Registration of firearms leads to confiscation

[Batcat]

Or they could just seize NRA and Hunting Licenses

Not all that many shooters are NRA members believe it or not. The NRA claims to have 5 million members. Many gun owner have no interest in hunting. There are around 38 million hunters. Gun owners are estimated to be around 81 million.

 

[Batcat]

lol

The Red Dawn fallacy.

And there are no ‘commies.’

The biggest fallacy about Red Dawn is that the Russians could have invaded the United States and taken over. It lacked the means to deliver the necessary number of troops and supplies.

If a nation ever does invade the United States they will face armed resistance from civilians assuming gran grabbers are unsuccessful. If the gun grabbers are successful the United States will no longer be a free nation and would not be worth defending.

Yes, there are Communists today.

List Of Communist Countries Today

There are five Communist countries in the world today. Learn more about the spread of Communist and about the political history of each of these countries.

www.worldatlas.com

 

[GLASNOST]

Privilege versus rights.
What will happen if the directions of the NYPD are not followed?

Trying to register an illegal firearm doesn't magically make it legal possession no matter if you are previously a registered criminal or not. ​

 

[GLASNOST]

Don't tell anyone, but I went 56 in a 55 mph zone.
I have a privilege to drive and a right to speed.

..... until your excessive speeding renders your license invalid.

 

[2aguy]

You'll have to argue with state law over that. I thought you were in favor of states having authority.

When they don't violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you are correct....when the democrat party tried to use Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to prevent blacks from voting, they did it at the state level....that violated the Constitution so they had to stop.....

Same thing here....

 

[2aguy]

The biggest fallacy about Red Dawn is that the Russians could have invaded the United States and taken over. It lacked the means to deliver the necessary number of troops and supplies.

If a nation ever does invade the United States they will face armed resistance from civilians assuming gran grabbers are unsuccessful. If the gun grabbers are successful the United States will no longer be a free nation and would not be worth defending.

View attachment 701172

Yes, there are Communists today.

List Of Communist Countries Today

There are five Communist countries in the world today. Learn more about the spread of Communist and about the political history of each of these countries.

www.worldatlas.com

As it turns out, they can't even handle Ukraine, let alone the U.S.....

 

[Canon Shooter]

Or they could just seize NRA and Hunting Licenses

Only a minority of gun owners hunt, and there's no such thing as an "NRA license"...

 

[ihealyou]

too bad the second isn't about militias isn't it?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Trying to register an illegal firearm doesn't magically make it legal possession no matter if you are previously a registered criminal or not. ​

You should stop drunk posting. If you were trying to make a point you did to irrelevance

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.

George Mason the father of the bill of rights.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

lol

The Red Dawn fallacy.

And there are no ‘commies.’

Shove your fallacy up your ass

Or they could just seize NRA and Hunting Licenses

I don't have either.

 

[ihealyou]

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.

George Mason the father of the bill of rights.

The Militia is every single US citizen, public official or not + the National Guard.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Militia is every single US citizen, public official or not + the National Guard.

You would be so very wrong
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)

 

[Blues Man]

Dude!
It is LITERALLY the FIRST four words of 2A!!!!

The second is about the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

 

[Blues Man]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE is the subject of the second amendment not the militia

 

[Delldude]

Where has any court decided that registration is unconstitutional?

Registration isn't unconstitutional, it's keeping a searchable gun registry by the government that is....and there is law covering it:

“ “The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) is a United States federal law that revised many provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. As such, FOPA makes it illegal for the national government or any state in the country to keep any sort of database or registry that ties firearms directly to their owner. The exact wording of the provision is as follows:

No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.”

 

[Delldude]

Thank you for proving my point.
As you prove here, James Madison did NOT write an individual's "right" to personal firearm ownership into the Second Amendment.

It was the SCOTUS legislating from the bench in 2008 that did it.

Very similar to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that made abortion a constitutional "right."

Lijewise, someday a less conservative court may very well decide to overturn Heller....just like Roe.

At the end of the day it's all more about fashion than the Constitution.
Whatever is "fashionable" with the court today.

Sorry, Mikey, you missed the boat.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms

Keep:
to hold or retain in one's possession; hold as one's own: If you like it, keep it.

SCOTUS didn't legislate from the bench in 2008, they only affirmed the constitutional right.

Regarding Roe...SCOTUS cannot create constitutional rights. A constitutional right would be added to the constitution via an amendment, for which there is a process, defined, in the COTUS.

 

[Delldude]

..... until your excessive speeding renders your license invalid.

Officer, I was exercising my pursuit of happiness, while enjoying my liberty.

 

[MagicMike]

Sorry, Mikey, you missed the boat.




SCOTUS didn't legislate from the bench in 2008, they only affirmed the constitutional right.

Regarding Roe...SCOTUS cannot create constitutional rights. A constitutional right would be added to the constitution via an amendment, for which there is a process, defined, in the COTUS.

IF, as you say, the SCOTUS only "affirmed a constitutional right" in the 2008 Heller case then the same statement MUST apply to the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.

Either BOTH rulings simply affirmed a constitutional right or they were both cases of SCOTUS legislating from the bench.

And if the former is the case then the recent Dobbs v. Jackson ruling must be unconstitutional.

 

[Auld Phart]

IF, as you say, the SCOTUS only "affirmed a constitutional right" in the 2008 Heller case then the same statement MUST apply to the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.

Either BOTH rulings simply affirmed a constitutional right or they were both cases of SCOTUS legislating from the bench.

And if the former is the case then the recent Dobbs v. Jackson ruling must be unconstitutional.

Please point to the Amendment where abortion is mentioned.