Obama and Guns

[KungFusion]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
I'm not skipping out - but i happen to work for a living. You have yet to contradict any of my points with anything other than "your wrong" and "it doesn't work that way" . . .

And you havent done anything to show that licensing and registration are inherent to the exercise to the right of arms.

Until you can produce a viable argument that registration and licensing are inherent to the exercise of the right to arms, the claim that they are an "infringement" upon the right to arms stands."

Well there you go again - i've made the argument as to why it is inherent several times, and all you do is deny that i made it in the first place. You don't make a counterargument to defend your position, and you refuse to even ATTEMPT an argument as to why registration constitutes an "infringement". So i guess we're at an impasse . . .

This is why gun owners so often fail when they try to mount legal resistance to permitting and registration laws. Without a sympathetic judge, they simply have no leg to stand on.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well there you go again - i've made the argument as to why it is inherent several times, and all you do is deny that i made it in the first place.

I'm sorry.
You havent made a -sound- arugment as to how they are inherent to the right to arms.

You don't make a counterargument to defend your position, and you refuse to even ATTEMPT an argument as to why registration constitutes and "infringement".

I have. They are a precondition placed on the right not inherent to that right.

If registration and licensing were inherent to the right to arms -- that is, a permanent and inseparable element, quality or attribute of that right -- then, from the very beginning of this country, near-total registration and licensing would have been in place. Instead, licensing and registration is a 20th century construct.

That the huge majority of guns are not and have not been registered, and that the huge majority of gun owners are not and have not been licensed, alone, defeats any argument that licensing and registration are inherent part of the right to arms.

 

[KungFusion]

"I have. They are a precondition placed on the right not inherent to that right.

If registration and licensing were inherent to the right to arms -- that is, a permanent and inseparable element, quality or attribute of that right -- then, from the very beginning of this country, near-total registration and licensing would have been in place. Instead, licensing and registration is a 20th century construct."

Again, a precondition does not constitute an "infringement". There are plenty of examples of preconditions AND practical restrictions legally placed upon peoples' exercise of their rights. The case for the precondition being "inherent" doesn't change simply because registration hasn't always been fully enforced. The right to vote wasn't universally enforced for all people throughout the entire history of our country, but nobody would currently deny that black and female citizens have an "inherent" right to vote under the constitution. If an inherent right can emerge as enforceable after the fact, then why not an inherent precondition? After all, rights may be enshrined, but preconditions to them (inherent or otherwise) will inevitably evolve as the structures of society change (in this case a couple examples we're talking about might include exponential growth in population and shifting demographics, changes in military structure which alter the relative meaning of what constitutes "a well-armed militia", and so on, ad nauseum). If there is no infringement upon the exercise of a right, then a precondition previously deemed unecessarry can just as well be considered practically necessarry with changing circumstances. What wasn't an "inherent" (or, merely, what wasn't recognized as "inherent") precondition of gun ownership in rural colorado in the 1800's may very well still emerge as a necessary and inherent precondition of gun ownership in the NYC of the 21st century.

Things change, people's veiwpoints change, and consequently, in a representative democracy (or democratic republic), laws will change to adapt. If registration is deemed an inherent precondition to the exercising of the right to bear arms in places where it wasn't even a question before (because those places didn't exist in the form in which they do now) then there's no conflict with the constitution, unless you can show that the precondition constitutes an infringement.


That the huge majority of guns aren not and have not been registered and that the huge majority of gun owners are not and have not been licensed, alone, defeats any argument that licensing and registration are inherent to the right to arms."

Well, i don't know the stats on this, but it doesn't affect the argument either way. The fact that there are a gross surfeit of illegal firearms as well as untrained, inexperienced gun owners in this country is hardly an argument AGAINST registration laws.

Nobody is suggesting putting a sign up on your house or tattooing a brand of gun ownership on your forehead, only that you make the local police department aware of the presence of potentially deadly devices within the community that they're charged with protecting.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again, a precondition does not constitute an "infringement".

It does if it isnt inherent to the right in question.
Its an artifical restraint to the exercise of the right. How does that NOT qualify as an infringement?

The case for the precondition being "inherent" doesn't change simply because registration hasn't always been fully enforced.

"Inherent" means that is inseperable from the right. It exists as part of the right. it means that the right cannot exist without it.

That the right to arms existed then and exists now without licensing and registration conclusively proves that they are not inherent to the right.

The right to vote wasn't universally enforced for all people throughout the entire history of our country,

And then the constitution changed.
If you want to change the constitution to allow for licensing and registration, be my guest. Until then, you're stuck with an unsound argument.

Well, i don't know the stats on this, but it doesn't affect the argument either way.

Sure it does.
It, in no uncertain terms, illustrates how licensing and registration are not an inherent part of the right to arms.

The fact that there are a gross surfeit of illegal firearms as well as untrained, inexperienced gun owners in this country is hardly an argument AGAINST registration laws.

How are those things in any way a fact?

 

[KungFusion]

Hmm. . . .

I'll concede if you can show me where preconditions are defined in the constitution as ALWAYS constituting an infringement of rights unless specifically defined by the constitution as being "inherent" to the right . . .

if so, we can agree that, in principle, it is an "infringement"

but i won't concede that it is an infringement in PRACTICE, and i'll assert that, if such a definition exists, then the constitution does in fact need to be changed to legally allow the registration of firearms in many specific areas of the country due to the myriad shifts in historical contingencies since the original amendment was drafted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hmm. . . .
I'll concede if you can show me where preconditions are defined in the constitution as ALWAYS constituting an infringement of rights unless specifically defined by the constitution as being "inherent" to the right . . .

I'm not sure how such a thing -- limiting a right in a manner that is outside the natural limits of the right itself -- could NOT be an infringement.

 

[ReillyT]

I'm not sure how such a thing -- limiting a right in a manner that is outside the natural limits of the right itself -- could NOT be an infringement.

I swear I am not being critical or snarky, but are you making up your own constitutional theories or trying to explain what you believe the law actually says with respect to the legality of licensing and registration requirements?

I did read the last few posts, but I must admit, I was a bit confused.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I swear I am not being critical or snarky, but are you making up your own constitutional theories or trying to explain what you believe the law actually says with respect to the legality of licensing and registration requirements?

I'm discussing how licensing and registration are infringements upon the right to arms. They create a precondition to the extercise of the right that is not inherent to the right itself, which is an infringement.

 

[ReillyT]

I'm discussing how licensing and registration are infringements upon the right to arms. They create a precondition to the extercise of the right that is not inherent to the right itself, which is an infringement.

If you are interested, I am sure there are court cases on precisely this issue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you are interested, I am sure there are court cases on precisely this issue.

On the definition of infringement?

 

[ReillyT]

On the definition of infringement?

They might have something about the definition of infringement, but they surely discuss just the issue you are talking about (i.e., registration/licensing). The right search terms on findlaw.com or even google might bring up the cases.

 

[KungFusion]

"I'm not sure how such a thing -- limiting a right in a manner that is outside the natural limits of the right itself -- could NOT be an infringement."

Because, in certain contexts, the "natural limits" of the right itself can and do change. We see this with free speech rights and technological advances all the time (particularly as they pertain to privacy and/or public safety). A common example is that what speech qualifies as "pornography" changes over time, so what youre calling the "natural limits of the right" to free speech will also change over time . . . some rights may expand with time, others may be subject to "preconditions" applied in response to changing historical variables (urban sprawl, large shifts in population density and advances in weapons technology, for instance). Does the right to maintain a "well-armed militia" include within its natural limits the right to stockpile warheads in your garage? Maybe it does, but it's still a legitimate question, and the constitution itself can't and doesn't provide an answer. Again with the example of free speech: you have a right to stand outside and proclaim your opinions to the world, but if you do so through a pa and a stack of giant amps (which didn't exist when the constitution was drafted) at 2am along a peacful, residential street, youre going to be subject to legal consequences (even if youre standing in your own front yard).

These aren't necessarily infringements, but they are practical considerations necessarry for the continued function of society in an ever changing world.

 

[LOki]

Registering to vote protects the validity of each voter's vote; it does not place an impediment to voting, and that is why it does not infringe upon the right to vote--registering guns threatens the right to keep and bear arms and ABSOLUTELY infringes upon the right.

You keep saying so - but you make no argument as to why or how!

Registering to vote insures only one vote is cast by each voter in each election--allowing some to vote multiple times in each election disenfranchises those who don't. The pupose of registering your vote is to insure it's validity, not to restrict you from voting.

The purpose of registering guns is to place an obstacle to excersizing the right to keep and bear arms; it's meant to create a database of all guns, gun owners, and the locations of each for the purposes of confiscating guns, and identifying a newly created criminal class when gun possesion is criminalized.

Any legal right which you would choose to exercise is subject to practical restrictions in cases where the exercise of that right poses a potential risk to the welfare of others.

No one said that having a right meant license to abuse it.

Registration does not prevent anyone from exercising their right to arms,...

Sure it does--you obviously never have had to register a gun in Chicago, New York City, or Washington D.C.

...but it does allow for certain basic general social protections to be in place which help ensure the public safety.

No it doesn't. Not in the least little bit.

 

[KungFusion]

"Originally Posted by KungFusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by LOki
Registering to vote protects the validity of each voter's vote; it does not place an impediment to voting, and that is why it does not infringe upon the right to vote--registering guns threatens the right to keep and bear arms and ABSOLUTELY infringes upon the right.

You keep saying so - but you make no argument as to why or how!

Registering to vote insures only one vote is cast by each voter in each election--allowing some to vote multiple times in each election disenfranchises those who don't. The pupose of registering your vote is to insure it's validity, not to restrict you from voting.
The purpose of registering guns is to place an obstacle to excersizing the right to keep and bear arms; it's meant to create a database of all guns, gun owners, and the locations of each for the purposes of confiscating guns, and identifying a newly created criminal class when gun possesion is criminalized."[/I]

Youre paranoid. Take it to the conspiracy theory thread. Do you have any concept of how impossible it would be to repeal the 2nd amendment?


"Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
Any legal right which you would choose to exercise is subject to practical restrictions in cases where the exercise of that right poses a potential risk to the welfare of others.

No one said that having a right meant license to abuse it."

No one did, youre correct - and registration is one means of curbing abuse.

"Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
Registration does not prevent anyone from exercising their right to arms,...

Sure it does--you obviously never have had to register a gun in Chicago, New York City, or Washington D.C."

I've tried to buy one in Boston - which is worse. But the problem is not registration requirements - the problem is other draconian restrictions which require things like six-week waiting periods, multiple visits to the police station, written letters of explanation as to one's purpose and intention, and so forth. These are not things i'm advocating - registering a gun should be a one time affair involving no more exchange of information than is required to register a car or a pet.

"Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
...but it does allow for certain basic general social protections to be in place which help ensure the public safety.

No it doesn't. Not in the least little bit."

That's not an argument.

 

[LOki]

First KungFusion, I'd like to direct your attention to the "QUOTE" button in the lower right of the post--if you were wondering how everyone manages to put linked, and attribuatable quotes in those neat frames, that's where the magic begins.

"Originally Posted by KungFusion
Quote:
Originally Posted by LOki
Registering to vote protects the validity of each voter's vote; it does not place an impediment to voting, and that is why it does not infringe upon the right to vote--registering guns threatens the right to keep and bear arms and ABSOLUTELY infringes upon the right.

You keep saying so - but you make no argument as to why or how!

Registering to vote insures only one vote is cast by each voter in each election--allowing some to vote multiple times in each election disenfranchises those who don't. The pupose of registering your vote is to insure it's validity, not to restrict you from voting.
The purpose of registering guns is to place an obstacle to excersizing the right to keep and bear arms; it's meant to create a database of all guns, gun owners, and the locations of each for the purposes of confiscating guns, and identifying a newly created criminal class when gun possesion is criminalized."[/I]

Youre paranoid. Take it to the conspiracy theory thread. Do you have any concept of how impossible it would be to repeal the 2nd amendment?

Calling me paranoid is no argument. I never mentioned repealing the 2nd amendment, so that's no argument either.

"Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
Any legal right which you would choose to exercise is subject to practical restrictions in cases where the exercise of that right poses a potential risk to the welfare of others.

No one said that having a right meant license to abuse it."

No one did, youre correct - and registration is one means of curbing abuse.

Registration does nothing to curb abuse, it only places guns and gun owners in a database.

"Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
Registration does not prevent anyone from exercising their right to arms,...

Sure it does--you obviously never have had to register a gun in Chicago, New York City, or Washington D.C."

I've tried to buy one in Boston - which is worse. But the problem is not registration requirements - the problem is other draconian restrictions which require things like six-week waiting periods, multiple visits to the police station, written letters of explanation as to one's purpose and intention, and so forth. These are not things i'm advocating - registering a gun should be a one time affair involving no more exchange of information than is required to register a car or a pet.

You should not be required to register to excercise rights.

"Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
...but it does allow for certain basic general social protections to be in place which help ensure the public safety.

No it doesn't. Not in the least little bit."

That's not an argument.

If so, then neither is, <i>"...[gun registration] allow for certain basic general social protections to be in place which help ensure the public safety."</i>

 

[KungFusion]

First KungFusion, I'd like to direct your attention to the "QUOTE" button in the lower right of the post--if you were wondering how everyone manages to put linked, and attribuatable quotes in those neat frames, that's where the magic begins.

thanks for the tip - the boxes get on my nerves but if you prefer it that way . . .


Calling me paranoid is no argument. I never mentioned repealing the 2nd amendment, so that's no argument either.

In order to "criminalize" gun ownership (which you did mention - in fact it's the fear of that happening that youre basing your resistance to gun registration upon), it would be necessarry to repeal portions of the constitution. The thought that the government is seeking to gather information of every legal gun owner so that they can turn around and make criminals of them is paranoid - there's nothing there to argue WITH - it's a baseless conspiracy theory.


Registration does nothing to curb abuse, it only places guns and gun owners in a database.

Traceable weapons expedite criminal investigations considerably. Knowing where guns originated from, who's handled them, where they might potentially be found, and who to talk to in the event that they are discovered abandoned or recovered after having been stolen from the owner all go a long way toward helping to ensure public safety and prevent abuse. A gun owner who is registered is far less likely to hand over, sell, or trade his/her weapons with those who might abuse them because s/he's aware that s/he can be linked to the weapon. Registration encourages safe, legal, and responsible handling of weapons by their owners.


You should not be required to register to excercise rights.

Why not?



If so, then neither is, <i>"...[gun registration] allow for certain basic general social protections to be in place which help ensure the public safety."</i>

Your right, it's an specific, positive assertion (one which i just provided an argument for) - and simply saying "no it doesn't" without providing any reasons or qualifying statements is not an argument and does not invite any response, intelligent or otherwise. If we all responded to one another like that, this thread (like so many others) would just disintegrate into an endless cycle of "Yes it is" / "No it isn't" / "Yes it IS" / "No it ISN'T" / "YES IT IS!" / "NO IT ISN'T!" , and so on - ad nauseum. Hence, the need, when someone makes a specific, positive assertion that you disagree with, to respond with something more than just a "No, your wrong."

Hmm, the boxes don't allow you to insert a distinct response inbetween parts of the post you are quoting - so it really doesn't make it any easier than just c + p ing the whole thing and using italics . . .

 

[M14 Shooter]

You should not be required to register to excercise rights

General licensing and registration amount to asking the government for permission to exercise your right, wholesale, regardless of where or when or how you might choose to do so.

When you have to ask permission to exercise your rights, then you right has been relegated to the status of a privilege.

 

[KungFusion]

General licensing and registration amount to asking the government for permission to exercise your right, whoilesale, regardless of where or when or how you might choose to do so.

When you have to ask permission to exercise your rights, then you right has been relegated to the status of a privilege.

If you have the right, the gov't can't prevent you from owning the weapon, so it's not the same as asking for permission. It IS the same, however, as exercising your rights in a responsible manner by notifying the govt that there is another deadly device in circulation and accepting a minimum level of accountibility for how that device is handled. Registering ownership need not be the same as applying for ownership - which, imo, would qualify as an infringement.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you have the right, the gov't can't prevent you from owning the weapon, so it's not the same as asking for permission.

Its -exactly- the same as asking the government for permission, regardless if they say yes or not.

 

[LOki]

First KungFusion, I'd like to direct your attention to the "QUOTE" button in the lower right of the post--if you were wondering how everyone manages to put linked, and attribuatable quotes in those neat frames, that's where the magic begins.

thanks for the tip - the boxes get on my nerves but if you prefer it that way . . .

I think it makes reading responses all more sensible.

Calling me paranoid is no argument. I never mentioned repealing the 2nd amendment, so that's no argument either.

In order to "criminalize" gun ownership (which you did mention - in fact it's the fear of that happening that youre basing your resistance to gun registration upon), it would be necessarry to repeal portions of the constitution.

Not at all--the government needs only to "interpret" it such that it allows gun ownership to be criminal; or just ignore it entirely, as it has in regard to fully automatic weapons, and "assualt" weapons, and short barreled shot guns, etc...

The thought that the government is seeking to gather information of every legal gun owner so that they can turn around and make criminals of them is paranoid - there's nothing there to argue WITH - it's a baseless conspiracy theory.

It may be paranoid, but that doesn't make it wrong. There is no other purpose for coercivley gathering such information, so the theory is not baseless.

Registration does nothing to curb abuse, it only places guns and gun owners in a database.

Traceable weapons expedite criminal investigations considerably.

Which does nothing to curb abuse, and leads more often to victims of theft, rather than criminals; incidentally casting suspicion on the wrong person.

Knowing where guns originated from, who's handled them, where they might potentially be found, and who to talk to in the event that they are discovered abandoned or recovered after having been stolen from the owner all go a long way toward helping to ensure public safety and prevent abuse.

Filing a report with the police if your firearm is lost or stolen accomplishes the same thing without requiring registration.

A gun owner who is registered is far less likely to hand over, sell, or trade his/her weapons with those who might abuse them because s/he's aware that s/he can be linked to the weapon.

A link that establishes "guilt" or responsibilty for the actions of others only by the most specious of arguments.

Registration encourages safe, legal, and responsible handling of weapons by their owners.

Not even remotely demonstrable.

You should not be required to register to excercise rights.

Why not?

Because that's the nature of rights--they are not priviledges you must ask for.

If so, then neither is, "...[gun registration] allow for certain basic general social protections to be in place which help ensure the public safety."

Your right, it's an specific, positive assertion (one which i just provided an argument for) - and simply saying "no it doesn't" without providing any reasons or qualifying statements is not an argument and does not invite any response, intelligent or otherwise.

Sure it does; it invites a response that supports the unsubstantiated positive assertion.

If we all responded to one another like that, this thread (like so many others) would just disintegrate into an endless cycle of "Yes it is" / "No it isn't" / "Yes it IS" / "No it ISN'T" / "YES IT IS!" / "NO IT ISN'T!" , and so on - ad nauseum.

Well good, let's just limit it to me responding to you like that then.

Hence, the need, when someone makes a specific, positive assertion that you disagree with, to respond with something more than just a "No, your wrong."

But it's working for me.

Hmm, the boxes don't allow you to insert a distinct response inbetween parts of the post you are quoting

Sure it does (as has been clearly demostrated here and hundreds of other places on this board and thousands of instances on other boards). You just copy/paste the appropriate BB code, and make sure you close the tags properly.

- so it really doesn't make it any easier than just c + p ing the whole thing and using italics . . .

It makes much more sense, and is more sensible than everyone's posts just running together.

You should not be required to register to excercise rights.

General licensing and registration amount to asking the government for permission to exercise your right, whoilesale, regardless of where or when or how you might choose to do so.

When you have to ask permission to exercise your rights, then you right has been relegated to the status of a privilege.

I wish I had seen this post earlier. :2thup: