OK gun grabbers you have your mandatory gun registration

[bigrebnc1775]

and yet scotus upheld that law didnt they......

A justice can trample on the rights of Americans just as easily as a politician can.

yawn..your rights arent being trampled

Yes they are, sorry but any gun control laws is trampling on my rights regardless of state.

 

[Plasmaball]

A justice can trample on the rights of Americans just as easily as a politician can.

yawn..your rights arent being trampled

Yes they are, sorry but any gun control laws is trampling on my rights regardless of state.

nope

 

[bigrebnc1775]

yawn..your rights arent being trampled

Yes they are, sorry but any gun control laws is trampling on my rights regardless of state.

nope

When a gun law is created that restricts my right to carry infringes on my right, when a gun law is created that restricts what kind of firearm I have access to that too is an infringement
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGE was not written for chits and grins.

 

[Plasmaball]

Yes they are, sorry but any gun control laws is trampling on my rights regardless of state.

nope

When a gun law is created that restricts my right to carry infringes on my right, when a gun law is created that restricts what kind of firearm I have access to that too is an infringement
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGE was not written for chits and grins.

license does not restrict your rights. No law is absolute, ever.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

nope

When a gun law is created that restricts my right to carry infringes on my right, when a gun law is created that restricts what kind of firearm I have access to that too is an infringement
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGE was not written for chits and grins.

license does not restrict your rights. No law is absolute, ever.

Yes it is an infringement The second amendment is absolute
The only amendment that ended with shall not be infringe it is above all others absolute.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Libs rejoice: Long lines, frustration mark Connecticut gun registration - BizPac Review
All I can say is god help the poor state politician that would suggest anything close to this, here in North Carolina

 

[rightwinger]

No where in the second Amendment does it say anything about a " well-registered " milita, what it says is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.......we can all argue semantics, and interpetations ad invinitum, but the facts already exist is the the Founding Father's words. There are already in existance 20,000 plus firearms laws, most are not enforced......what make anyone believe that any more will make a difference?

The founding fathers intended militias to be the backbone of our nations defense. A quickly assembled force that could meet immediate threats. A well regulated militia was trained and ready to be called up to fight. You bet your ass they knew who their gun owners were

Gun Registration is a key to the second amendment

 

[rightwinger]

If our country were ever attacked, we rely on our gun owners to help defend us. We cannot form them into well regulated militias without knowing who they are what weapons they have. Our nations security depends on it

Any gun owner who cherishes the second amendment and loves his country will have no problem registering

I wouldn't lift a finger to defend you. Defend yourself.

Freaking libs always willing to let somebody else do the dirty work.

Another survivalist gun nut who hates his country

 

[Abatis]

Gun Registration supports the second amendment

I'm sure that you can point that one out in the second amendment?

A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state...

We can't have well regulated militias without knowing who our gun owners are

You have a point rightwinger. The recording of an enrolled militia member's name and recording the type and caliber of the arm (singular) he intended to muster with, is a legitimate exercise of militia regulatory powers (federal and state). It was called the "return of the militia" . . . essentially a detailed census of a militia company's resources to evaluate readiness -- IOW, information used to help determine if that company was actually "well regulated" (properly functioning / in operational order and condition).

Problem is, there is no current legal purpose or justification for government to record any information pertaining to the identity of a private citizen simply because he owns a gun nor any identifiers pertaining to his personal arms (under the auspices of militia regulation).

To build constitutional legitimacy for a gun registry you would need to reenact a militia law (e.g., Militia Act of 1792) that again brings enrolled citizens under the umbrella of federal militia regulations.

Since 1903, Congress has relieved the citizens from any obligation to perform militia duty but it has also extinguished any authority it might claim to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen (again, under the auspices of militia regulation).

 

[rightwinger]

I'm sure that you can point that one out in the second amendment?

A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state...

We can't have well regulated militias without knowing who our gun owners are

You have a point rightwinger. The recording of an enrolled militia member's name and recording the type and caliber of the arm (singular) he intended to muster with, is a legitimate exercise of militia regulatory powers (federal and state). It was called the "return of the militia" . . . essentially a detailed census of a militia company's resources to evaluate readiness -- IOW, information used to help determine if that company was actually "well regulated" (properly functioning / in operational order and condition).

Problem is, there is no current legal purpose or justification for government to record any information pertaining to the identity of a private citizen simply because he owns a gun nor any identifiers pertaining to his personal arms (under the auspices of militia regulation).

To build constitutional legitimacy for a gun registry you would need to reenact a militia law (e.g., Militia Act of 1792) that again brings enrolled citizens under the umbrella of federal militia regulations.

Since 1903, Congress has relieved the citizens from any obligation to perform militia duty but it has also extinguished any authority it might claim to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen (again, under the auspices of militia regulation).

Kind of negates the need for a second amendment doesn't it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm sure that you can point that one out in the second amendment?

A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state...

We can't have well regulated militias without knowing who our gun owners are

You have a point rightwinger. The recording of an enrolled militia member's name and recording the type and caliber of the arm (singular) he intended to muster with, is a legitimate exercise of militia regulatory powers (federal and state). It was called the "return of the militia" . . . essentially a detailed census of a militia company's resources to evaluate readiness -- IOW, information used to help determine if that company was actually "well regulated" (properly functioning / in operational order and condition).

Problem is, there is no current legal purpose or justification for government to record any information pertaining to the identity of a private citizen simply because he owns a gun nor any identifiers pertaining to his personal arms (under the auspices of militia regulation).

To build constitutional legitimacy for a gun registry you would need to reenact a militia law (e.g., Militia Act of 1792) that again brings enrolled citizens under the umbrella of federal militia regulations.

Since 1903, Congress has relieved the citizens from any obligation to perform militia duty but it has also extinguished any authority it might claim to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen (again, under the auspices of militia regulation).

He doesn't have a point nor is it valid ever heard of the unorganized militia? It's seperate from the regular militia and is not in connection with the national guard.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The founding fathers intended militias to be the backbone of our nations defense. A quickly assembled force that could meet immediate threats. A well regulated militia was trained and ready to be called up to fight. You bet your ass they knew who their gun owners were

Exactly.

That is why none of these lists or registrations exist historically or are even mentioned.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state...

We can't have well regulated militias without knowing who our gun owners are

You have a point rightwinger. The recording of an enrolled militia member's name and recording the type and caliber of the arm (singular) he intended to muster with, is a legitimate exercise of militia regulatory powers (federal and state). It was called the "return of the militia" . . . essentially a detailed census of a militia company's resources to evaluate readiness -- IOW, information used to help determine if that company was actually "well regulated" (properly functioning / in operational order and condition).

Problem is, there is no current legal purpose or justification for government to record any information pertaining to the identity of a private citizen simply because he owns a gun nor any identifiers pertaining to his personal arms (under the auspices of militia regulation).

To build constitutional legitimacy for a gun registry you would need to reenact a militia law (e.g., Militia Act of 1792) that again brings enrolled citizens under the umbrella of federal militia regulations.

Since 1903, Congress has relieved the citizens from any obligation to perform militia duty but it has also extinguished any authority it might claim to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen (again, under the auspices of militia regulation).

Kind of negates the need for a second amendment doesn't it?

Not when the second amendment was to defend against government oppression.

 

[Abatis]

A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state...

We can't have well regulated militias without knowing who our gun owners are

How do we regulate our militias and know they are in "working order" without knowing who our gun owners are?

We can't have a second amendment without registration.....our country depends on it

How do we regulate our militias and know they are in "working order" without knowing who our gun owners are?

We can't have a second amendment without registration.....our country depends on it

We need our well regulated militia to secure a free state

To do this, we need to register our gun owners so we can call them up to defend our country if need be

Registration is needed to secure our second Amendment

If our country were ever attacked, we rely on our gun owners to help defend us. We cannot form them into well regulated militias without knowing who they are what weapons they have. Our nations security depends on it

Any gun owner who cherishes the second amendment and loves his country will have no problem registering

You are conflating two separate and distinct operations here.

Whatever argument that you want to make regarding the constitutional legitimacy of gun registration under the auspices of militia regulation you need to exclude the 2nd Amendment from your justifications.

The 2nd Amendment has never been examined to inform or held to inform on any aspect of militia powers, it has no effect or action regarding militia powers.

The creation and enforcement militia law and the resolutions of conflicts between the feds and states over the operation of militia law has been done without any reference to the 2nd Amendment. The only authority cited to empower government to create and enforce militia law and the only authority to guide courts to decide conflict in militia law* are the militia clauses of Article I, § 8 of the Constitution.

Your arguments are without any support in the philosophical, historical or legal record of the Constitution. Your theory is a modern invention (circa 1942) with some even more preposterous mutations added in the 1970's.

*
Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) (1820)
Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) (1827)
Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1917)
Perpich v. Dep't of Defense, 496 U.S. (1990)

 

[007]

 

[007]

 

[rightwinger]

That is scary

Nazis and stuff

But to make your point, you need examples of armed citizens holding off the German Army. It didn't happen as they conquered thousands of miles of Europe and Africa

 

[Abatis]

Kind of negates the need for a second amendment doesn't it?

1) The legitimacy of militia regulations has no reliance on the 2nd Amendment.

2) The right to arms of the private citizen is not created, established, granted or given by the 2nd Amendment which means the right to arms is in no manner dependent upon the 2nd Amendment for its existence.

SCOTUS has been consistent in affirming the first statement for going on 195 years and has been boringly consistent affirming the second for going on 140 years.

 

[rightwinger]

Kind of negates the need for a second amendment doesn't it?

1) The legitimacy of militia regulations has no reliance on the 2nd Amendment.

2) The right to arms of the private citizen is not created, established, granted or given by the 2nd Amendment which means the right to arms is in no manner dependent upon the 2nd Amendment for its existence.

SCOTUS has been consistent in affirming the first statement for going on 195 years and has been boringly consistent affirming the second for going on 140 years.

Without militias, the Federal Government has no need to ensure an armed population.

Gun laws would be relegated to the states

The founding fathers could have just said "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed"

They didnt

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Kind of negates the need for a second amendment doesn't it?

1) The legitimacy of militia regulations has no reliance on the 2nd Amendment.

2) The right to arms of the private citizen is not created, established, granted or given by the 2nd Amendment which means the right to arms is in no manner dependent upon the 2nd Amendment for its existence.

SCOTUS has been consistent in affirming the first statement for going on 195 years and has been boringly consistent affirming the second for going on 140 years.

The supreme court in no way has been consistent on the second amendment or the right too keep and bear arms for private citizens.
If it was consistence it would have ruled the NFA of 1934, 1938, and 1969 unconstitutional.