Why do people oppose gun registration, but not car registration?

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: notfred

NOTE: Read this entire post before replying, or you'll likely look like an unimformed jackass

Guess what you look like, HOWITIS?

Hey dipsh1t, what you're saying is "Tell me what you think, but if you disagree with me you're a jackass."

Fsck you.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: Amused
Cars driven on PUBLIC ROADS must be licensed and registered. If you own a vehicle that you drive on private property only, it need not be registered and you need not be licensed to drive it.

The comparison is based on a false premise. It is not the ownership of the car that requires registration, it is the use of public roads.

If you want a valid comparison, try public CARRY of weapons and cars.

In California at least, if you don't plan on driving a car on public roads, you're still requried to pay a fee to say that the car is in "planned non-operation". Also, guns are often fired on public land belonging to the forest service and other agencies. However, you do make a valid point, as there is definitely less regualtion involved in an off-highway vehicle.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Registration has ALWAYS lead to confiscation. Look at any weapon registration throughout history. It has always followed with confiscation, and usually oppression.

Yep.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: notfred

NOTE: Read this entire post before replying, or you'll likely look like an unimformed jackass

Guess what you look like, HOWITIS?

Hey dipsh1t, what you're saying is "Tell me what you think, but if you disagree with me you're a jackass."

Fsck you.

Damn, sorry for wanting answers that addressed the question.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: notfred
Damn, sorry for wanting answers that addressed the question.

You're not looking for answers. You're looking for confirmation. Anything that isn't the answer you want makes the person a "jackass". Way to have a conversation, fool.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

A large portion of that car registration goes towards paying for the roads that you drive on. I believe that the main point of the registering them was that purpose. Guns require NO public infrastructure.

Also note:
Planes and boats require registration for the same reason (pay into the infrastructure)

 

[HOWITIS]

if you keep your car in the garage no registration requird. i don't think any gun owner disagrees with being registered in order to carry a gun. if it never leaves your house, why is it being registered? just so big brother knows where it is, and can take it when it needs to?

 

[CPA]

With the hope I don't step onto the jackass bandwagon, I will say that I am against registration of any kind, because registration is nothing more than a tax. Licensing is different, and I think it is prudent to test everyone on the use of either and issue licenses based on that test. Just as employers higher for certain positions using certification and licensing, there are things in life that require a knowledge, understanding and responsibility to use. We have determined that licensing is a form to show those requirements are met.

As far as "Why we have chosen to protect cars and not guns" I would surmise that the forefathers had great insight to the fallout of oppresive government, and armed citizens were the answer. Though, we do have the constitutional right to bear arms, that "protection" has been severly dampened by the institution of so many federal and local laws. Cars, on the other hand, are not viewed as a deterrent to an oppresive government.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: notfred
Damn, sorry for wanting answers that addressed the question.

You're not looking for answers. You're looking for confirmation. Anything that isn't the answer you want makes the person a "jackass". Way to have a conversation, fool.

My question, which you still don't seem to understand, was not about why people feel the way they do about gun registration, but why they feel differently about automobile registration and gun registration. Saying "same reason people oppose government camera's in your house. because its just one more step to taking them away, each step you take makes the next one easier, and easier." has absolutely no bearing on the question.

 

[pandapanda]

you assume that everyone submits to auto registration happily as well.

At any rate, as has been pointed out, a vehicle that is driven only on your own property, say your farm, doesn't have to be registered.

There is no constitutional right to keep and drive car, while there is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

And yes, if the government showed up to confiscate my weapons without just cause I'd be dern glad I had them, because that would tell me that it was time to defend myself against a corrupt government.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
A large portion of that car registration goes towards paying for the roads that you drive on. I believe that the main point of the registering them was that purpose. Guns require NO public infrastructure.

Also note:
Planes and boats require registration for the same reason (pay into the infrastructure)

What infastructure is there for boating? There's no roads or anything....

Also, if the sole purpose of registration is basically a tax to pay for roads, why do you have to puta license plate on your car? You pay taxes every year, but you don't have to wear your 1040 form to prove it...

 

[HOWITIS]

because americans have to have cars to operate, there is no threat of losing a car. there are plenty of people who are afraid of others having guns, knifes, sharp objects, and other shiney objects. the threat of losing the right to own a gun is there. as there are those who want them illegal.


so whether or not you want to accept it, the possibility of losing the right to own is still THE reason. because no one believes the right to own a car is in danger.



just to get it out of the way....










"Jump on the train full of jackasses who assume I didn't read the whole post."

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Registration has ALWAYS lead to confiscation. Look at any weapon registration throughout history. It has always followed with confiscation, and usually oppression.

omg I'm being oppressed I'm being oppressed!!!:Q

 

[HOWITIS]

omg I'm being oppressed I'm being oppressed!!!

i wish!

 

[Pliablemoose]

Notfred proves he is a tool

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: HOWITIS
because americans have to have cars to operate, there is no threat of losing a car. there are plenty of people who are afraid of others having guns, knifes, sharp objects, and other shiney objects. the threat of losing the right to own a gun is there. as there are those who want them illegal.

so whether or not you want to accept it, the possibility of losing the right to own is still THE reason. because no one believes the right to own a car is in danger.

Ok, that was a real answer that addressed the question. Sorry to anyone who I called a jackass, but I get tired of people responding to something they haven't read.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
A large portion of that car registration goes towards paying for the roads that you drive on. I believe that the main point of the registering them was that purpose. Guns require NO public infrastructure.

Also note:
Planes and boats require registration for the same reason (pay into the infrastructure)

What infastructure is there for boating? There's no roads or anything....

Also, if the sole purpose of registration is basically a tax to pay for roads, why do you have to puta license plate on your car? You pay taxes every year, but you don't have to wear your 1040 form to prove it...

Boat ramps and the lakes are often state parks. They're not free ya know. And you do have to have a social security number, which is effectively the same as a license plate. You just don't have to have it 24/7. It used to be that every year you'd swap your plates to indicate that you paid up. They changed that to stickers to save cost and hassles.

Consider the plate the equivilent of the SSN and the registration tag as a copy of your 1040 and W2.

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Registration has ALWAYS lead to confiscation. Look at any weapon registration throughout history. It has always followed with confiscation, and usually oppression.

omg I'm being oppressed I'm being oppressed!!!:Q

That's why I'll never register any games that I purchased. It's mine, and they can't take it away from me.

But seriously, Snooker got a very good detailed reply.

 

[MikeA]

"why do you have to puta license plate on your car? "

If you even have to ask this, you sir, need to pull your head out from "you know where".

Cars are used on public property. Guns are not (and when they are, such as hunting, no one opposes paying for registration/huting license). It's that simple. Many people have already told you that if you don't plan on taking your car on public roads, you do not need to register, insure, have a license plate, nor a license to drive it. If you don't know how to debate an issue, don't even bother trying.

 

[Zebo]

Because there is nothing in the consitution about "tho shall have a right to horse and buggy". Also with registration they now have the information he take them away.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
And you do have to have a social security number.

technically, you don't, but it makes a lot of stuff very hard.

 

[Bulk Beef]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: notfred
Damn, sorry for wanting answers that addressed the question.

You're not looking for answers. You're looking for confirmation. Anything that isn't the answer you want makes the person a "jackass". Way to have a conversation, fool.

My question, which you still don't seem to understand, was not about why people feel the way they do about gun registration, but why they feel differently about automobile registration and gun registration. Saying "same reason people oppose government camera's in your house. because its just one more step to taking them away, each step you take makes the next one easier, and easier." has absolutely no bearing on the question.

The fact that every year sees more legislation passed that makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns, and that numerous lawmakers have openly stated that taking away guns is their goal, while the same is not true of cars, may have something to do with it.

 

[tcsenter]

Registration of automobiles was and still is entirely a revenue generating measure. No public officials or politicians advocate the prohibition of automobiles. Nobody is targeted for harassment over the possession of an automobile.

Registration of firearms is billed not as a revenue generating measure but a law enforcement measure. Registration fails to meet that burden, not a single crime is prevented by gun registration, because - duh - criminals don't register their firearms. Only law abiding citizens who desire to live in compliance with the law register their firearms. Criminals don't give two hoots about living in compliance with the law - duh - that's why they are "criminals".

Registration records offer no value or assistance to law enforcement who are responding to a home or serving a warrant, because firearm registration records do not mean an individual still has the firearm, or if they do, poses a threat with it. The absence of firearm registration records does not mean the individual does not have a firearm or are not inclined to be a threat. The police must presume in every situation when entering a home to serve a warrant that the suspect may be armed until they are secured and taken into custody.

At best, its a 'feel good' measure which promises far more than it can possibly deliver. At worse, because there ARE public officials and politicians who advocate firearm prohibition, and these SAME public officials and politicians are often the most vocal and active proponents and advocates of firearm registration, gun owners are perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of firearm registration.

If the SAME politicians who were advocating a ban on violent video games, were ALSO advocating registration of violent video game buyers and owners, would you not find their motives for registration a little suspicious, given that they have went on record multiple times supporting the prohibition of those games, not to mention the extremely dubious proposition from the start that banning or even registering these video games and/or their owners would have one iota of measurable public benefit?

And of course, the rights argument, but since you didn't want to get into that, I'll leave it be.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: HOWITIS
ok asshole, how about because we there arn't millions of us standing out in public shooting guns everyday. you DO have to be licensed to hunt, which is FAR more comparable.

That somewhat addresses the licensing issue, although a hunting license is really there simply to control the number of deer killed, it in no way proves your competence to operate a firearm. It doesn't address the registration issue at all.

But a CCL(conceil carry license) does prove your compitence in using a fire arm.

And it's obvious Notfred is only looking for one answer.
As far as your edit goes, there is a fear of confiscation of your car, drive drunk in Texas, they take your car.

And 99% of people that lawfully own a firearm, know how to use it. They didn't buy it to sit around and look pretty. They bought it to hunt or target shoot, or for protection(with means they most have CCLs).

Stick to post about cars and electronics, something you actually have knowledge about.

 

[tcsenter]

Oops, wrong thread.