Are we making a rational argument?

[Spr1]

We need to remember that any universal background check almost certainly results in a permanent record of every sale. Anyone care to bet that every record made since the Brady Bill isn't in an electronic file somewhere deep? Yes, I know it was supposed to be against the law to do that.

I believe in the long run, from a liberty standpoint, that we will regret what otherwise should be a very rational ideal.

We are not dealing with honest people.

[cclaxton]

We need to remember that any universal background check almost certainly results in a permanent record of every sale. Anyone care to bet that every record made since the Brady Bill isn't in an electronic file somewhere deep? Yes, I know it was supposed to be against the law to do that.

I believe in the long run, from a liberty standpoint, that we will regret what otherwise should be a very rational ideal.

We are not dealing with honest people.

So what is the rational argument against a permanent record? Since SCOTUS has now declared that there is a Constitutional Right to own a firearm for your self defense, then why do we care? I can't think of a rational argument against it.

Belief is normally not considered a rational basis.

I disagree entirely. I live in the DC metro area and I know a lot of federal gov't workers. They are all honest, hard-working, and patriotic people. The policy-makers at the top, no matter what their political persuasion, are trying to do what they think is the right thing, although sometimes that is driven by ideology and belief and not rational basis. It is the ideologues who ruin it. We should let the government workers do their jobs because they know what works.

We can find criminals and corruption and laziness, but those are the rare cases and exaggerated by the media and political partisans.

So far I have not heard a rational argument against registration...it is all based on fear or belief and not any history or facts or basis.
CC

[Spr1]

Hitler used gun control laws, previously enacted to keep Nazi's and Communist's from possessing guns, to disarm his nation and the Jewish people. He did not need new laws. Yes, I brought Hitler into the discussion.......

SCOTUS is one more bad appointment from being able to overturn the recent rulings.

Sure, the average federal worker is a great person. They are not in charge.

It is not rational to give the federal government this power over us, especially when the left has so openly stated their ultimate goals.

[Palmguy]

I doubt there is any NEED for folks owning dozens of firearms and thousands of rounds of ammo, but I support them doing so. Need is irrelevant. I have posted reasons why I and others think closing the gunshow loophole would be a good (positive) thing. You are welcome to disagree

Need is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to the exercise of constitutional rights by the people. Need is totally relevant when it comes to the government restricting those rights.

[TCinVA]

They are all honest, hard-working, and patriotic people. The policy-makers at the top, no matter what their political persuasion, are trying to do what they think is the right thing, although sometimes that is driven by ideology and belief and not rational basis. It is the ideologues who ruin it.

Please explain exactly how "ideologues" wield power apart from policy making and the execution of those policies by hard-working, patriotic government workers. Keep in mind it was hard working, patriotic government workers that interned the Japanese, enforced segregation, and who will be enforcing NY's ridiculous 7 round magazine ban.

We should let the government workers do their jobs because they know what works.

How much time have you put in at a government agency?

So far I have not heard a rational argument against registration...it is all based on fear or belief and not any history or facts or basis.

...you mean other than the documented instances in history of registration turning into confiscation? Other than the fact anti-gun advocates have openly admitted, at least in the past, that registration is a step on the road to total outlaw?

[NETim]

At the top of any bureaucracy's agenda is the preservation and expansion of that bureaucracy. Whether it's Constitutional or not, sensible or not, Federal bureaucracies will endeavor to expand and increase their power. Given the fact that it's nearly impossible to fire civil servants, the beast in naturally inefficient and corrupt.

They have far too much say in what goes on in the average American's life already. I will not idly standby and yield even more power to them.


“A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.” P.J. O'Rourke

“How did an allegedly free people spawn a vast, rampant cuttlefish of dominion with its tentacles in every orifice of the body politic?” — P.J. O’Rourke

[RoyGBiv]

So far I have not heard a rational argument against registration...it is all based on fear or belief and not any history or facts or basis.
CC

Not. True.

[NETim]

So far I have not heard a rational argument against registration...it is all based on fear or belief and not any history or facts or basis.
CC

[ezthumper]

So what is the rational argument against a permanent record? Since SCOTUS has now declared that there is a Constitutional Right to own a firearm for your self defense, then why do we care? I can't think of a rational argument against it.

Belief is normally not considered a rational basis.

I disagree entirely. I live in the DC metro area and I know a lot of federal gov't workers. They are all honest, hard-working, and patriotic people. The policy-makers at the top, no matter what their political persuasion, are trying to do what they think is the right thing, although sometimes that is driven by ideology and belief and not rational basis. It is the ideologues who ruin it. We should let the government workers do their jobs because they know what works.

We can find criminals and corruption and laziness, but those are the rare cases and exaggerated by the media and political partisans.

So far I have not heard a rational argument against registration...it is all based on fear or belief and not any history or facts or basis.
CC

Government in it's entirety, does a very poor job creating jobs, balancing budgets, pushing social agendas, figuring out how much something really costs or just listening to the voice of the people and especially telling the truth.

It matters not what era of so called enlightenment we are in, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only thing that keeps them in check, sort of...are the articles and bills set in place by the fathers of our nation...period.

There is so much crap about how the past does not pertain to how things are today. Which is utter bullshit. Through out time, history has repeated it self time and again. And at what point, do we recognize that repeating the actions ofthe past will end up with the same result now. But we won't, we continue to tell ourselves we are smarter now. But if you look around, you see nations everyday committing the same crimes to their own people as they have done over and over again through out history.

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." - Thomas Jefferson


"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin


And as far as government folk, yes there are honest ones, however, I am very familiar with the ones that make decisions that are not.

[Hatchetman]

Which pretty much tells me that you either are not following what I am saying or are intentionally trying to misrepresent it.

I follow your argument perfectly. You are claiming there is some sort of reasonable compromise to be made without defining just what it is while using loaded terms to sell it, and then calling that process "rational." Claim so all you want, your argument will still be specious.

No loaded terms at all. It is a common term that has been used a lot by both sides and has been clearly defined by various parties, including me.
Apparently even when presented with statistics and data that provide exactly what you ask for you reject them based on your own beliefs. That pretty much covers the issue, IMO.

False. "Gun show loophole" is a loaded term, one that would be more accurately stated as a ban on private sales at gun shows. Indeed, most terms used by folks seeking to ban guns are high on emotional content and low on straightforward semantic content: "assault weapons," "cop killer bullets," "junk guns," "Saturday night specials," "gun show loophole," and so on full well demonstrate a consistent pattern of misdirection, one it appears you've bought into.

Perhaps somewhere in these 50 pages I've missed your unassailable argument demonstrating a ban on private sales at gun shows is indeed rational. If so, please refresh my memory. For my part, I've not seen an anti-gun argument that is even in the ballpark re the scope of the problem, finding instead information like this: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...yth-john-lott#

Which, again, is certainly one side of the issue. From another point of view it appears you are only offering irrational platitudes and red herrings trying to deflect from the actual issue...sales of gun at gunshows conducted without a background check. You sound exactly like the gun-grabbers using shotgun arguments about "what if" stuff in an effort to mislead, hoping that if you toss out enough items one of them might stick Sorry, I don't buy it.

Uh, whut? Throw out a bunch of stuff and see what sticks is now your tactic? Feel free to point out an irrational platitude I've spouted. You sir, are long on the generic and short on the specific throughout your arguments, such as they are. But hey, when failing to make a rational argument, embrace the ad hominem instead, eh? It certainly is the preferred tactic of those who would cede the second tenth of the Bill of Rights.

Yes, just as there is hiding one's head in the sand so one can't see the rational basis of another's argument. Strange how a supposedly "irrational" argument is supported by so many folks with some pretty good credentials on both sides of the gun argument. Which again brings me back to my point. BOTH sides present rational arguments....TO THEM. BOTH sides present irrational arguments...TO THE OTHER.

The difference being one you can't seem to grasp: I've yet to run into an antigun argument that isn't very easy to soundly defeat using the techniques of rational argument, while those who argue for the incremental abrogation of second amendment protections are not able to say the same. Feel free to demonstrate the contrary if you'd like and if you can, though I note you have failed to do so despite numerous challenges to do just that. Present the freaking rational argument you claim the other side has, or quit referring to that rumored unicorn.

You seem to feel someone can come along, state they strongly believe they are Mary, Queen of Scots, and, because of their adamant feelings on the matter, we are 'sposed to call 'em "Your Highness." I again categorically state that I have yet to see a rational argument for closing the so called "gun show loophole;" are you able to cite a cogent argument that demonstrates that I'm wrong or will we again be graced with a bunch of generalities as you once more confuse strong feelings for rational argument? The last question is quickly becoming rhetorical, as you've demonstrated time and again just what your favored tactic is.