Firearm registration = firearm confiscation

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, it doesn't. It's not even worth the time to elaborate as your statement is wrong on its face.

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

You cannot regulate your militias without registering the weapons and knowing what you have available to you to keep your state secure

"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Why are you leftists incapable of doing even the slightest bit of research?

Lets just say that the recent mass murderers were not part of any well regulated militia.

The second exists for the sole purpose of defending the states against federal usurpers

It was to ensure that no State or Federal government could confiscate the individuals in the Militia's weapons. Citizens were allowed to keep them in their homes. The Militias were the first line of defense against invaders while the Government raised an Army, not against the government of the people.

Isn't this just a liberal opinion? It's one way you could look at it, but not the only way. The SC thinks you're wrong, BlindBoo

Right wing judicial activism by the late Scalia I believe. Didn't he also spell out a case for reasonable regulation in that as well? Besides that amendment was written the 18th century and we're in the 21st now, some 70 + year into the nuclear age. But it never had anything to do with protecting the States from the Federal Government.

Again, that's your opinion, BlindBoo. I do believe we have reasonable regulations already. Don't care when the amendment was written, it's as strong today as it was when written.
And again, YOU say it has nothing to do with protecting the states from an overreaching federal government. SC says different.

The Constitution put them under the Commander in Chief and gave Congress the ability to call them into service of the United States to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

But, they stood independent of government and the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent Congress or the president from infringing on their right.

 

[Rustic]

The individual right to keep and bear arms is separate from the militia clause.

It is a recent separation. In those early days most all citizens were in the local militias.

You got to read it in the context of the era which obviously you’re not

 

[Rustic]

No, it doesn't. It's not even worth the time to elaborate as your statement is wrong on its face.

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

You cannot regulate your militias without registering the weapons and knowing what you have available to you to keep your state secure

"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Why are you leftists incapable of doing even the slightest bit of research?

Lets just say that the recent mass murderers were not part of any well regulated militia.

The second exists for the sole purpose of defending the states against federal usurpers

It was to ensure that no State or Federal government could confiscate the individuals in the Militia's weapons. Citizens were allowed to keep them in their homes. The Militias were the first line of defense against invaders while the Government raised an Army, not against the government of the people.

Isn't this just a liberal opinion? It's one way you could look at it, but not the only way. The SC thinks you're wrong, BlindBoo

Right wing judicial activism by the late Scalia I believe. Didn't he also spell out a case for reasonable regulation in that as well? Besides that amendment was written the 18th century and we're in the 21st now, some 70 + year into the nuclear age. But it never had anything to do with protecting the States from the Federal Government.

Again, that's your opinion, BlindBoo. I do believe we have reasonable regulations already. Don't care when the amendment was written, it's as strong today as it was when written.
And again, YOU say it has nothing to do with protecting the states from an overreaching federal government. SC says different.

The Constitution put them under the Commander in Chief and gave Congress the ability to call them into service of the United States to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

Yes, And personal firearm ownership is a personal issue none of the ******* federal governments business

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Why are you leftists incapable of doing even the slightest bit of research?

Lets just say that the recent mass murderers were not part of any well regulated militia.

Isn't this just a liberal opinion? It's one way you could look at it, but not the only way. The SC thinks you're wrong, BlindBoo

Right wing judicial activism by the late Scalia I believe. Didn't he also spell out a case for reasonable regulation in that as well? Besides that amendment was written the 18th century and we're in the 21st now, some 70 + year into the nuclear age. But it never had anything to do with protecting the States from the Federal Government.

Again, that's your opinion, BlindBoo. I do believe we have reasonable regulations already. Don't care when the amendment was written, it's as strong today as it was when written.
And again, YOU say it has nothing to do with protecting the states from an overreaching federal government. SC says different.

The Constitution put them under the Commander in Chief and gave Congress the ability to call them into service of the United States to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

Not arguing that.

Constitutional Myth #6: The Second Amendment Allows Citizens to Threaten Government - The Atlantic

"It would be odd indeed if the Framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had written an amendment designed to give individuals the right to liquidate the government they were setting up. In fact, having been through a revolution, they had few illusions about the virtues of violence. When they gathered in Philadelphia in 1787, the original Framers were very aware that armed bands of farmers in Massachusetts had revolted against the state government only a few months earlier. Washington, in particular, found the news of Daniel Shays's rebellion in that state so disturbing that it contributed to his decision to come out of retirement and help frame a new national charter to prevent such outbreaks. "

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington disagree with you and The Atlantic.

 

[Rustic]

"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

Meaning of the phrase

Why are you leftists incapable of doing even the slightest bit of research?

Lets just say that the recent mass murderers were not part of any well regulated militia.

Isn't this just a liberal opinion? It's one way you could look at it, but not the only way. The SC thinks you're wrong, BlindBoo

Right wing judicial activism by the late Scalia I believe. Didn't he also spell out a case for reasonable regulation in that as well? Besides that amendment was written the 18th century and we're in the 21st now, some 70 + year into the nuclear age. But it never had anything to do with protecting the States from the Federal Government.

Again, that's your opinion, BlindBoo. I do believe we have reasonable regulations already. Don't care when the amendment was written, it's as strong today as it was when written.
And again, YOU say it has nothing to do with protecting the states from an overreaching federal government. SC says different.

The Constitution put them under the Commander in Chief and gave Congress the ability to call them into service of the United States to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

Not arguing that.

Constitutional Myth #6: The Second Amendment Allows Citizens to Threaten Government - The Atlantic

"It would be odd indeed if the Framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had written an amendment designed to give individuals the right to liquidate the government they were setting up. In fact, having been through a revolution, they had few illusions about the virtues of violence. When they gathered in Philadelphia in 1787, the original Framers were very aware that armed bands of farmers in Massachusetts had revolted against the state government only a few months earlier. Washington, in particular, found the news of Daniel Shays's rebellion in that state so disturbing that it contributed to his decision to come out of retirement and help frame a new national charter to prevent such outbreaks. "

 

[Slade3200]

Obviously it’s a dog whistle, that would be the only reason for firearm registration. We have not had it up to this point obviously we’ve never needed it because it’s not right in anyway. No two ways about it

Are they going to take our cars away before they take our guns away? Those have been registered for a while now, should we be worried about confiscation?

--------------------------------- its different , car are not a RIGHT that government would go after . The main reason to not have registration of guns is because of a Healthy distrust of 'government' Slade .

Wtf?! I just went through this with Rustic, y’all are stuck on your talking points and not using your brains. Right or no right makes zero difference in the debate whether regulations equal confiscation. Come on man, wake up.

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

Obviously it’s a dog whistle, that would be the only reason for firearm registration. We have not had it up to this point obviously we’ve never needed it because it’s not right in anyway. No two ways about it

Are they going to take our cars away before they take our guns away? Those have been registered for a while now, should we be worried about confiscation?

--------------------------------- its different , car are not a RIGHT that government would go after . The main reason to not have registration of guns is because of a Healthy distrust of 'government' Slade .

Wtf?! I just went through this with Rustic, y’all are stuck on your talking points and not using your brains. Right or no right makes zero difference in the debate whether regulations equal confiscation. Come on man, wake up.

The collective will never be the friend of the individual

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Obviously it’s a dog whistle, that would be the only reason for firearm registration. We have not had it up to this point obviously we’ve never needed it because it’s not right in anyway. No two ways about it

Paranoid wingnut fantasy...embarrassing...

 

[Slade3200]

Obviously it’s a dog whistle, that would be the only reason for firearm registration. We have not had it up to this point obviously we’ve never needed it because it’s not right in anyway. No two ways about it

Are they going to take our cars away before they take our guns away? Those have been registered for a while now, should we be worried about confiscation?

--------------------------------- its different , car are not a RIGHT that government would go after . The main reason to not have registration of guns is because of a Healthy distrust of 'government' Slade .

Wtf?! I just went through this with Rustic, y’all are stuck on your talking points and not using your brains. Right or no right makes zero difference in the debate whether regulations equal confiscation. Come on man, wake up.

The collective will never be the friend of the individual

That’s your opinion but I’m pretty damn happy with what the “collective” has built in this country that I am lucky enough to live in. You go ahead and be sour grapes but you sound like a spoiled brat.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Obviously it’s a dog whistle, that would be the only reason for firearm registration. We have not had it up to this point obviously we’ve never needed it because it’s not right in anyway. No two ways about it

Are they going to take our cars away before they take our guns away? Those have been registered for a while now, should we be worried about confiscation?

--------------------------------- its different , car are not a RIGHT that government would go after . The main reason to not have registration of guns is because of a Healthy distrust of 'government' Slade .

Wtf?! I just went through this with Rustic, y’all are stuck on your talking points and not using your brains. Right or no right makes zero difference in the debate whether regulations equal confiscation. Come on man, wake up.

ALL guns (except personal built guns) are registered with the BATF by the seller completing Form 4473 when the gun is sold. We already have registration. Why do we need MORE registration?

.

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

Obviously it’s a dog whistle, that would be the only reason for firearm registration. We have not had it up to this point obviously we’ve never needed it because it’s not right in anyway. No two ways about it

Are they going to take our cars away before they take our guns away? Those have been registered for a while now, should we be worried about confiscation?

--------------------------------- its different , car are not a RIGHT that government would go after . The main reason to not have registration of guns is because of a Healthy distrust of 'government' Slade .

Wtf?! I just went through this with Rustic, y’all are stuck on your talking points and not using your brains. Right or no right makes zero difference in the debate whether regulations equal confiscation. Come on man, wake up.

The collective will never be the friend of the individual

That’s your opinion but I’m pretty damn happy with what the “collective” has built in this country that I am lucky enough to live in. You go ahead and be sour grapes but you sound like a spoiled brat.

We have no real freedom in this country, the last hundred plus years has been an utter failure...
Career politicians have fucked over the country permanently

 

[Rustic]

Obviously it’s a dog whistle, that would be the only reason for firearm registration. We have not had it up to this point obviously we’ve never needed it because it’s not right in anyway. No two ways about it

Paranoid wingnut fantasy...embarrassing...

Lol
Only a fool would think the federal government’s on their side

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Obviously it’s a dog whistle, that would be the only reason for firearm registration. We have not had it up to this point obviously we’ve never needed it because it’s not right in anyway. No two ways about it

Are they going to take our cars away before they take our guns away? Those have been registered for a while now, should we be worried about confiscation?

--------------------------------- its different , car are not a RIGHT that government would go after . The main reason to not have registration of guns is because of a Healthy distrust of 'government' Slade .

Wtf?! I just went through this with Rustic, y’all are stuck on your talking points and not using your brains. Right or no right makes zero difference in the debate whether regulations equal confiscation. Come on man, wake up.

The collective will never be the friend of the individual

That’s your opinion but I’m pretty damn happy with what the “collective” has built in this country that I am lucky enough to live in. You go ahead and be sour grapes but you sound like a spoiled brat.

The problem with the "collective" is government's ability to use it as a means of depriving individuals of rights.

Example: We are taxed and government uses that money to puchase things or acquire land held by the collective. When an individual goes to make use of such land, government says "no you can't. You don't own that land. The Taxpayers do.".

The response: "I am a taxpayer."

Reply: "You are not the collective taxpayers. You are an indivisual."

Thus, the property held in common by "the taxpayers" is really held by no one but those in power.

Here's another:

Q. Who owns this food?
A. The People.
Q. Well, I am a person, one of the people. Can I eat this food?
A. No. It does not belong to you. It belongs to the People.
Q. So who gets to eat it?
A. The People.
Q. I am a person.
A. But, you're not the People.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Obviously it’s a dog whistle, that would be the only reason for firearm registration. We have not had it up to this point obviously we’ve never needed it because it’s not right in anyway. No two ways about it

Paranoid wingnut fantasy...embarrassing...

Lol
Only a fool would think the federal government’s on their side

Only a paranoid freak thinks they are coming to take all the guns.

 

[Rustic]

Obviously it’s a dog whistle, that would be the only reason for firearm registration. We have not had it up to this point obviously we’ve never needed it because it’s not right in anyway. No two ways about it

Paranoid wingnut fantasy...embarrassing...

Lol
Only a fool would think the federal government’s on their side

Only a paranoid freak thinks they are coming to take all the guns.

Only a fool would trust the federal government… They are incapable of doing anything good for the people of this country

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Only a paranoid freak thinks they are coming to take all the guns.

We know you commies aren't coming to get them, but only because you know we will resort to extreme violence before we give them up. That won't stop you communist shits from passing a bullshit law ordering us to surrender them. You commies will pass that law and declare us all criminals, forcing us to be in such a position to disobey that law with violence if necessary.

 

[Slade3200]

Obviously it’s a dog whistle, that would be the only reason for firearm registration. We have not had it up to this point obviously we’ve never needed it because it’s not right in anyway. No two ways about it

Are they going to take our cars away before they take our guns away? Those have been registered for a while now, should we be worried about confiscation?

--------------------------------- its different , car are not a RIGHT that government would go after . The main reason to not have registration of guns is because of a Healthy distrust of 'government' Slade .

Wtf?! I just went through this with Rustic, y’all are stuck on your talking points and not using your brains. Right or no right makes zero difference in the debate whether regulations equal confiscation. Come on man, wake up.

ALL guns (except personal built guns) are registered with the BATF by the seller completing Form 4473 when the gun is sold. We already have registration. Why do we need MORE registration?

.

I never said we needed more. I was just making a counter argument to the op saying that registration is confiscation