Obama and Guns

[LOki]

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.

If I can't exercise the right without registering the gun, then it is precisely the same thing.

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.

Similarly then, I suppose you'd advocate for registering books, magazines and newspapers, to insure that they were read responsibly; and prayers, to insure that they were perfomed responsibly; and register your person, house, papers, and effects, so that you can responsibly declare to the government which items you're to be secure from unreasonable search an siezure in; I don't know how you'd register to insure due process, a speedy trial by jury, legal counsel, protection from self incrimination, but I'll just bet you'd find a way in the name of accounability and "exercising your rights in a responsible manner."

How about that? You excersize no rights, without first registering the object of such rights--this works for you? It's not the same as asking permission to you?

Registering ownership need not be the same as applying for ownership - which, imo, would qualify as an infringement.

If you can't own the gun without registering the gun, then it is precisely the same thing as applying for ownership.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you can't own the gun without registering the gun, then it is precisely the same thing as applying for ownership.

And even if -that- isnt asking permission, then certainly submitting to a background check is.

Any time you have to wait for the givernment to give you an "OK" to exercise a right, you are no longer exercising a right.

 

[LOki]

And even if -that- isnt asking permission, then certainly submitting to a background check is.

Any time you have to wait for the givernment to give you an "OK" to exercise a right, you are no longer exercising a right.

**You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to M14 Shooter again.**

 

[M14 Shooter]

**You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to M14 Shooter again.**

LOL

 

[ReillyT]

Are you guys still arguing whether it is Constitutional to require gun registration?

 

[LOki]

Are you guys still arguing whether it is Constitutional to require gun registration?

Hi. I liek pie.

 

[ReillyT]

Hi. I liek pie.

Hmmmm?

 

[KungFusion]

Well, now that you and M14 are done blowing smoke up each others' butts, maybe i can sneak a response in edgewise . . .

"Originally Posted by KungFusion
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.

If I can't exercise the right without registering the gun, then it is precisely the same thing."

Hardly. When you register to vote, youre not asking for permission to vote. When you register your car, youre not asking for permission to drive. When you register your dog, youre not asking permission to keep it. When you register youre gun, the gov't doesn't say no you can't keep it, or yes you can. There's no request involved. It's a process of notification, that's all.



"Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
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.

Similarly then, I suppose you'd advocate for registering books, magazines and newspapers, to insure that they were read responsibly; and prayers, to insure that they were perfomed responsibly; and register your person, house, papers, and effects, so that you can responsibly declare to the government which items you're to be secure from unreasonable search an siezure in; I don't know how you'd register to insure due process, a speedy trial by jury, legal counsel, protection from self incrimination, but I'll just bet you'd find a way in the name of accounability and "exercising your rights in a responsible manner."

How about that? You excersize no rights, without first registering the object of such rights--this works for you? It's not the same as asking permission to you?"

Nope, books and papers aren't deadly devices. Nobody ever robbed a store using a book. And yes, you DO in effect register your house (if you have an address) and your person (if you have a birth certificate). Similarily, there isn't any way in which exercising the right to trail by jury (speedy? you clearly don't have much experience with the justice system), legal counsel, or protection from self-incrimination poses any immediate threat to the safey or welfare of the rest of us - but it IS worth noting that there's no way to exercise any of those rights without the gov't also being aware of it. . .


"Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
Registering ownership need not be the same as applying for ownership - which, imo, would qualify as an infringement.

If you can't own the gun without registering the gun, then it is precisely the same thing as applying for ownership."

You can't buy a gun without paying for it - Does that make the process of handing over your currency the same as applying for ownership? And if so, does that mean capitolism is an infringement on your right to arms?

 

[LOki]

Well, now that you and M14 are done blowing smoke up each others' butts, maybe i can sneak a response in edgewise . . .

"Originally Posted by KungFusion
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.

If I can't exercise the right without registering the gun, then it is precisely the same thing."

Hardly..

Pay attention.

When you register to vote, youre not asking for permission to vote.

Correct. I made this very, very clear to you. "Registering" to vote is an entirely different thin than "registering" your guns.

When you register your car, youre not asking for permission to drive.

But you are asking permission to put it on the road, and putting a car on the road and driving it is a priviledge, rather than a right.

When you register your dog, youre not asking permission to keep it.

If you don't register your dog, they take it away--you are certainly asking permission when you register your dog if you are not permitted to have a dog without registering it.

When you register youre gun, the gov't doesn't say no you can't keep it, or yes you can. There's no request involved. It's a process of notification, that's all.

Go register your fully automatic weapon then, or your sawed off shot gun--see what the government has to say then.

The government certainly can, and does, deny registrations or registerees. When you register your gun, you are asking permission to have it.

"Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
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.

Similarly then, I suppose you'd advocate for registering books, magazines and newspapers, to insure that they were read responsibly; and prayers, to insure that they were perfomed responsibly; and register your person, house, papers, and effects, so that you can responsibly declare to the government which items you're to be secure from unreasonable search an siezure in; I don't know how you'd register to insure due process, a speedy trial by jury, legal counsel, protection from self incrimination, but I'll just bet you'd find a way in the name of accounability and "exercising your rights in a responsible manner."

How about that? You excersize no rights, without first registering the object of such rights--this works for you? It's not the same as asking permission to you?"

Pay attention.

Nope, books and papers aren't deadly devices. Nobody ever robbed a store using a book.

Not relevent to the point that you shouldn't register to excersize rights.

Incidentally, since ideas lead to actions, the ideas published in books and papers can certainly lead to deadly actions--this is the rationale used by those who advocate for cencorship (among other violations of rights).

And yes, you DO in effect register your house (if you have an address) and your person (if you have a birth certificate).

You do so voluntarily, and you don't do so for the purposes of excercising your right to be free from unreasonable search and siezures.

<i>"Citizen, you have no street address; therefore we need no warrant to search your house--step aside. Citizen, this wide screen plasma television and home theater system has not been registered with the Bureau of Expensive Gadgets--you have no rights to it; we ill confiscate it just in time for the big game--in the interest of...uh... public safety."</i>​

Similarily, there isn't any way in which exercising the right to trail by jury (speedy? you clearly don't have much experience with the justice system), legal counsel, or protection from self-incrimination poses any immediate threat to the safey or welfare of the rest of us - but it IS worth noting that there's no way to exercise any of those rights without the gov't also being aware of it. . .

Again, not relevent to the point that you shouldn't register to excersize rights, but it IS worth noting that the government is fully aware of the 2nd Amendment and does not need to know who has guns or where they are keeping them to avoid infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms, and protect that right from right infringing legislation.

But if the intent is to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, registration is certainly a means--a means that make further infringments (such as universal confiscation) easier to implement.

"Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
Registering ownership need not be the same as applying for ownership - which, imo, would qualify as an infringement.

If you can't own the gun without registering the gun, then it is precisely the same thing as applying for ownership."

You can't buy a gun without paying for it - Does that make the process of handing over your currency the same as applying for ownership? And if so, does that mean capitolism is an infringement on your right to arms?

Stealing a gun doesn't make you the owner of the gun. Stealing the gun infringes upon the right of the gun owner to keep and bear arms--even if the government steals them.

 

[KungFusion]

I don't know where you live that they take away unregistered pets from their owners and where the constitution is the only barrier between your television and those who would steal it, but i'd suggest moving. And, dude, "pay attention" and "that's not relevant" AREN'T arguments. This shit has petrified. Try to work on your grasp of analogies. In the meantime, don't shoot anyone and keep your eyes peeled for the black helicopters . . .

and remember: Soylent Green is people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hardly. When you register to vote, youre not asking for permission to vote.

Voter registration is an inherent part of the right to vote. This means that registratiuon doesnt infringe your right to vote.
Guns are a different story.

When you register your car, youre not asking for permission to drive. When you register your dog, youre not asking permission to keep it.

You dont have a right to do these things, and as such, their inclusion here is meaningless.

When you register youre gun, the gov't doesn't say no you can't keep it, or yes you can.

By requiring registration and licensing, the government says that 'you cannot have your gun unless you pettition us first'. That's asking for permission.

Nope, books and papers aren't deadly devices.

Irrelevant to the issue. Answer his question.

You can't buy a gun without paying for it - Does that make the process of handing over your currency the same as applying for ownership?

As you are describing a transaction of proerty rather than a government regulation, this is meaningless.

 

[LOki]

I don't know where you live that they take away unregistered pets from their owners...

That would be everywhere pet registration is required.

...and where the constitution is the only barrier between your television and those who would steal it, but i'd suggest moving.

The Constitution is the legal barrier between your property, and the government stealing it.

If you live where no such protection exists, I'd suggest moving to you.

And, dude, "pay attention" and "that's not relevant" AREN'T arguments.

Uh, dude, if you had paid attention, you'd have noted that counter arguments to your argument followed "pay attention."

And pointing out that your argument is not relevent to what you're attempting refute, actually is argument.

I will now consider it a "pro-tip" to simply declare any post I want to avoid responding to as "not an argument" and then proceed as if it's not a valid response.

This shit has petrified.

The shit inside your skull? Agreed!

Try to work on your grasp of analogies.

I grasp them well enough--I appears to be better than you would wish.

In the meantime, don't shoot anyone...

Hasn't happened despite none of my guns being registered. Thanks anyway.

...and keep your eyes peeled for the black helicopters . . .

Why? Are you in the market for one?

and remember: Soylent Green is people.

I will. Any you remember to keep your hand off my guns, you filthy ape.

 

[KungFusion]

Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
I don't know where you live that they take away unregistered pets from their owners...

That would be everywhere pet registration is required.

Doesn't happen - if an unregistered pet is FOUND and the owner cannot be located it will be taken, but what else are they going to do with it? However, if you are walking an unregistered dog, the gov't is not going to come and take it. So no, that wouldn't be anywhere that pet registration is required.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
...and where the constitution is the only barrier between your television and those who would steal it, but i'd suggest moving.

The Constitution is the legal barrier between your property, and the government stealing it.

If you live where no such protection exists, I'd suggest moving to you.

Actually, property laws are the barrier between your property and the gov't stealing it


Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
And, dude, "pay attention" and "that's not relevant" AREN'T arguments.

Uh, dude, if you had paid attention, you'd have noted that counter arguments to your argument followed "pay attention."

Actually, what followed the "pay attention" was another quote from my previous post . . .

And pointing out that your argument is not relevent to what you're attempting refute, actually is argument.

Not if you don't demonstrate how it isn't relevant. Sorry.


I will now consider it a "pro-tip" to simply declare any post I want to avoid responding to as "not an argument" and then proceed as if it's not a valid response.

You can if you want, but it won't be necessarry unless youre arguing against someone with the same tendencies as yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
This shit has petrified.

The shit inside your skull? Agreed!

Witty.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
Try to work on your grasp of analogies.

I grasp them well enough--I appears to be better than you would wish.

If that's what you need to tell yourself.

[I]
Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
In the meantime, don't shoot anyone...

Hasn't happened despite none of my guns being registered. Thanks anyway.

Glad to hear it. Wouldn't want the police confiscating as evidence any of your shiny, phallic toy collection.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
...and keep your eyes peeled for the black helicopters . . .

Why? Are you in the market for one?

That's how you know when theyre coming for you, silly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
and remember: Soylent Green is people.

I will. Any you remember to keep your hand off my guns, you filthy ape

I'm not who you should worry about. From what i can tell, you're your own worst enemy.

 

[KungFusion]

Last response to this thread. Then you two can go back to comparing the lengths of your guns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
Hardly. When you register to vote, youre not asking for permission to vote.

Voter registration is an inherent part of the right to vote. This means that registratiuon doesnt infringe your right to vote.
Guns are a different story.


Quote:
When you register your car, youre not asking for permission to drive. When you register your dog, youre not asking permission to keep it.

You dont have a right to do these things, and as such, their inclusion here is meaningless.


Quote:
When you register youre gun, the gov't doesn't say no you can't keep it, or yes you can.

By requiring registration and licensing, the government says that 'you cannot have your gun unless you pettition us first'. That's asking for permission.

Registration is not the same as asking for permission or petitioning, regardless of wether youre registering your intent to exercise a right, a privelage, use the toilet, OR anything else. Asking for permission or petitioning are requests. When you register a dog, say, you are not requesting anything and the gov't does not reserve the right to tell you you can't have it. It's notification.




Quote:
Nope, books and papers aren't deadly devices.

Irrelevant to the issue. Answer his question.

How is it irrelevant? I don't recall his question, but the potential lethality of a gun versus a book or a stack of papers will have all the relevance in the world depending on which one i'm pointing at your head.

Quote:
You can't buy a gun without paying for it - Does that make the process of handing over your currency the same as applying for ownership?

As you are describing a transaction of proerty rather than a government regulation, this is meaningless.

Your complaint is that registration is an infringement on your right to arms because it is required of you in order to legally procure a weapon. Similarly (try to follow now) "transactions of property" (all of which are regulated by the govt if youre using currency or credit) are ALSO required of you in order to legally procure a weapon. If the gov't didn't exist, neither of these requirements would exist as such either. Therefore, by your logic, the capitolist system enforced and regulated by the govt which requires you to make a "transaction of property" in order to legally procure a weapon would constitute as much of an infringement upon your right to arms as any gov't requirement of registration.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Last response to this thread. Then you two can go back to comparing the lengths of your guns.

Do you always run away when you cannot effectively defend your position?

 

[KungFusion]

Nope, i walk away when i realize that i'm speaking outside the soundproof door of a hermetically sealed mind.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nope, i walk away when i realize that i'm speaking outside the soundproof door of a hermetically sealed mind.

Um... why did you lie about that being your last post?

 

[LOki]

Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
I don't know where you live that they take away unregistered pets from their owners...

That would be everywhere pet registration is required.

Doesn't happen - if an unregistered pet is FOUND and the owner cannot be located it will be taken, but what else are they going to do with it? However, if you are walking an unregistered dog, the gov't is not going to come and take it. So no, that wouldn't be anywhere that pet registration is required.

Actually, if your animal control officer finds you walking your unregistered pet, he's going to confiscate it.

Your denial of reality is remakable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
...and where the constitution is the only barrier between your television and those who would steal it, but i'd suggest moving.

The Constitution is the legal barrier between your property, and the government stealing it.

If you live where no such protection exists, I'd suggest moving to you.

Actually, property laws are the barrier between your property and the gov't stealing it

Actually, property laws are the barrier between your property and the other people, apart from the government, stealing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
And, dude, "pay attention" and "that's not relevant" AREN'T arguments.

Uh, dude, if you had paid attention, you'd have noted that counter arguments to your argument followed "pay attention."

Actually, what followed the "pay attention" was another quote from my previous post . . .

Which was in turn followed be my response to that quote. Your denial of reality is nothing if not persistent. Feel free to congradulate yourself with continued denials.

And pointing out that your argument is not relevent to what you're attempting refute, actually is argument.

Not if you don't demonstrate how it isn't relevant. Sorry.

But I did. Your persistent denial of reality is admirable. Iwill take this as your second "pro-tip": Just deny that your opponent demonstrated how your assertion irrelevent, and then proceed as if your assertion remains relevent.

I will now consider it a "pro-tip" to simply declare any post I want to avoid responding to as "not an argument" and then proceed as if it's not a valid response.

You can if you want, but it won't be necessarry unless youre arguing against someone with the same tendencies as yourself.

Your suggestion, that I have a tendency toward not presenting <a href="http://mw4.m-w.com/dictionary/argument">argument</a>, is completely unsubstantiated--it is consistent, however, with your remarkably robust denial of reality

Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
This shit has petrified.

The shit inside your skull? Agreed!

Witty.

I suppose I should be gratified that you approve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
Try to work on your grasp of analogies.

I grasp them well enough--I appears to be better than you would wish.

If that's what you need to tell yourself.

Not at all; it's what needs explaining to you, given the robust persistence of your remarkable denial of reality.

[I]
Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
In the meantime, don't shoot anyone...

Hasn't happened despite none of my guns being registered. Thanks anyway.

Glad to hear it. Wouldn't want the police confiscating as evidence any of your shiny, phallic toy collection.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I suspect you're engaging in some kind of projection derived from self-abusive visits to your own private Idaho.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
...and keep your eyes peeled for the black helicopters . . .

Why? Are you in the market for one?

That's how you know when theyre coming for you, silly.

You say black helicopters are coming for me? I had no idea. I think I'd like a black helicopter--if more than one shows up, I'll let you have one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
and remember: Soylent Green is people.

I will. Any you remember to keep your hand off my guns, you filthy ape

I'm not who you should worry about. From what i can tell, you're your own worst enemy.

It's well that you're able to recognize the limits of your capacities--say hello to the potato heads for me. Thanks.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, property laws are the barrier between your property and the other people, apart from the government, stealing it.

Correct.
If property laws are what keeps the government from your property, then all the government needs to do to take your property is change the laws.
The government cannot take your property withouth due process or compensation because the Constitution says so.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Correct.
If property laws are what keeps the government from your property, then all the government needs to do to take your property is change the laws.
The government cannot take your property withouth due process or compensation because the Constitution says so.

Uh huh, that's what I thought too....but tell that to those that lost their homes due to the Kelo v. New London case...