Defending 2A on a website

[Guest DrBoomBoom]

I've been defending the RKBA on a website. One fellow who's 'on the fence' wrote this, my response follow:

Originally Posted By: Richard

It seems peculiar to me that auto registration and voter registration are constitutional, while gun registration is unconstitutional. Perhaps the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to vote.

I support your right to own a gun, even though I doubt you will ever be involved in a well-regulated militia. I support that right because I support your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Do you think you might possibly become a member of a well-regulated militia?

Richard,

Citizens register to vote so they can be counted. There's a Constitutional mandate that votes be counted. Citizen's don't register guns, there's a Constitutional reminder that they have a right to own them (the right existed long before the Constitution was in place).

I doubt if I'll ever have to fight as part of the militia that the Constitution says is necessary. I am willing, however, and as a gun owner, am able. Let's look at the entire second amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." -the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

The right that I have to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, why? So we may preserve a militia, which the dictionary defines as: "an army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers." And why do we need this army of ordinary citizens? for "the security of a free state." In a free state, folks are personally responsible for their security, who maintains our security? We do. It is to be a well regulated militia, what regulates it? The Constitution regulates it, it proscribes the rights and duties of a citizen which the militia must not violate.

It was this same militia that created the freedom and independence that allowed the Constitution to be adopted. Now, it is to protect us since, as we've seen according to the Supreme Court, it is not up to the police to protect us...it is up to us. Personal responsibility. It's another way of saying "liberty."

[Guest tjbert47]

If that doesn't work for him I think he might be a lost cause.

Tom in TN

[saintsfanbrian]

And I am sorry, but Auto-Registration is something that I don't particularly agree with anyway. I am a law abiding citizen I shouldn't have to register my car. It is just one more way for the city/state to get taxes. It doesn't really do anything good in my opinion.

[Guest 2HOW]

Very well said DOC, very well said.

[Marswolf]

I shouldn't have to register my car. It is just one more way for the city/state to get taxes. It doesn't really do anything good in my opinion.

Well, it does raise revenue and we need revenue if we expect the government to build roads. The other option is for road building to be a private matter. We can do that, and have in our history. They are called toll roads.

But I don't need government to provide a way for me to carry a handgun. I can do that on my own.

[The Rabbi]

Let's think about things we register.

We register to vote to make sure the voter is actually eligible. If you live in NC you can't vote in TN. Registration will verify that.

We register cars basically to raise money to pay for the infrastructure that cars use that is hard to apportion. Roads, signs, lights all cost money. It also serves to deter crime, specifically auto theft. Cars have large easily seen markings unique to them so we can determine who the legitimate owner is.

We register guns to....I don't know. Merely having one doesnt inflict any cost. The gun isnt eligible; we check the buyer to make sure he is. It doesnt cut down on crime since a gun is easily concealed.

I cant think of a good reason to register guns except to exert control over them at some future date. And that's an excellent reason NOT to register them.

[saintsfanbrian]

Well, it does raise revenue and we need revenue if we expect the government to build roads. The other option is for road building to be a private matter. We can do that, and have in our history. They are called toll roads.

But I don't need government to provide a way for me to carry a handgun. I can do that on my own.

And this method of appropriating funds is grossly over used in my opinion. We have a wheel tax in Memphis that was supposed to pay to get the schools air conditioned. This was back in the early 80's that it was enacted if I am not mistaken and here we are almost 30 years later and the schools still have to close in some areas if it is too hot out.

Not to mention that people that live 3 blocks from me don't have to pay this lovely tax or have their cars inspected but I do. We use the EXACT same roads yet some how their car is "cleaner" than mine.....

Oh well. Again, I am all in favor of the government getting the heck out of my life. If I need something I am more than willing to pay for it. Toll roads could be a good thing. Like putting that toll road at the entrance of Memphis from West Memphis and Northern MS. Many people live in these areas and commute to Memphis to work. What are the lovely politicians ideas? Lets charge a tax to everyone who works in Shelby County.

Wait a minute, I live here, I shop here, I own property here. Aren't I already paying enough in taxes?

[towerclimber37]

Doc is so right with this one. I wholeheartedly agree with you, DrBoomboom.

Folks these days seem to think that an upheaval of the government...an overthrow by force, is out of the question.

this is not so. They seem to think that the U.S. will last for ever. This is not so. History shows that all nation states fall or decay eventually. Our right to keep firearms in order to protect ourselves isn't given by the government. it IS however regulated by the government.

Our right to self preservation is given by a higher power and instilled in most of us. Self preservation is hardwired into us. Why do we need guns? To ensure that the government stays a government BY the people and FOR the people. If that makes politicians nervous, then I say we're doing our job.

I think people like Dianne Fienstein, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Rudy Juliani, Mike Huckabee and the rest of the folks that have armed security but don't want us common folk (referred to by them as rabble usually) to have any, should be shorn of said security.

just my 2 cents.

[Guest Len]

A little devil's advocate here.

I have seen the "reduces crime" argument used to advocate firearms registration. Goes like this: Don't guns also have "easily seen markings unique to them so we can determine who the legitimate owner is?" Cars have VINs, guns have SNs. If someone steals my Glock 19 with S/N 123456 on it and later Glock 19 with S/N 123456 shows up in a pawn shop or at a crime scene, then everyone knows its mine. How is this different than with a car registration? Red Honda with VIN 123456 shows up at a chop shop, now we know who it belongs to. If VINs can reduce crime, can SNs?

What if "Richard" argues this? How do we respond?

Let's think about things we register.

... It also serves to deter crime, specifically auto theft. Cars have large easily seen markings unique to them so we can determine who the legitimate owner is.

[molonlabetn]

VINs and SNs do not prevent crime... they simply provide recourse for recovery after the crime has been committed. It is a mitigation tool, not a prevention tool.

Having you fingerprints on record does not prevent you from being kidnapped... it simply helps forensics to ID your body when it is found.

Harsh punishment of offenders is the only legitimate way to universally ensure a deterrence factor... because no matter how sophisticated the security system of a car or gun-safe is, there will always be somebody who will figure out how to defeat it. And no matter how trackable a car or gun is, there will always be someone who can disable it. So, realistically... the only solution is to reduce the likelihood that such activity is worthwhile, when faced with a harsh punishment. I'll concede that it is difficult to catch a criminal without a way to track what was stolen, but if the punishment is weak... there is little or nothing preventing or deterring them from trying over and over.

[Guest tjbert47]

GOOG POST Dr. Strangelove. And right to the point.

Ton in TN

[The Rabbi]

A little devil's advocate here.

I have seen the "reduces crime" argument used to advocate firearms registration. Goes like this: Don't guns also have "easily seen markings unique to them so we can determine who the legitimate owner is?" Cars have VINs, guns have SNs. If someone steals my Glock 19 with S/N 123456 on it and later Glock 19 with S/N 123456 shows up in a pawn shop or at a crime scene, then everyone knows its mine. How is this different than with a car registration? Red Honda with VIN 123456 shows up at a chop shop, now we know who it belongs to. If VINs can reduce crime, can SNs?

What if "Richard" argues this? How do we respond?

The markings on a gun are not easily seen. You have to be up close and examining it. Not like a vehicle. I was stopped last night (out of date tag). The cop could see my car tag from 10 feet away. He certainly couldn't see my pistol from that distance.

We already have tracing on guns. If your Glock shows up at a crime scene the police can check records to see when the gun was produced, when it was shipped, which dealer received it, and to whom the dealer sold it. But after that it's anyone's guess. If you reported the gun stolen, it's in the wind. If you report you sold the gun, it's gone. No trail at all.

You can eliminate the private sale by requiring all sales to go through a dealer. But you cannot eliminate the stolen gun that way. Which is precisely the point: most guns used in crimes were stolen at some point and registration will do nothing to prevent that.

[The Rabbi]

VINs and SNs do not prevent crime... they simply provide recourse for recovery after the crime has been committed. It is a mitigation tool, not a prevention tool.

Having you fingerprints on record does not prevent you from being kidnapped... it simply helps forensics to ID your body when it is found.

Harsh punishment of offenders is the only legitimate way to universally ensure a deterrence factor... because no matter how sophisticated the security system of a car or gun-safe is, there will always be somebody who will figure out how to defeat it. And no matter how trackable a car or gun is, there will always be someone who can disable it. So, realistically... the only solution is to reduce the likelihood that such activity is worthwhile, when faced with a harsh punishment. I'll concede that it is difficult to catch a criminal without a way to track what was stolen, but if the punishment is weak... there is little or nothing preventing or deterring them from trying over and over.

Um, no, I disagree.

Prevention comes from two things: how likely are you to get caught, what are the penalties if you do.

People are actually pretty unlikely to get caught with an unlicensed machine gun. But the penalties are very steep so most people decide it isn't worth it. If posession became a misdemeanor with a $50 ticket, I suspect you'd see a bunch more out there.

So registration of vehicles enhances the possibility of catching someone stealing a car. Ergo it serves to discourage people from doing that.

[Marswolf]

Well, let's see if I can irritate everyone.

I've heard these arguments that carrying guns will prevent crime for some time - concealed and/or open carry. But I don't know of any study that has been done to support that idea. It makes sense, but then again so does the idea that if we put more folks out there with guns that blood will flow in the streets because they will get mad at someone and open fire.

To my thinking, the reason to pack isn't that it might deter theoretical crime, but that it provides a way to protect yourself from criminals.

And every study I've ever seen, and I've seen a bunch of them, concludes that stiffer sentences such as even the death penalty do not significantly deter crime. What stiff sentences do is keep the thugs locked up and away from decent people for a longer period of time.

[The Rabbi]

Almost every state (maybe every state) that introduced CCW has seen its crime rate go down. Now, even in states that didnt the crime rate has gone down, but CCW states have experienced steeper declines.

A study I saw not too long ago did maintain there was a correlation between death penalty and lower crime rates.

[molonlabetn]

...A study I saw not too long ago did maintain there was a correlation between death penalty and lower crime rates.

Yes, I recall seeing that as well... there was also an article which evaluated several such studies and concluded that each sactioned execution correllated with 2-5 fewer murders.

(trying to find it now for citation)

Um, no, I disagree.

Prevention comes from two things: how likely are you to get caught, what are the penalties if you do.

People are actually pretty unlikely to get caught with an unlicensed machine gun. But the penalties are very steep so most people decide it isn't worth it. If posession became a misdemeanor with a $50 ticket, I suspect you'd see a bunch more out there.

So registration of vehicles enhances the possibility of catching someone stealing a car. Ergo it serves to discourage people from doing that.

The example you gave was an illustration of hypothetically reducing the penalty for a crime, not a reduction in the ability to track it... so, I don't see a correllation other than it is more likely to prevent crime through punishment than registration.

A light penalty for a crime which is easily discovered (through strict tracking and registration), is no deterrent... hence my previous point.

[The Rabbi]

My point is that it is the combination. A strict penalty for a rule that is unenforceable will breed widespread disregard. Like the Use Tax in this state. Similarly a light penalty for something easily discovered will breed disregard, like jay walking.

But the combination of severe penalty and the likelihood of getting caught will serve as real deterrence.

[Marswolf]

Almost every state (maybe every state) that introduced CCW has seen its crime rate go down. Now, even in states that didnt the crime rate has gone down, but CCW states have experienced steeper declines.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). Yes, Rabbi, I know you know what it means. Yes, crime is down. So is mashed potato consumption (according to the NRA - National Restaurant Association). Did gun carry reduce mashed potato eating?

A study I saw not too long ago did maintain there was a correlation between death penalty and lower crime rates.

I missed that one. If you can find it, I'd like to see it.

[mousegunner]

Good job, docboomboom. In a perfect world where everyone honored the 2nd amendment fully, registration would be a good thing from the viewpoint of getting your gun back after a theft. The authorities would be more than happy to return your gun to your possession. But as we all know, we live in a very imperfect world, where the powers that be want to use registration to steal your gun away from you.

[molonlabetn]

My point is that it is the combination. A strict penalty for a rule that is unenforceable will breed widespread disregard. Like the Use Tax in this state. Similarly a light penalty for something easily discovered will breed disregard, like jay walking.

But the combination of severe penalty and the likelihood of getting caught will serve as real deterrence.

Very true... There must be some measure of detectability for criminal activity, I agree. However, the only necessary database which would serve this purpose is a list of owner-reported stolen firearms by serial #.

My contention is not with the existence of serial/vin numbers (which are a useful tool for the manufacturers and owners to keep track of their products and possessions)... my issue is with the indiscriminant tracking and registration required to simply possess them. It equates to governmental permission for an individual to own them.

[saintsfanbrian]

As Chris Rock said, charge $5000 for each bullet and drive bys would stop.

[Guest supergus]

<HR style="COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->

I've been defending the RKBA on a website. One fellow who's 'on the fence' wrote this, my response follow:

Originally Posted By: Richard

"It seems peculiar to me that auto registration and voter registration are constitutional, while gun registration is unconstitutional. Perhaps the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to vote..."

If memory serves, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives us the right to vote in a presidential election, only state elections. It is a privilege, like driving. Neal Boortz talks about this all the time, and no one has yet given a specific quote from the U.S. Constitution that says otherwise.

[Guest DrBoomBoom]

Here's part of Article 2 section 1 on electing a president:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Here's the 12th Amendment, that amends it:

Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

*Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.

And here's section 3 of the 20th amendment:

Section 3.

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified

Well, I'm not a lawyer (thank ALMIGHTY GOD!), not that there's anything wrong with that but it seems to me that the states decided to have the people vote on who's going to be in the electoral college, sort of washing their hands of the deal, probably. The Constitution says it's up to the state legislatures, I don't see why they couldn't decide that, but I also don't see why they couldn't vote to just pick the electors themselves. Probably folks with pitchforks and torches storming the castle then, though, eh? Still it would be constitutional as far as it looks to me. Any lawyers out there?

In the meantime, thanks for the ideas, I've contacted Richard offline, he lives in Indiana. He may be visiting Tennessee in the future, if he does, we're going to the range together. Maybe I can get him to drink the kool aid.

[DaveTN]

I must have missed the memo. Is Tennessee considering registering guns?

Since Tennessee doesn’t have gun registration let’s make the voter registration comparable to something that Tennessee does have; carry permits.

<O:p</O:p

Voting: You can’t be asked to take a test to vote; the SCOTUS shot that down.

HCP: Not only will you required to take a test, but you will be required to pay $50 to $110 to take a class that for many is a joke.

<O:p</O:p

Voting: You aren’t required to pay to register to vote.

HCP: You will be required to pay the state $115.

<O:p</O:p

Voting: Voting is a RIGHT.

HCP: Handgun carry is a privilege.

Voting: ALL Federal District Courts and the United States Supreme Court have recognized voting as a right.

HCP: Almost all Federal District Courts have ruled that firearm possession is not an individual right. Supposedly the Supreme Court will answer that question this year.

[Guest canynracer]

I've been defending the RKBA on a website. One fellow who's 'on the fence' wrote this, my response follow:

Originally Posted By: Richard

It seems peculiar to me that auto registration and voter registration are constitutional, while gun registration is unconstitutional. Perhaps the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to vote.

I support your right to own a gun, even though I doubt you will ever be involved in a well-regulated militia. I support that right because I support your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Do you think you might possibly become a member of a well-regulated militia?

Richard,

Citizens register to vote so they can be counted. There's a Constitutional mandate that votes be counted. Citizen's don't register guns, there's a Constitutional reminder that they have a right to own them (the right existed long before the Constitution was in place).

I doubt if I'll ever have to fight as part of the militia that the Constitution says is necessary. I am willing, however, and as a gun owner, am able. Let's look at the entire second amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." -the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

The right that I have to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, why? So we may preserve a militia, which the dictionary defines as: "an army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers." And why do we need this army of ordinary citizens? for "the security of a free state." In a free state, folks are personally responsible for their security, who maintains our security? We do. It is to be a well regulated militia, what regulates it? The Constitution regulates it, it proscribes the rights and duties of a citizen which the militia must not violate.

It was this same militia that created the freedom and independence that allowed the Constitution to be adopted. Now, it is to protect us since, as we've seen according to the Supreme Court, it is not up to the police to protect us...it is up to us. Personal responsibility. It's another way of saying "liberty."

dude, you are my new freaking hero!!! well done, well said...