Anonymous #2 1w

There’s no way you typed this out and genuinely thought this was like a good counterpoint

65

Anonymous #2 1w

Comparing existing as a trans person to gun ownership is a reach

49

Anonymous #1 1w

Having a gun is just as much of a right as being trans is.

-19

Anonymous #2 1w

You’re brutally missing the point here

55

Anonymous #1 1w

Spell it out for me then cause I can't seem to figure out how

-15

Anonymous #2 1w

bro thought he was cooking when in reality he was just cooked the entire time

40

Anonymous #4 1w

No it's pretty damn obvious that you put people on registries when you dislike them and want to use the registry as a tool for oppression/punish them with the process. Some cases this is entirely just and necessary, such as sex offender registries, however for others like gun owners or now trans people, it's almost always an outright infringement of your rights.

8

Anonymous #1 1w

A) one tracks dangerous objects. The other tracks people’s medical identities. B) gun databases are closed to the public. Tennessees bill would make the records public (which would obviously heighten discrimination of the group that’s already discriminated against in Tennessee) C)the reasoning behind gun registries is to help crimes. Tennessees goals are pretty ambiguous but clearly in line with their hatred of trans individuals.

33

Anonymous #2 1w

I’ve got a D and E point too if needed

22

Anonymous #1 1w

Wrong, both track people. Gun registries don't put an airtag in your gun that tells the cops where it is, they put your name, address, and fingerprints on a list. If you wanna talk about intent behind them, both are meant to infringe your constitutional rights (gun registries for RTKBA, trans registries for free expression)

-12

Anonymous #2 1w

This is an underwhelming response

21

Anonymous #2 1w

Funny how the GOP seems to have decided that the 1A is the danger while dems consistently have been attacking the 2A. Wonder if the Green party is going to come out and tell us that the 4A is what's causing climate change soon.

2

Anonymous #1 1w

Well sorry to underwhelm, I'm interested to hear your D and E points

-3

Anonymous #2 1w

I think we should start with the fact you said “wrong. they both track people” when I clearly didn’t deny anywhere in my post they both track people.

13

Anonymous #1 1w

Well that is at odds with you saying "ones tracks dangerous objects"

-3

Anonymous #2 1w

medical information is protected and private, why don’t you get up in arms over VIN on your car? it’s the same shit, it’s identification of ownership. we don’t have a cancer patient registry, we don’t have a diabetic registry.

13

Anonymous #2 1w

Yeah, a gun is a dangerous object lmao

12

Anonymous OP 1w

VINs are there to protect from theft, not allow the government to take your car

-4

Anonymous #2 1w

and a gun registry doesn’t either? no one is trying to take your fucking guns dude

17

Anonymous OP 1w

If nobody is trying to take them then I don't need a government registry to protect from theft

-4

Anonymous #2 1w

I think you know way less on this topic than you think you do based on this thread

10

Anonymous #2 1w

Okay so you’re against registries for guns, because you believe in small government, but you’re in favor of creating registries of specific minority groups, because you’re not in favor of small government? These are incompatible beliefs.

10

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

No I just think they are very similar in that they both actually seek to restrict constitutional rights like free expression or the RTKBA. I'm against both.

-2

Anonymous #2 1w

Okay so you go around defending trans people the same way you do gun rights?

7

Anonymous #1 1w

Well it just flat out doesn't track where guns go, hence me saying you were wrong. It does track gun owners, but thats a person, not a dangerous object.

-2

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

I more generally just defend free expression than trans people in particular but yeah

-2

Anonymous #2 1w

Do you post about it on here?

9

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

No, there are a lot less people here that are interested in having a conversation trying to justify their belief of abolishing the 1A compared to the 2A.

-2

Anonymous #2 1w

Lmao, interesting.

6

Anonymous #2 1w

Do you vote for anti trans candidates?

4

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 1w

I haven't voted, only 10% of the population seemed interested in trying to restore the 2A at any level where I lived when I turned 18 so I just moved to a different state. Presidential election was a clusterfuck too so I definitely wasn't voting in that

-5

Anonymous #2 1w

it’s not expression, it’s BEING why should we regulate existing

6

Anonymous OP 1w

I'm not saying we should regulate it, I'm saying trans people are protected by free expression in this context the same way that gun owners are protected by the right to keep and bear arms.

-2

Anonymous #2 1w

Feel like this thread has beat around the bush. Gun registry’s objectively aid law enforcement in solving crimes. Who does a trans registry help besides transphobic people to know which neighbors they want to avoid

9

Damn bro, this is some horrible bait.

10

Anonymous #1 1w

Well with that broad of a net you're bound to catch criminals. Who's to say that the surveillance of trans people won't also objectively aid law enforcement in solving crimes? Instead of that, we could hold them to higher standards

0

Anonymous #2 1w

Them meaning law enforcement

0

It’s not a law it’s a bill dumbass

4

Anonymous #2 1w

That logic only works if you’re okay with the government tracking any group just because it might help solve crimes. At that point it’s not about safety, it’s about how far you’re willing to stretch surveillance

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I don't see what the categorization changes, considering neither of those are crimes, and they're actually both protected by the bill of rights.

0

Sorry the anti trans propaganda brutalized you so hard

14

Anonymous #2 1w

The categorization matters because one is regulating an object and the other is tracking people based on identity. Those aren’t really comparable, even if neither is a crime.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I'm also not seeing the logic in saying that we need blanket categorical surveillance for one, and not the other, again considering they're both protected by the bill of rights.

0

Anonymous #1 1w

What if this bill wasn't tracking trans people per se, but instead tracking trans flag owners? You'd be ok with it because instead of being based on identity it's an object that your opponents would argue is dangerous in whatever way?

0

Anonymous #2 1w

That’s not really the same thing though. A trans flag is a form of expression tied to identity, so tracking it is just a roundabout way of tracking people. That’s very different from regulating an object like a firearm.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Is owning a gun not a form of keeping and bearing arms?

0

Calling it “just being normal” is kinda the point. People use that to justify all sorts of stuff. Doesn’t really make it neutral

11

Anonymous #2 1w

It is, but that still doesn’t make it the same thing. A registry tied to owning something is different from tracking people based on identity or expression. One regulates an activity, the other targets who someone is.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

What's the activity that it regulates, or when worded differently and using a different connotation, infringes upon?

0

Anonymous #2 1w

Owning, transferring, and possessing a firearm. Those are activities tied to a specific object. That’s different from tracking people based on identity or expression, which isn’t an activity in the same sense.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

So you agree that gun registries go against the 2A (infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms) in the same way that this bill goes against the 1A?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Not really. The 2A has always allowed for some regulation around ownership and transfer of firearms. That’s different from the government tracking people or their expression, which raises a different set of 1A concerns.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

What regulation has the government allowed that's in any way analogous to a categorical registration of all firearms owners, excluding black codes and crown orders predating the revolution?

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I'm really curious, this is the first I'm hearing of this.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

You’re asking for an exact historical match, but that’s not really how this works. Firearms have consistently been subject to regulation. A registry is an extension of that, not the same as cataloging people.

4

Anonymous #1 1w

A registry of firearm owners is actually exactly the same as cataloging people.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

If we had a history of doing things like this, it'd be pretty easy to pull up a single example near the time of the founding. I looked for you, the earliest I found that is in any way analogous was in 1918, and it was done due to a post WW1 red scare in Montana where workers were heavily unionized.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

The standard isn’t “find an identical example from 1790 or it’s invalid.” We regulate all kinds of modern things the founders never dealt with. The question is whether it fits within a broader tradition of regulating firearms. Which it does. That’s still different from tracking people or their expression.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

The founders dealt with an armed populace so it's not like requiring registration of guns was something they could not conceive of.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

It wasn't even something unheard of or impractical at the time, the Crown tried to require Americans to register firearms before the Revolution.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

If a registry fit their tradition of firearms regulation, we would see that or something analogous to it implemented.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

The fact that it first appears as a post WW1 response to a red scare tells me that it's not analogous to our tradition, and only appeared as an emergency post-war effort to disarm our enemies (which would be analogous to disarming British loyalists during the revolution)

1

Anonymous #2 1w

They also had things like militia rolls, required musters, and regulations around who had to own arms and how they were kept. Not identical to modern registries, but it shows firearms weren’t treated as completely unregulated. Either way, the bigger point is still that regulating ownership of an object isn’t the same as tracking people or their identity.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Your example doesn't have to be identical. It just has to be analogous. Militia rolls and required musters are not analogous, as those were not a preemption to owning arms, and were only required for service in a state militia.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

That’s a pretty narrow definition of “analogous.” There were regulations beyond militia service. I.E storage requirements, inspections, and restrictions on certain groups possessing arms. Not identical to a modern registry, but still part of a broader pattern of regulating firearms. And that’s still different from tracking people or their identity.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Storage requirements and the inspections stemming from them were for powder, and were because it caused a lot of houses to catch fire. Still not analogous to a complete categorical registration. I do like that you included the restrictions on "certain groups" though. Black codes are just when they support your viewpoint?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

I’m not saying those examples are identical, just that there was a broader pattern of regulating firearms. Focusing on whether each one matches perfectly kind of misses that point. And on the “certain groups” piece. Those are obviously not something I’m endorsing, just evidence that regulation existed. Either way, that still doesn’t make regulating an object equivalent to tracking people or identity.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

I think we’re just working off different standards at this point. I’m looking at the broader pattern of regulation, and you’re looking for a near-identical historical match. Either way, that still doesn’t make regulating an object equivalent to tracking people or identity, so I’m good leaving it there.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I'm still not saying they have to be identical or match perfectly. But the reasoning behind these laws is completely different from what gun registrations in the US are today.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

I’m from Alabama, and most of the gun-owners I know are in favor of the vetting process, even though they find it inconvenient. Almost all of those people are conservative, btw

1