OK gun grabbers you have your mandatory gun registration

[007]

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

You entirely miss the point regardless. You're just too indoctrinated and brain washed.

In other words, you're the idiot on your knees getting your brains blown out because you made fun of the people trying to warn you about the government eroding your constitutional rights which included incrementally taking away your second amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Ya, stay blind, moron, everything is wonderful on your planet.

 

[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.

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

You really don't understand the concept of the second amendment. that is not a question.

 

[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

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.

When the Militia Act of 1792 was in effect there was a gun registry for enrolled militia members and it was constitutionally legitimate.

My argument is that such a registry is not legitimate when intended to apply to private citizens (AKA "the unorganized militia") because private citizens are not within the sphere of federal militia powers which were only operational upon citizens that were "enrolled and notified" in their state's militia.

None of these powers are operational now, they were overridden by the Dick Act of 1903 and completely extinguished by the National Defense Act of 1916.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

The meaning about the pic is not about holding off foreign troops but against the government.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

When the Militia Act of 1792 was in effect there was a gun registry for enrolled militia members and it was constitutionally legitimate.

My argument is that such a registry is not legitimate when intended to apply to private citizens (AKA "the unorganized militia") because private citizens are not within the sphere of federal militia powers which were only operational upon citizens that were "enrolled and notified" in their state's militia.

None of these powers are operational now, they were overridden by the Dick Act of 1903 and completely extinguished by the National Defense Act of 1916.

They didn't keep a list of names, that was sent back to the federal government, if there was such a list it stayed local

 

[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

You entirely miss the point regardless. You're just too indoctrinated and brain washed.

In other words, you're idiot on your knees getting your brains blown out because you made fun of the people trying to warn you about the government eroding your constitutional rights which included incrementally taking away your second amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Ya, stay blind, moron, everything is wonderful on your planet.

Your childlike point is that Jews could have held off the Nazis if they had guns. History does not support it. All of France had guns. None of the local armed population held off the invading Germans

 

[007]

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

You entirely miss the point regardless. You're just too indoctrinated and brain washed.

In other words, you're idiot on your knees getting your brains blown out because you made fun of the people trying to warn you about the government eroding your constitutional rights which included incrementally taking away your second amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Ya, stay blind, moron, everything is wonderful on your planet.

Your childlike point is that Jews could have held off the Nazis if they had guns. History does not support it. All of France had guns. None of the local armed population held off the invading Germans

OK... Einstein... so your intellectual summation is that an ARMED populace has no better chance of defending itself than an UNARMED populace.

Your stupidity is monumental... take a bow... shit for brains.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

You entirely miss the point regardless. You're just too indoctrinated and brain washed.

In other words, you're idiot on your knees getting your brains blown out because you made fun of the people trying to warn you about the government eroding your constitutional rights which included incrementally taking away your second amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Ya, stay blind, moron, everything is wonderful on your planet.

Your childlike point is that Jews could have held off the Nazis if they had guns. History does not support it. All of France had guns. None of the local armed population held off the invading Germans

Not as many would have been murdered. The sneaking in at night and dragged people out wouldn't have happen quit so easily, and it didn't happen until the Nazi's started the gun control laws.

 

[rightwinger]

You entirely miss the point regardless. You're just too indoctrinated and brain washed.

In other words, you're idiot on your knees getting your brains blown out because you made fun of the people trying to warn you about the government eroding your constitutional rights which included incrementally taking away your second amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Ya, stay blind, moron, everything is wonderful on your planet.

Your childlike point is that Jews could have held off the Nazis if they had guns. History does not support it. All of France had guns. None of the local armed population held off the invading Germans

OK... Einstein... so your intellectual summation is that an armed populace has no better chance of defending itself than an unarmed populace.

Your stupidity is monumental... take a bow... shit for brains.

When given a chance, once again you fail to back up your inflammatory picture of Jews being slaughtered and your claim that it wouldn't have happened if they were armed

Go for it

 

[OODA_Loop]

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

You entirely miss the point regardless. You're just too indoctrinated and brain washed.

In other words, you're idiot on your knees getting your brains blown out because you made fun of the people trying to warn you about the government eroding your constitutional rights which included incrementally taking away your second amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Ya, stay blind, moron, everything is wonderful on your planet.

Your childlike point is that Jews could have held off the Nazis if they had guns. History does not support it. All of France had guns. None of the local armed population held off the invading Germans

French Resistance was better than the gas chamber.

"The French Resistance played a significant role in facilitating the Allies' rapid advance through France following the invasion of Normandy on 6 June 1944, and the lesser-known invasion of Provence on 15 August, by providing military intelligence on the German defenses known as the Atlantic Wall and on Wehrmacht deployments and orders of battle."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your childlike point is that Jews could have held off the Nazis if they had guns. History does not support it. All of France had guns. None of the local armed population held off the invading Germans

OK... Einstein... so your intellectual summation is that an armed populace has no better chance of defending itself than an unarmed populace.

Your stupidity is monumental... take a bow... shit for brains.

When given a chance, once again you fail to back up your inflammatory picture of Jews being slaughtered and your claim that it wouldn't have happened if they were armed

Go for it

first came Gun control, then came gun confiscation, then came extermination.

 

[rightwinger]

You entirely miss the point regardless. You're just too indoctrinated and brain washed.

In other words, you're idiot on your knees getting your brains blown out because you made fun of the people trying to warn you about the government eroding your constitutional rights which included incrementally taking away your second amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Ya, stay blind, moron, everything is wonderful on your planet.

Your childlike point is that Jews could have held off the Nazis if they had guns. History does not support it. All of France had guns. None of the local armed population held off the invading Germans

Not as many would have been murdered. The sneaking in at night and dragged people out wouldn't have happen quit so easily, and it didn't happen until the Nazi's started the gun control laws.

The Nazis met armed resistance. They handled it by taking your family and brutally murdering them before your eyes. Then they killed you

In all of Europe, you have no examples of armed citizens holding back the Nazi Army

It is all NRA fantasies spun for gun nuts

 

[Abatis]

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

Perfectly backwards and counter to fundamental constitutional principles.

Without ensuring an armed population, the federal government would have no ability to call up militias.

No power was ever granted to the federal government to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen. Again, the right does not flow from the Amendment and is in no manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.

The only thing the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.

Gun laws would be relegated to the states

Which was the condition until the 14th Amendment.

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

They didnt

They knew they were not giving people the right. They were recognizing a pre-existing right, a right that existed and was possessed by the people before the Constitution was established. Since the people surrendered no aspect of the right to arms when conferring powers to government, they fully retained it without condition or qualification.

Again,

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.

As I said, SCOTUS has been boringly consistent affirming that principle for going on 140 years:

". . . it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”

DC v Heller​

 

[007]

Your childlike point is that Jews could have held off the Nazis if they had guns. History does not support it. All of France had guns. None of the local armed population held off the invading Germans

OK... Einstein... so your intellectual summation is that an armed populace has no better chance of defending itself than an unarmed populace.

Your stupidity is monumental... take a bow... shit for brains.

When given a chance, once again you fail to back up your inflammatory picture of Jews being slaughtered and your claim that it wouldn't have happened if they were armed

Go for it

Blah, blah, blah.... *belch*... blah, blah, blah... once again you deflect away from defending your monumentally ignorant statements.

Tell me again how my chances of survival by defending myself are just as good with say, a butter knife, against a man toting a shot gun with doubt ought buck?

I'm just so fascinated how you're going to spin this one... go ahead... I'm listening...

 

[rightwinger]

OK... Einstein... so your intellectual summation is that an armed populace has no better chance of defending itself than an unarmed populace.

Your stupidity is monumental... take a bow... shit for brains.

When given a chance, once again you fail to back up your inflammatory picture of Jews being slaughtered and your claim that it wouldn't have happened if they were armed

Go for it

first came Gun control, then came gun confiscation, then came extermination.

The extermination happened regardless of local gun laws. No connection

 

[Abatis]

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.

It has been consistent and it seems you don't understand how SCOTUS works.

 

[007]

When given a chance, once again you fail to back up your inflammatory picture of Jews being slaughtered and your claim that it wouldn't have happened if they were armed

Go for it

first came Gun control, then came gun confiscation, then came extermination.

The extermination happened regardless of local gun laws. No connection

Liar. Your ignorance is mind blowing.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

When the Militia Act of 1792 was in effect there was a gun registry for enrolled militia members and it was constitutionally legitimate.

My argument is that such a registry is not legitimate when intended to apply to private citizens (AKA "the unorganized militia") because private citizens are not within the sphere of federal militia powers which were only operational upon citizens that were "enrolled and notified" in their state's militia.

None of these powers are operational now, they were overridden by the Dick Act of 1903 and completely extinguished by the National Defense Act of 1916.

the constitutionality of the licensing was not addressed in heller

 

[rightwinger]

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

Perfectly backwards and counter to fundamental constitutional principles.

Without ensuring an armed population, the federal government would have no ability to call up militias.

No power was ever granted to the federal government to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen. Again, the right does not flow from the Amendment and is in no manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.

The only thing the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.

Gun laws would be relegated to the states

Which was the condition until the 14th Amendment.

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

They didnt

They knew they were not giving people the right. They were recognizing a pre-existing right, a right that existed and was possessed by the people before the Constitution was established. Since the people surrendered no aspect of the right to arms when conferring powers to government, they fully retained it without condition or qualification.

Again,

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.

As I said, SCOTUS has been boringly consistent affirming that principle for going on 140 years:

". . . it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”

DC v Heller​

The SCOTUS has never found gun registration to be unconstitional either

 

[007]

OK... Einstein... so your intellectual summation is that an armed populace has no better chance of defending itself than an unarmed populace.

Your stupidity is monumental... take a bow... shit for brains.

When given a chance, once again you fail to back up your inflammatory picture of Jews being slaughtered and your claim that it wouldn't have happened if they were armed

Go for it

Blah, blah, blah.... *belch*... blah, blah, blah... once again you deflect away from defending your monumentally ignorant statements.

Tell me again how my chances of survival by defending myself are just as good with say, a butter knife, against a man toting a shot gun with double ought buck?

I'm just so fascinated how you're going to spin this one... go ahead... I'm listening...

I knew you'd weasel yourself right on past that without an answer.

It proves you're a filthy propagandist and more than likely a commie.