Car and pet registration are for taxation.

It's probably shit like the below that makes gun owners wary of gun registration.

Quote:Gun confiscations begin in New York, aided by existing firearms registry

Kit Daniels
Infowars.com
November 27, 2013

In the wake of New York’s latest gun control law, the New York Police Department is now sending out notices to registered gun owners demanding that they give up their firearms, clear proof that gun registration leads to outright confiscations.

The notice provides gun owners, who possess firearms now prohibited under New York’s unconstitutional SAFE Act, the “options” to either surrender their firearms to the police, remove them from the city limits or otherwise render them inoperable.

The NYPD knew exactly who to send the notices to by using a centralized firearms registry which lists the city’s gun owners and what firearms they have in their possession.

With the gun database already in place, the police merely needed to compile a list of firearm makes and models now banned under the SAFE Act and send the notices to the appropriate owners.

Thank you.

(March 22, 2014 at 6:13 pm)Bad Writer Wrote:

(March 22, 2014 at 4:03 pm)KUSA Wrote: You brought it up.

Your responses are exactly why I get fed up trying to discuss this stuff. Your 'Murica attitude is fucking childish.

Yes, I mentioned it first on this thread, but I am talking about its origin in general. If you don't know the reasons FOR it, then your reasons against it will only come across as knee-jerk-reactionary. If you don't like having to pay an extra tax, that's understandable, and that's probably as far as your argument can take you.

In the meantime, I'm trying to figure out why states would need a gun registry in the first place. My best bet is that it has to do with oversight. States are more concerned about CYA (cover yer ass) policies than taking away your rights and your belongings. That's why there are car registries and even pet registries. If this is a bad idea, besides a small taxation and confiscation due to mishandling, then what's the beef?

You have not stated what benefit registration would provide. So there is no good purpose for it.

Would you care to correct your oversight?

(March 22, 2014 at 6:43 pm)Chas Wrote:

(March 22, 2014 at 6:13 pm)Bad Writer Wrote: Your responses are exactly why I get fed up trying to discuss this stuff. Your 'Murica attitude is fucking childish.

Yes, I mentioned it first on this thread, but I am talking about its origin in general. If you don't know the reasons FOR it, then your reasons against it will only come across as knee-jerk-reactionary. If you don't like having to pay an extra tax, that's understandable, and that's probably as far as your argument can take you.

In the meantime, I'm trying to figure out why states would need a gun registry in the first place. My best bet is that it has to do with oversight. States are more concerned about CYA (cover yer ass) policies than taking away your rights and your belongings. That's why there are car registries and even pet registries. If this is a bad idea, besides a small taxation and confiscation due to mishandling, then what's the beef?

You have not stated what benefit registration would provide. So there is no good purpose for it.

Would you care to correct your oversight?

I'm not saying I'm for it. I came here stating that I was undecided. I'm more so saying I couldn't be against it as I don't know enough to make that decision.

@Rahul, it seems that the SAFE act was a ban against certain types of guns. I'm curious as to why. Are you for ownership of any type of weapon, or do you think it's smarter to outlaw, perhaps, the more devastating kinds? This seems to be what the SAFE act was geared towards, which would also suggest why the city thought a registry was necessary. Besides the typical "they took his guns!" response, do you have any other thoughts concerning this measure?

---

So it still seems to me that the only people that have anything to worry about a gun registry are those who aren't doing what they're supposed to under the law, in the case of what Rahul brought up, owning banned weaponry.

Fuck it, I know a Stinger Missile Launcher isn't something a person should normally own, but, hell, I want one anyway so, fuck it all, I'm buying one!

(March 22, 2014 at 7:23 pm)Bad Writer Wrote: @Rahul, it seems that the SAFE act was a ban against certain types of guns. I'm curious as to why. Are you for ownership of any type of weapon, or do you think it's smarter to outlaw, perhaps, the more devastating kinds? This seems to be what the SAFE act was geared towards, which would also suggest why the city thought a registry was necessary. Besides the typical "they took his guns!" response, do you have any other thoughts concerning this measure?

I'm loathe to grant the government the right to place any more restrictions on us. No matter what it is that the particular restriction is for.

My grandfather was 1 of 7 boys. They all died pretty young. The oldest surviving and last of them was gunned down in church by a pretty vocal atheist in the community with a M16 when I was a little kid.

He killed a little girl too that day in that church along with several other people.

First funeral I ever attended.

Would he have maybe killed fewer individuals if he was restricted to a hunting rifle? Probably.

I'm sure the government would love to protect us by taking away our rights to possess certain types of weapons. I just don't trust our government all that much.

(March 22, 2014 at 7:47 pm)Rahul Wrote:

(March 22, 2014 at 7:23 pm)Bad Writer Wrote: @Rahul, it seems that the SAFE act was a ban against certain types of guns. I'm curious as to why. Are you for ownership of any type of weapon, or do you think it's smarter to outlaw, perhaps, the more devastating kinds? This seems to be what the SAFE act was geared towards, which would also suggest why the city thought a registry was necessary. Besides the typical "they took his guns!" response, do you have any other thoughts concerning this measure?

I'm loathe to grant the government the right to place any more restrictions on us. No matter what it is that the particular restriction is for.

My grandfather was 1 of 7 boys. They all died pretty young. The oldest surviving and last of them was gunned down in church by a pretty vocal atheist in the community with a M16 when I was a little kid.

He killed a little girl too that day in that church along with several other people.

First funeral I ever attended.

Would he have maybe killed fewer individuals if he was restricted to a hunting rifle? Probably.

I'm sure the government would love to protect us by taking away our rights to possess certain types of weapons. I just don't trust our government all that much.

I hear ya. I totally think that our law-abiding citizens should always have the option of owning a firearm in order to make themselves and their families feel safer; I believe that's the entire point of the second amendment, and it's damn good logic.

I'm really sorry to hear about what that person did with the M16, and that he was an atheist, no less. I'm surprised that fact didn't deter you from getting away from religion.

So by government, do you mean just on the federal level, or state level too?

(March 22, 2014 at 7:23 pm)Bad Writer Wrote:

(March 22, 2014 at 6:43 pm)Chas Wrote: You have not stated what benefit registration would provide. So there is no good purpose for it.

Would you care to correct your oversight?

I'm not saying I'm for it. I came here stating that I was undecided. I'm more so saying I couldn't be against it as I don't know enough to make that decision.

Fair enough, but no one here (or anywhere) has given even one useful, constructive purpose for a firearms registry.

I'm still waiting for a reason to even have a discussion about a national firearms registry.

Still waiting.

(March 22, 2014 at 10:45 pm)Chas Wrote:

(March 22, 2014 at 7:23 pm)Bad Writer Wrote: I'm not saying I'm for it. I came here stating that I was undecided. I'm more so saying I couldn't be against it as I don't know enough to make that decision.

Fair enough, but no one here (or anywhere) has given even one useful, constructive purpose for a firearms registry.

I'm still waiting for a reason to even have a discussion about a national firearms registry.

Still waiting.

You've pretty much stated exactly why I'm bringing it up. I can see where it's useful to disarm people with banned weapons so far (since owning certain types are against the law). I have a sneaking suspicion that it's extra red tape that's meant to deter people from getting a weapon, but that's probably something that can't be verified. What do you think are the main reasons for people to create such a registry, Chas?

(March 22, 2014 at 11:18 pm)Bad Writer Wrote:

(March 22, 2014 at 10:45 pm)Chas Wrote: Fair enough, but no one here (or anywhere) has given even one useful, constructive purpose for a firearms registry.

I'm still waiting for a reason to even have a discussion about a national firearms registry.

Still waiting.

You've pretty much stated exactly why I'm bringing it up. I can see where it's useful to disarm people with banned weapons so far (since owning certain types are against the law). I have a sneaking suspicion that it's extra red tape that's meant to deter people from getting a weapon, but that's probably something that can't be verified. What do you think are the main reasons for people to create such a registry, Chas?

Well as person with a disability I would love to know if my neighbors have anything that could be a hazard to my safety or to that of my family's safety.