| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| If it's true, it's very disturbing | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 5 2009, 02:36 PM (1,070 Views) | |
| Frank_W | Apr 6 2009, 09:51 AM Post #51 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
If I buy a gun from you, Quirt, I am not required to register it. Who would I register it with? Where would I obtain the paperwork? It's meaningless and the government knows it would be impossible to regulate. I'm pretty sure that's why they don't even try. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 6 2009, 09:56 AM Post #52 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Again, the federal Constitution does not say what powers state governments have. After all, there's the Tenth Amendment:
And it doesn't say how to distinguish powers reserved to the states from those reserved to the people. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 6 2009, 09:56 AM Post #53 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
We're talking theory, Frank. I did not say this was the model of existing law. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 6 2009, 09:58 AM Post #54 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Once again, you're playing semantic games. You've defined it as an ownership infringement, even though I've shown you why it isn't. And you've declared yourself judge and jury of the argument, as well as scorekeeper. Any wonder why I don't want to traffic with you? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Apr 6 2009, 09:58 AM Post #55 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
This paperwork to which you refer is required by law to be destroyed within 6 months although the ATF yhas been caught fudging that in the past. It is only for the purpose of establishing a legal sale and is not ntended to be any sort of registration. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Apr 6 2009, 10:00 AM Post #56 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
JB, I didn't know that. Thanks! That's even better. It proves even more, that the government really isn't infringing on peoples' right to keep and bear arms.(and yeah, I agree: "Arms" isn't specific to rifles and/or sidearms.) |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Apr 6 2009, 10:02 AM Post #57 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Would not SCOTUS's incorporation jurisprudence apply here? |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 6 2009, 10:07 AM Post #58 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
What semantic games? The point is "infringement". Ownership shall not be infringed. You are creating a condition for owner that if not complied with criminalizes the citizenry for doing what they Constitution acknowledges their right to do with very specific language. You have not shown how that is not infringement on ownership, you only claim it to be by linguistic legerdemain. So yes, if your intent is to make some sort of argument as you are doing that is so obviously erosive of fundamental constitutional rights, I am happy to play scorekeeper and judge that your position is not compelling and I will vote for the Constitution over your reading it. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 6 2009, 10:19 AM Post #59 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Explain what you mean, JB. Please. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 6 2009, 10:21 AM Post #60 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Again, it's not a condition "on" ownership. It's something that must be done in conjunction with ownership. Just as you may have to register to have a parade, without violating the First Amendment. And, to be clear, you're not voting for the Constitution. You're voting for your interpretation of it. How surprising that you find your own interpretation compelling. There are, of course, other interpretations. Ones that use the actual language, instead of your tortured redefinition of the terms. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Apr 6 2009, 10:27 AM Post #61 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
My understanding of this is that this is what made the States obligated to uphold the Bill of Rights through the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That would, I believe, mean that any encumberance to Federal legislation by the Second Amendment would apply to states as well. Indeed, Heller v. DC seems to bear that out. Of course, as you said, there is no explicit prohibition of gun registration within the text of the Second Amendment but the phrase "shall not be infringed" would have to be interpretted rather broadly to allow it. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 6 2009, 10:40 AM Post #62 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
A distinction without a difference since it is indeed an infringement. You are still saying one cannot legally own a gun without doing X. Any condition is necessarily an infringement since it breaks the absoluteness of the right. (from frangere). I have no problem considering this as a semantic question, which again it is as I pointed out early on it depends what "infringe" means, but I do object to your claiming this is some sort of semantic game. Words mean things in law. You are claiming that one can simultaneously uphold an absolute right to bear arms (preemptively, I hope you are not going to try some silly take like convicted criminals in prison should thereby have the constitutional right to bear arms -- but I can never be sure with you), while making a condition that does break (in-frangere) that right. "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble," could easily be construed to require oversight by public authorities (hence a "permit" which cannot be denied for any reason) so that the assembly does not disrupt the civic order (clogging streets etc). Public assembly is an essentially public act. Ownership of any type is an essentially private act. Your parallelism does not account for this. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 6 2009, 10:45 AM Post #63 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
BTW, Quirt, I can see how if the Government were prevented from denying any citizen not convicted of a felony the right to a permit to bear arms -- Sherman tanks, laws rockets, machine guns, grenades -- then your public assembly parallel would make some sense. I am not sure Mark would live with that, but I could see the argument. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Apr 6 2009, 10:46 AM Post #64 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Technically, a person could buy a gun and strap it on their leg in a holster in plain view, and they would be within their rights to do so, even if doing so would be foolish... |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 6 2009, 10:46 AM Post #65 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I agree with all of that, with the exception of the word "broadly". Yes, the states are required to abide by the rights in the federal Constitution, but I have argued that a mere registration requirement is not an impingement (provided that it isn't a registration that can be denied). |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 6 2009, 10:48 AM Post #66 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
You are ignoring the point. I have posited that it would not affect ownership. You can own the gun, with no interference. You might go to jail for failing to register (more likely, a fine of some sort), but you'd still own the gun. Since you still own the gun, it's not an infringement on ownership. Assuming, as I've said several times, that the registration cannot be refused. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 6 2009, 10:54 AM Post #67 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
So if you're good with the government not being permitted to deny ownership of all arms (to citizens not convicted of violent felonies, say), I could live with that. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Apr 6 2009, 10:55 AM Post #68 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
If people were required to register their guns. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Apr 6 2009, 11:05 AM Post #69 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
I have no principled objection to a gun registration requirement just as I do not with competency requirements. the problem is that the most vocal advocates of such requirements are clearly interested in them as a vehicle towards prohibition rather than having any interest in maintaining a right to own and bear arms. IOW the requirement itself may or may not run afoul of the Constitution depending on how broadly you want to interpret "shall not be infringed" but the eventual purpose of such requirements would. I see you already agree with that I am simply concerned with the way such requirements would be implemented in some near or distant future as a means to make gun ownership prohibitively difficult. Once the precedent has been established that these requirements do not amount to ingfringement then it becomes much more difficult to hold a line that keeps them from becoming infingement. Of course, many of those advocating for registration and competency requirements understand this. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 6 2009, 11:06 AM Post #70 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
That's a separate issue from whether registration laws are Constitutional. Actually, two separate issues. The rights of felons (they've lost the right to travel, the right to liberty, and the right to vote, for example), and the definition of "arms". Intellectually, you cannot condition analysis of one issue on the result when a different issue, involving different Constitutional words and principles, is analyzed. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 6 2009, 11:07 AM Post #71 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Yes, that's always been the NRA position. Hold the line to prevent the eventual creep of restrictions. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 6 2009, 11:08 AM Post #72 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I suspect that in states that require registration, unregistered weapons are confiscated. And laws have changed that illegalize weapons and the state confiscates them. from this site:
So the track record of the State infringing on the Second Amendment does not give any reason for confidence in your position on how you interpret the Second Amendment to ensure those rights. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Apr 6 2009, 11:10 AM Post #73 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Damn... I'm glad I live in Tennessee. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 6 2009, 11:11 AM Post #74 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
You have switched the argument from theory to practice. Should I take it you accede to the theory? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Apr 6 2009, 02:43 PM Post #75 |
|
MAMIL
|
Funnily enough, when I think of Hitler, the first thing that springs to mind isn't gun-registration. Hitlers rise to power: 1. The Superpower Germany is impoverished and humiliated by reparations required after losing a world war. 2. He becomes the leader of a small, virulently anti-semitic bunch of nationists. 3. He attempts a violent overthrow of the government, and is imprisoned. 4. Germany suffers a total economic collapse. Massive inflation, people starve to death. 5. The German political system in tatters, after a number of attempts, Hitler gets elected as Chancellor. 6. The Reichstag burns, Hitler suspends Habeus Corpus, bans opposition groups, and murders a number of it's leaders. I don't know about you chaps, but I don't find the parallels exactly jumping out of the page. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |








That's even better. It proves even more, that the government really isn't infringing on peoples' right to keep and bear arms.

10:55 AM Jul 11