.e. non-US resident, non-gun owner, sets up something into such a loaded (no pun intended) framework, the desire is obviously just to be a puppet master and troll you folks.


You're wise beyond your avatar =)


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

jbmcb said:


> 1 - I'm against gun registration, but I'm for background checks. I think there should be an amendment making it illegal for convicted felons to own a gun (there's already a federal law but it's wishy-washy.) It should be an instant, non-persistent check - does this person have a felony conviction? No records or details.
> 
> 2 - I'm against government surveillance without a court order. I guess I don't care much about CCTVs in public places, as long as they aren't recorded or analyzed beyond an officer watching the monitors. I don't even have a problem with them if they start recording if they see a crime in progress, *but they shouldn't be allowed to record everything everybody does for no specific reason.*


If it is a public place, you have no expectation of privacy, unless of course it is a dressing room in a department store.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> If it is a public place, you have no expectation of privacy, unless of course it is a dressing room in a department store.


Whoever told you that was lying.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

omairp said:


> I didn't know I wasn't allowed to pose a question unless I'm directly involved. That must be a new forum rule. If it's such a trick to troll you that should be ignored, how comes you've already responded 5 times?


From your post count you appear to be relatively new to this forum. Please reference your copy of the Wayfarer-to-English Phrase Book.

"You're a troll." = "I have no answer to the point raised."

"You're a foreigner and have no right to an opinion." = "I have no answer to the point raised."

It's easy as pie, since just about every phrase in Wayfarer translates to the same phrase in English.

Myself, I got so irritated with the redundant translation I finally put him on my ignore list. This forum has been a whole lot more enjoyable and constructive ever since.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

omairp said:


> I didn't know I wasn't allowed to pose a question unless I'm directly involved. That must be a new forum rule. If it's such a trick to troll you that should be ignored, how comes you've already responded 5 times?


Only one response to your post. And you know what I said there. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> "You're a foreigner and have no right to an opinion." = "I have no answer to the point raised."


My god, you really are quite simple, aren't you? He is a fellow countryman Frank!



FrankDC said:


> Myself, I got so irritated with the redundant translation I finally put him on my ignore list. This forum has been a whole lot more enjoyable and constructive ever since.


Translation there: my rhetorical arse was kicked up around my ears so many times, I *pretended* to put him on ignore but still post in his threads and respond to his posts. QED.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Please reference your copy of the Wayfarer-to-English Phrase Book.
> 
> "You're a troll." = "I have no answer to the point raised."
> 
> ...


:icon_smile_big: Hehe. Just brilliant. I suspect Wayfarer was the debate champ in his high school because whenever he doesn't want to answer the question he questions the question or shifts focus. This guy is never without an answer, maybe he's a lawyer or politician. But he is a colourful character nonetheless, who I do enjoy hearing from. If I only to her people echo my own political views, I'd talk to my friends. But I come here because it's such a diverse bunch.

Cheers!


----------



## Title III Guy (Mar 18, 2007)

Trenditional said:


> If it is a public place, you have no expectation of privacy, unless of course it is a dressing room in a department store.


While this is true -- I might mention other exceptions beyond dressing rooms (phone booths, for instance, for those of you who remember what they are) -- what about the effect new technologies bring to bear on the subject? For instance, if you're standing in the middle of a city park, well after dark, with clearly no one within 100 yards of you, are your actions or conversations reasonably believed to be private? I think so. But if advances in technology allow the government to see and hear you from great distance, is such privacy expection still "reasonable?" The problem I see with advancing technologies used for surveillance is in this very question. Where do you draw the line, especially as the disparity between government-operated surveillance technology (such as satellites) and mere observation by ordinary people increases? I apologize if I have gotten too far afield from the original post. Can I bring it back in if I say I am "for monitoring" if it's court ordered, based upon probable cause (or reasonable suspicion, depending upon the type of "monitoring") and against the registration of firearms?

Regards,
T3G


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

omairp said:


> I suspect Wayfarer was the debate champ in his high school...


Alas, if only that were true, perhaps I would already be retired. Too busy playing hockey and partying.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> If it is a public place, you have no expectation of privacy, unless of course it is a dressing room in a department store.


Trenditional, I understand your point, but when I talked about surveillance I made reference to FrankDC's post which stated the US government had satellites which could actually penetrate buildings and see inside. The implication the satellite would be able to spy on someone inside a private building and not in a public place. Does that change your view of the usage of this technology at all?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Jolly Roger said:


> So, go out there and try to form a Citizens' Army. I'm sure Uncle Sam will be thrilled.
> 
> .


1. the US army was concieved as a citizens army, and should be a citizens army. 
2. there are any number of different national guard units
3. there are any number of militias in the US that are not closed down by the government.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

JLibourel said:


> Certainly, it was the belief of the Founding Fathers that an armed populace was the best guarantor of liberty.
> 
> This, of course, has been a standard argument of the pro-gun crowd. I suppose it has a specious plausibility. I bought into it for many years, although I will have to say that with all the many guns I have purchased over the years, I never once bought a gun with the idea that it could be a useful tool for overthrowing a government grown oppressive.
> 
> ...


Jan, speaking in historical contxt, doesn't it make more sense that the intention was for the people to form the back bone of the army? espectially considereing the other discussions concerning a standing army.

at the time, a community of men armed with rifles or muskets was a pretty good match for a company of proffetional soldiers armed with muskets. there is a limit to how great you can get with a brown bess.

I honestly can't see a unit of men, who have never trained together, armed with sporting weapons and the occational M-16, facing a company of marines, with or without armor.

In israel, there has never been a question about the possiblity of a coup, even though the political situaiton is often tense. in the unlikly event that the standing army stayed loyal to a leader that tried to force a military coup - dozens of batallions of reservists could be mobilized and armed over night - men who have trained together, and have access to arms, transport and communications equipment, and have SOP's for just such an occasion.

I honestly think that, if anybody seriously is worried about protecting their rights and as such thinks it is nessasary to keep and bear arms, this is a much more logical way of doing it.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Title III Guy said:


> While this is true -- I might mention other exceptions beyond dressing rooms (phone booths, for instance


Good grief, people. Learn the basics of your own liberty before you go spewing these mistruths.

The U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizure by the government -- regardless of where you happen to be standing:

https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=389&invol=347


----------



## Title III Guy (Mar 18, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Good grief, people. Learn the basics of your own liberty before you go spewing these mistruths.
> 
> The U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizure by the government -- *regardless of where you happen to be standing*:
> 
> https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=389&invol=347


Mr. FrankDC, I think the failure to understand is yours. The issue (or, as nicely characterized by you, the "spewing [of] mistruths") raised here isn't addressed by "where you happen to be standing." The _exceptions_ being discussed by me and Trenditional (if I may say) are precisely to illustrate _when_ goverment must have a valid court order to intercept a conversation, such as in a phone booth. Indeed, the very court case you cite so describes. The standard by which these interceptions are judged are not, as you say, by "where you happen to be standing," but instead by a reasonable belief of an expectation of privacy. And, mind you, it is not the _individual's_ belief of what is reasonable - _your_ construct of "reasonable" may (no doubt) be very different from mine - but instead it is those beliefs of "a hypothetical person who exercises 'those qualities of attention, knowledge, intelligence and judgment which society requires of its members for the protection of their own interest and the interests of others'" (from Answer.com). So, to make clear to you, FrankDC, if you are standing in an airport, for instance, talking face to face with another, loud enough where anyone nearby can hear you, it is entirely legal for government (or anyone else) to listen to your conversation. The presence of a phone booth (or its equivalent) is what adds the privacy expectation to the equation and triggers the need for a warrant.

And while we're on it, FrankDC, you may also recall that the Constitution prohibits such searches "but upon probable cause," which is the standard that government must meet to obtain an interception order of this type. But, perhaps to your frustration, when government _does_ obtain such a warrant, it then becomes entirely constitutional for the interception to take place.

Thank you. I'm done ignorantly "spewing" for now.

Regards,
T3G


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Title III Guy said:


> Mr. FrankDC, I think the failure to understand is yours. The issue (or, as nicely characterized by you, the "spewing [of] mistruths") raised here isn't addressed by "where you happen to be standing." The _exceptions_ being discussed by me and Trenditional (if I may say) are precisely to illustrate _when_ goverment must have a valid court order to intercept a conversation, such as in a phone booth. Indeed, the very court case you cite so describes. The standard by which these interceptions are judged are not, as you say, by "where you happen to be standing," but instead by a reasonable belief of an expectation of privacy. And, mind you, it is not the _individual's_ belief of what is reasonable - _your_ construct of "reasonable" may (no doubt) be very different from mine - but instead it is those beliefs of "a hypothetical person who exercises 'those qualities of attention, knowledge, intelligence and judgment which society requires of its members for the protection of their own interest and the interests of others'" (from Answrrer.com).


If you're claiming to be a legal scholar by quoting Answer.com, don't quit your day job.

The statement made was:

"If it is a public place, you have no expectation of privacy, unless of course it is a dressing room in a department store."

And that is absolute nonsense. The 4th Amendment protects people, not places, and this protection isn't dependent on someone huddling inside a dressing room or phone booth. Or citing a definition posted on Answer.com.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Title III Guy said:


> While this is true -- I might mention other exceptions beyond dressing rooms (phone booths, for instance, for those of you who remember what they are) -- what about the effect new technologies bring to bear on the subject? For instance, if you're standing in the middle of a city park, well after dark, with clearly no one within 100 yards of you, are your actions or conversations reasonably believed to be private? I think so. But if advances in technology allow the government to see and hear you from great distance, is such privacy expection still "reasonable?" The problem I see with advancing technologies used for surveillance is in this very question. Where do you draw the line, especially as the disparity between government-operated surveillance technology (such as satellites) and mere observation by ordinary people increases? I apologize if I have gotten too far afield from the original post. Can I bring it back in if I say I am "for monitoring" if it's court ordered, based upon probable cause (or reasonable suspicion, depending upon the type of "monitoring") and against the registration of firearms?
> 
> Regards,
> T3G


First, if you're in a park after dark, you're most likely in violation of some code since most parks close at dusk.

Second, no you don't have an expectation of privacy. The park is a public place and if you care to carry on a conversation that can be heard by others too bad so sad. Outside of your fenced property is public and you are fair game. Now if you're standing in your backyard and someone (I think we're all in agreement that someone would be a govt. official) uses a device to listen to your conversation, that is no bueno and they need a warrant. If they stand in your neighbors yard and can hear you, then they win that one. This would be like you standing in your home, pleasuring yourself with the blinds open. Just because you're inside your home, doesn't mean you'd be exempt from indecency laws.

So if you think what you do in public is private and protected, I'd like to be present for that argument in court. I wish you the best of luck in winning that one.

And in all reality we could argue this till the cows come home, but I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money none of us here rate to the point that some "Three Letter" govt. group is going to be using "Advanced Technology" to check in on our lives.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

This thread and forum would reach new hieghts of civility were we gathered in person and all packing.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

omairp said:


> Trenditional, I understand your point, but when I talked about surveillance I made reference to FrankDC's post which stated the US government had satellites which could actually penetrate buildings and see inside. The implication the satellite would be able to spy on someone inside a private building and not in a public place. Does that change your view of the usage of this technology at all?


Omairp, I believe that technology is in existence and has been available to the government for a long time. Does it bother me, no because I believe that technology is used for good (or what is at least deemed "good"). Could the government turn that on each and everyone of us, sure they could, but I don't really believe they would. I'd guess if you're doing stuff of an illegal nature then you probably should worry. On the other hand, if you're like me (and I believe most of us here are) the government would get pretty board watching my private life. So a long answer to your question is no, I'm not bothered by the government's increased technological abilities.


----------



## Title III Guy (Mar 18, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> If you're claiming to be a legal scholar by quoting Answer.com, don't quit your day job.
> 
> The statement made was:
> 
> ...


Actually - _again_ - yes, FrankDC, it _does_ depend on whether you are "huddling inside a dressing room or phone booth." And yes, indeed, I am not (nor did I claim to be) a "legal scholar." I work for a living. (Oh, but no offense to legal scholars. I'm sure they're very hard working too!)

Regards,
T3G


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> If you're claiming to be a legal scholar by quoting Answer.com, don't quit your day job.
> 
> The statement made was:
> 
> ...


Frank the phone booth in your reference does meet the criteria for being a place where privacy is assumed. Anyone would agree, if you're in a phone booth and the door is closed you are entitled to some expectation of privacy. Now, if the person having the conversation talks loud enough that a person standing outside the phone booth can hear the conversation then the expectation of privacy is gone. For the same token of expected privacy, just because you're in a phone booth (clear glass I'm assuming) you couldn't strip naked and change clothes, then try and claim some type of privacy expectation.
You are also correct in that the 4th amendment does protect you from unlawful searches. It is not a blanket that covers you wherever you are and whenever you'd like it to. If you're in public and your actions or words can be seen or heard by others, you can't have an expectation of privacy.


----------



## Title III Guy (Mar 18, 2007)

Trenditional said:


> First, if you're in a park after dark, you're most likely in violation of some code since most parks close at dusk.
> 
> Second, no you don't have an expectation of privacy. The park is a public place and if you care to carry on a conversation that can be heard by others too bad so sad. Outside of your fenced property is public and you are fair game. Now if you're standing in your backyard and someone (I think we're all in agreement that someone would be a govt. official) uses a device to listen to your conversation, that is no bueno and they need a warrant. If they stand in your neighbors yard and can hear you, then they win that one. This would be like you standing in your home, pleasuring yourself with the blinds open. Just because you're inside your home, doesn't mean you'd be exempt from indecency laws.
> 
> ...


With all due respect, Trenditional, it is not merely whether you are "in public" or not. It is whether it is reasonable to believe that someone can overhear what you are saying (with respect to audio interception). If no one is within 50 feet of you and you are whispering, you have every reasonable expectation of privacy, whether you are in a public park or not. Also, just for the sake of argument, even if you _were_ trespassing in the park at night, you do not therefore give up your Fourth Amendment rights in this regard.

Kind regards,
T3G


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> Frank the phone booth in your reference does meet the criteria for being a place where privacy is assumed. Anyone would agree, if you're in a phone booth and the door is closed you are entitled to some expectation of privacy. Now, if the person having the conversation talks loud enough that a person standing outside the phone booth can hear the conversation then the expectation of privacy is gone. For the same token of expected privacy, just because you're in a phone booth (clear glass I'm assuming) you couldn't strip naked and change clothes, then try and claim some type of privacy expectation.
> You are also correct in that the 4th amendment does protect you from unlawful searches. It is not a blanket that covers you wherever you are and whenever you'd like it to. If you're in public and your actions or words can be seen or heard by others, you can't have an expectation of privacy.


That's correct, and that wasn't your original claim.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> at the time, a community of men armed with rifles or muskets was a pretty good match for a company of proffetional soldiers armed with muskets. there is a limit to how great you can get with a brown bess.
> 
> I honestly can't see a unit of men, who have never trained together, armed with sporting weapons and the occational M-16, facing a company of marines, with or without armor.


The is totally in error. This was never the case. Trained, professional army clobbered the ragtag militia. History and reality recount the actual battles of actual common militia being totally worthless against the British during the Revolutionary War and GW sending NG to Southern Command to buy time for him to train his recruits. Even to the point that at the battle of Cowpens, a decisive victory in the War, the milita were counted on as part of the plan to break and run like they had repeatedly done and thus set a trap for the British. This is Daniel Morgan vs. Tarleton, 1781 for those in the IDF that think world military history began in 1967. Nathaniel Greene vs Cornwalis? I just posted on this on July 4th, even. Is there no War College in Israel?

As to the other nonsense, I have also posted extensively on it here before. No one is pretending to take on US Marines. The BILL OF RIGHTS is about the RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS not GROUPS. The 2nd Amendment appears to be an anomaly in this sense as it mentions States and militias unless you make even a minor effort to look at congressional records of the debates. It's clear you haven't done this. I accept that there is some level of sincerity in your constant berating of Americans on guns, but if you're not even going to educate yourself on the basics what value is it to anyone? FWIW, you're not alone. I have the same issue with the dolts in the NRA on the other extreme that also read it out of context and claim the 2nd Amendment is about hunting and 'sporting arms'.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> I'm not bothered by the government's increased technological abilities.


Wow. I admire your commitment to your beliefs. But whenever government gets a new tool for one purpose, eventually they find new and creative ways to use and misuse them. FrankDC pointed out an article where Homeland Security, which was created to fight terrorism, has now expanded their scope to include policing copied rubik's cubes in toy stores. In Canada income taxes and diamond taxes were implemented as a temporary measure to fund World War I for national security, but the government didn't repeal it after the war, instead they expanded the scope. RICO lawsuits were created by the US government to fight the mafia, but since then they've been used to prosecute musicians like Dr. Dre in disputes surrounding recording contracts. It's a very old tactic for government to demand certain powers to ward of a temporary threat, but once the threat is gone, they still cling fast to those powers.

Besides, if the government can see into your house via satellite, how is that any different from barging into your house for a search without a warrant?


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Trained, professional armies have always clobbered ragtag militia.


What about the Afghan's defeating the Soviet invasion in the '80s? The British tried to invade Afghanistan when they invaded the Indian sub-continent a century ago, but found them to be too fierce, and gave up. The KLA warded off the Yugoslavian army. The Chechen rebels warding off and continually embarrassing the Russian army. The Iraqi insurgents continually foil efforts by the US government to set up a Washington-friendly regime in Baghdad. The Israeli army completely failed to meet their 2 objectives last summer fighting Hezbollah (dismantling Hezbollah and retrieving their seized soldiers.) You might say these are not clear-cut victories for these militias, but to a militia survival is victory. These certainly aren't "clobberings" by these formidable armies.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

omairp said:


> Wow. I admire your commitment to your beliefs. But whenever government gets a new tool for one purpose, eventually they find new and creative ways to use and misuse them. FrankDC pointed out an article where Homeland Security, which was created to fight terrorism, has now expanded their scope to include policing copied rubik's cubes in toy stores. In Canada income taxes and diamond taxes were implemented as a temporary measure to fund World War I for national security, but the government didn't repeal it after the war, instead they expanded the scope. RICO lawsuits were created by the US government to fight the mafia, but since then they've been used to prosecute musicians like Dr. Dre in disputes surrounding recording contracts. It's a very old tactic for government to demand certain powers to ward of a temporary threat, but once the threat is gone, they still cling fast to those powers.
> 
> Besides, if the government can see into your house via satellite, how is that any different from barging into your house for a search without a warrant?


The whole rubik's cube story....I'm not sure if I'm buying it. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but something just seems odd about it.

True, the government does as anyone else would do. They get a new toy and when the game is over they don't want to give it back. If the government recorded me in my house with a satellite (without a warrant of course) and then tried to bring me into court, it would be thrown out the same way the case against the gambler in the phone booth was thrown out. The government would be violating the 4th amendment. On the other hand, if a loved one of yours was kidnapped and the "Missing Persons" unit of the FBI had access to see into homes and was able to find your loved one, would you want them to use it? The theme here is that the government is only using this for unscrupulous things, what about the good that it can be used for.

As far as the RICO laws, they are laws which the government can use to go after a criminal organization. If the actions of Dr. Dre (The Chronic is a classic album!!) caused him to be prosecuted under these laws....oops, to bad for him. If all he was doing was producing music and going home to paint the fence, I'm sure he wouldn't have been investigated by the police. The Mafia may not be in the public eye as much today, but don't think the RICO laws made them go away. Also, like the Mafia, there are many other organized ethnic groups these laws can be applied to.

If you're a criminal and doing criminal activities, don't ***** if the government uses Buck Rodgers technology to catch you. I'm making the assumption they're using these toys within the scope of the 4th Amendment. If you find out they violated the 4th Amendment...then I hope you get a state named after you (assuming it was the Feds. who came after you).

I have to work within the 4th Amendment everyday and I take pride in playing the game above the board, but if you run a red light and get your picture taken....that is not 1984, that is you broke the law and just pay the ticket.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

omairp said:


> 1) If the government proposed a gun registry that kept track of all the gun owners and all the guns they owned, would you object? Let's assume there would be no actual limits on ownership, waiting periods, etc, just the government keeping track of what you own.
> 
> 2)The second part of my question is do you object to the government surveillance measures FrankDC referred to in his recent post?


1) I don't think the gov. should know if you have a gun, unless they demand you own certian guns, and then it would only be those guns and nothing else that they would know about. As is thousands of felons own guns the gov. has no knowlege about. So why are they bothering and stealing rights from the innocents?

2) During war times the gov. always has rights in surveilence it normally does not have. And there has always been people in gov. that break the laws. So, trusting the gov. is not a good idea.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> This was never the case. Trained, professional army clobbered the ragtag militia. History and reality recount the actual battles of actual common militia being totally worthless against the British during the Revolutionary War and GW sending NG to Southern Command to buy time for him to train his recruits.


fair enough, but what I said was "a pretty good match" - up until and including the civil war, a civillian who knew how to use a musket was halfway there to knowing what a solider knew. they were in pretty good shape from the lifestyle of the time. the soldiers, for the most part, didn't have extraordinary skills - they were able to load and fire in sinc, at a slightly faster rate of fire than the militia. sure, they were still much more effective, but I would say that the difference between an average gun owner and a 21 century infantryman is greater by an order of magnitude, at least.



> As to the other nonsense, I have also posted extensively on it here before. No one is pretending to take on US Marines. The BILL OF RIGHTS is about the RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS not GROUPS. The 2nd Amendment appears to be an anomaly in this sense as it mentions States and militias unless you make even a minor effort to look at congressional records of the debates. It's clear you haven't done this. I accept that there is some level of sincerity in your constant berating of Americans on guns, but if you're not even going to educate yourself on the basics what value is it to anyone? FWIW, you're not alone. I have the same issue with the dolts in the NRA on the other extreme that also read it out of context and claim the 2nd Amendment is about hunting and 'sporting arms'.


sorry, K, one of the main arguments that gun owners use is that they hold firearms in order to prevent tyrany - I do not see how individual gun owners have any reasonable capacity to prevent a modern government from doing anything.



> What about the Afghan's defeating the Soviet invasion in the '80s? The British tried to invade Afghanistan when they invaded the Indian sub-continent a century ago, but found them to be too fierce, and gave up. The KLA warded off the Yugoslavian army. The Chechen rebels warding off and continually embarrassing the Russian army. The Iraqi insurgents continually foil efforts by the US government to set up a Washington-friendly regime in Baghdad. The Israeli army completely failed to meet their 2 objectives last summer fighting Hezbollah (dismantling Hezbollah and retrieving their seized soldiers.) You might say these are not clear-cut victories for these militias, but to a militia survival is victory. These certainly aren't "clobberings" by these formidable armies.


in all of the above cases, the militia was acting with outside support, or had been well prepared and organized before the conflict. in each of these cases, the militia was armed with weapons only slightly less advanced than the army, and with communications equipment only slighly less advanced.

what I don't understand, in the US situation, is how so many people talk as though the 1911 in the bedroom drawer is the equivilent to a militia with radios and light machine guns that puts in weeks of training a year. if it is reasonable that a militia is needed to protect the citizens of the US from tyrany, then it should be taken seriously. if it isn't, then it shouldn't be used as an arguement.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

rip said:


> If this is your rather bizarre interpretation of the 4th ammendment, you must then, of course, be opposed to automobile registration, property titles being recorded, birth and death certificates and, that ultimate of all government registrations: the social security number. Anything less would brand you as a hypocrite, a tap-dancer amongst registrations.


In the history of firearms, I don't think there was ever a registration scheme that was not followed by confiscation scheme. And that applies to California, New York City, and Washington DC. I oppose registration because it leads to criminalizing ownership. Call firearms a special case, if you will, but registration of firearms is historically only a phase of violating the 2nd amendment.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> fair enough, but what I said was "a pretty good match" - up until and including the civil war, a civillian who knew how to use a musket was halfway there to knowing what a solider knew. they were in pretty good shape from the lifestyle of the time. the soldiers, for the most part, didn't have extraordinary skills - they were able to load and fire in sinc, at a slightly faster rate of fire than the militia. sure, they were still much more effective, but I would say that the difference between an average gun owner and a 21 century infantryman is greater by an order of magnitude, at least.
> 
> sorry, K, one of the main arguments that gun owners use is that they hold firearms in order to prevent tyrany - I do not see how individual gun owners have any reasonable capacity to prevent a modern government from doing anything.
> 
> ...


No. As I said, if you would study the historical record.They weren't even a pretty good match. They almost never accounted themselves well as a group. Some individuals did, but by and large most broke and ran. They were no where near a match for professional British soldiers until they were trained. Some of these trained armies were also called Militia, but they were not common militia. There are some basic distinctions. They were recruited, they were sworn, they were in uniforms, they had been issued common rifles, etc. etc. they were often still called Virginia Militia or something, but they were really state armies. Their arms were not their own. They did not supply their own ammunition, yada yada, as with milita or common militia.

No. They were not well prepared and organized. The common militia was simply called up, rounded up, and put in squads next to the uniformed, trained professional soldiers. If you would study this history you would find terrible problems with the performance of common militia such as logistics and supply because of issues like non-uniform ammunition requirements and that many professional officers thought it did more harm than good and was a controversial issue at the time. It hurt the morale and spooked their professional soldiers to see half their line break down. Common Militia had no chains of command and were not good at understanding simple battlefield orders or even following orders without arguing. None of these are a pretty good match for professionally trained soldiers.

As I said, if you would study the issue of liberty (which does not mean hearing some people repeat some stuff) you would maybe understand how an individual refutes tyranny by refusing to comply and that an unarmed man is less likely to do so. Try reading Thomas Jefferson. It has nothing to do with the practical matter of a bunch of civilians repelling a squad of US Marines.

As I also said (previously in the comments I referenced), I have as much problem with pro-gun people that distort the 2nd Amendment as I do anti-gun people that distort it. If you are going to base your object to what you hear some people say that's pretty ridiculous. The fact that some pro-gun people don't understand the 2nd Amendment doesn't change the real meaning nor the real practical application of the RKBA.

As I have also previously said, it's one of the reasons I left the NRA. Their position is doomed intellectually because of the misinformation they themselves have spread. I agree their position is indefensible, but that does mean the 2nd Amendment is or an accurate RKBA position is. Study George Mason's influence on James Madison. Do a search on my posts you should find long reports on how the 2nd Amendment got in the Constitution, Why, and What it really means. Our individual RKBA does NOT come from the 2nd Amendment. Our individual right to liberty and thus self defense/RKBA has more to do with the DoC then it has to do with the Constitution.

As it pertains to this thread and my 1911 and M14. You can pass any law you want. I'm free and I intend to remain free and exercise my God given right to liberty and that means armed. 'Liberty or Death' implies the ability to fight, even if you lose. I'm confident I will never have to live at another's whim, I may have to fight and choose death. You make your own choice, just don't infringe on my right to make mine. I realize that there are a heck of a lot fewer Real Americans than I would like. Those that understand that our liberty comes from God and our freedom comes from our COLLECTIVE exercise of the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, but there's a also a heck of a lot more than you might think. I actually do like the Israeli model of national defense against other nations and I would fully support that here as I have also previously said. Regardless, that would not replace the individual's RKBA to resist tyranny - in my view. I also wonder how it will hold up without the USA backing (I support that backing I'm just saying as a practical matter) Israel is still not able to defend itself. I think we just increased another few $B of military aid to her. Which seems to call into quesiton the viability of all that IDF force. There's still only one government/military in the world that can really guarantee the security of its citizens and that's still the one that has the individual RKBA. Funny how that coincidence happens, huh? 

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Trenditional said:


> Following this argument, we shouldn't have to register vehicles, have driver licenses or register for the draft. I will give you credit though, the 4th Amendment isn't the usual argument thrown out there.


The topic of vehicle registration with _state governments_ has already been neatly dealt with here. It has nothing at all to do with a _federal_ registration of firearms.

As for the draft, no we should not have to register for the draft. As a matter of fact, Congressman Ron Paul recently asked the head of the Selective Service why they require everyone to register when they already know who they are and where they live -- after all, the SS sends out notifications to all 18 year-old males reminding them to register.

The SS head told him it was a matter of discipline to make sure everyone knew it was the law of the land!


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

ksinc said:


> As it pertains to this thread and my 1911 and M14.


Your M14? Do you actually have a Class 3 License, or are you just glamorizing your M1A?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> Your M14? Do you actually have a Class 3 License, or are you just glamorizing your M1A?


Neither.

An M1A is only made by Springfield Armory, Inc. and is a cast copy and has cast parts. It is not exactly conforming to M14 specs. I actually do have one M1A, but it is a collector's item - one of the original M1As from Elmer Ballance - Devine,TX.

My personal rifles are a competition NM and a bush length standard with all USGI TRW forged parts, semi-auto M14s on forged receivers.

There are several makers of semi-auto M14 receivers in the market now such as Fulton, Smith Enterprise, LRB, and Armscorp. None of these are correctly called M1As. They are semi-auto M14s. Sometimes they say M14, M14S, M14SA, M14SE, or M14NM. Also the Norinco and Poly Tech are M14/M14S marked receivers. Some are forged on the original dies that were sold to Taiwan in 1968. I believe the Federal-Ordinance are also M14 receivers, but I would have to check.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

JLibourel said:


> Your M14? Do you actually have a Class 3 License, or are you just glamorizing your M1A?


I thought that an M-14 was semi-automatic? wouldn't that make it a legal weapon?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Ksinc,

I am not trying to be argumentative, or if I am, I am genuinly trying to understand your position - because for all of the disagreements about this I understand and respect much of your position. 

but there is a gap in my understanding - how does you gun make you free?

I can only come up with a couple of ideas - 

1. you are free from fear of violence and crime. 

2. you are free from tyrany 

3. you are free from being rounded up and mistreated



I am not sure that having a firearm at home is an efective or effitient protection against any of the above. 

what am I missing?


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

globetrotter said:


> I thought that an M-14 was semi-automatic? wouldn't that make it a legal weapon?


It had selective-fire conversion capability. For that reason, none were ever sold as surplus by the U.S. Government, unlike the M1 Garand or M1 Carbine.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> It had selective-fire conversion capability. For that reason, none were ever sold as surplus by the U.S. Government, unlike the M1 Garand or M1 Carbine.


That's true. I think some were exported. I have seen pictures of them in other countries owned by civilians.

In a weird twist on the M14 vs. M1A there are a few selective-fire and transferable Springfield, Inc. M1As around. I think around 100+.

I think Smith Ent. also made some M14s that are still transferable.

The best organized information available is Different's FAQ and the M14/M1A Rifle History and Development book.

https://www.imageseek.com/m1a/

ok, 125 and 175 respectively. page 136


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> I am not trying to be argumentative, or if I am, I am genuinly trying to understand your position - because for all of the disagreements about this I understand and respect much of your position.
> 
> ...


I was born and created Free. A gun is just a tool that helps me maintain that individual freedom and gives me choices in the exercise of that freedom that an unarmed man doesn't have.

I don't think having a gun eliminates any of the three issues you bring up, but not having a gun certainly invites them.

It's more the absence of arms that represents the lack of freedom, than the having of them.

So, I would not say guns make one free. However, not having guns is a good indicator of the lack of the practical exercise of freedoms or being totally dependent on others.

Maybe it's a symbolic litmus test. Slaves of the state don't have guns. If you have guns then you must be free. If they have figured out a way for me to keep guns yet still not be free, then .... oh well! I sure feel free!


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> I
> Maybe it's a symbolic litmus test. Slaves of the state don't have guns. If you have guns then you must be free. If they have figured out a way for me to keep guns yet still not be free, then .... oh well! I sure feel free!


you know what ? that is probrably the best statment that I have heard about the subject, yet


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> That's true. I think some were exported. I have seen pictures of them in other countries owned by civilians.
> 
> In a weird twist on the M14 vs. M1A there are a few selective-fire and transferable Springfield, Inc. M1As around. I think around 100+.
> 
> ...


Our rifle batalian snipers (that is, not special forces) used M-14 as a sniper rifle, and I am pretty sure they were issued as single fire. but that was most probrably a special issue or a conversion.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> Our rifle batalian snipers (that is, not special forces) used M-14 as a sniper rifle, and I am pretty sure they were issued as single fire. but that was most probrably a special issue or a conversion.


Yes. It's very easy to remove the giggle-switch on an M-14. Most US-issued M-14s are also semi-auto. I think all the Vietnam-issue M21s are.

It is not very controllable on full-auto and part of the reason for its original short lifecycle.

The re-issue of them in Afghanistan and Iraq has led to a lot of improvements and new production of parts for the platform. Also the new role of the Squad Designated Marksman and the limitations of the 5.56 round.

Smith's Crazy Horse is pretty much the leader in this area. There are some other good parts like from Sadlak, etc. that are good.

https://www.smithenterprise.com/products02.html


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> you know what ? that is probrably the best statment that I have heard about the subject, yet


I'm glad I could help. I do appreciate your sincere inquiry.


----------

