Obama and Guns

[LOki]

Um... yes. I'm opposed to the AWB.

But why would any normal person be opposed to registration?

Because registration is solely for the pupose of creating a list of guns and their owners for the pupose of future, wide-spread confiscation.

You register to vote...

Registering to vote if for making a list of voters to insure they have only voted once for each election--this list does not interfere with the right to vote, it validates that right.

...and you register your car.

Not that I'm in favor of registering cars, but owning a car is not a right--at least not one recognized by the government--it's a priviledge. Registering the object of priviledges is one thing, you should not be required to register to excersize your rights.

I want to know if a psychopath has a gun.

I don't have a problem with them registering their guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because a insecure weapons stockpile (even one on private property) poses a major potential risk public safety.

So, its NOT similar, as you're comparing "potentioal risk" to "actual harm".
How, then, are restrictions on free speech relevant here?

Well, you can try arbitrarily to declare that the burden of proof is on my end, but it doesn't work that way by law.

Its your claim, so its your job to support/defend it.

 

[LOki]

Did you really mean to imply that insuring a motor vehicle is stupid?

I don't think it is, but where does the government derive the power to guarantee revenues to the insurance companies by demanding insurance?

 

[LOki]

Okay, but if youre gonna carry a firearm anywhere public (and those areas that have seen reduced crime allow people to do this) then you still need to register and permit it.

Why? To what purpose or end?

A precondition to the exercise of a right is not an infringement upon it.

You must be <a href="http://www.chrudat.com/retards/retard28.jpg">a little retarded</a>, or just <a href="http://www.erichufschmid.net/Dumb-down/super-retard.JPG">very special</a>.

If youre a citizen who wants to exercise your right to vote, you still have to register.

Registering to vote is for making a list of voters to insure they have only voted once in each election--this list does not interfere with the right to vote, it validates that right.

If you want to exercise your right to legal representation, you still have to abide by the rules and protocols of the courtroom.

You cannot be refused legal representation regardless of how you behave.

If you want liberty, you still have to follow laws.

No one disputes this, but the government must abide by the limited power it has which does not include abridging or infringing upon rights.

 

[KungFusion]

riginally Posted by KungFusion
This simply isn't true at all. There is no "burden of proof" in semantic interpretations of law

Then you'll agree that was silly for you to ask me to show that they are not inherent to the right to arms.


"Quote:
No. FALSE: In the absence of the rule of law, nobody has ANY rights as such, because there is no enforcement and no protection.

Just exaplining to you how our system works.
You can disagree with it, but that doesnt make you right.
But you will note that the Constitution is written in such a way that it presumes the existence of the rights and then protects them, rather than granting said rights to us."

Explaining how the system works? Funny, i was just thinking the same thing about what i've been saying to you. If a registration law is in place - or some governing body wants to put one in place - it's gonna be incumbent upon YOU to show that your rights are being infringed, not the other way around. THAT'S how the system works.

the constitution doesn't anywhere "presuppose" that the right to bear arms is a basic, universal human right - all it presupposes is that, upon the adoption of the constitution by the society, that those living under the rule established by the constitution will have that right.

"Quote:
Exceptionally rare? Really? I think most major US cities above a certain threshold population density require licenses for gun ownership . . .

I see you skipped the part where you were to show that licensing and registration are --inherent-- to the right to arms. " [/I]

I covered that before - it is a right granted by law, so any preconditions to the exercising of that right deliniated by the law are inherent by default unless those preconditions constitute infringements - and registration does not.


Quote:
"Unless you can show how registering your weapons effectively infringes upon your ability to exercise your right to arms, i don't see that there's anything wrong with it.

Been there, done that -- they are preconditions placed on the right not inherent to that right. "

Wrong. Preconditions to the exercising of the right are fine unless they constitute "infringements" to the exercising of that right (having to register in order to vote, for instance). As i said before, registration doesn't constitute and "infringement".

 

[M14 Shooter]

Explaining how the system works? Funny, i was just thinking the same thing about what i've been saying to you. If a registration law is in place - or some governing body wants to put one in place - it's gonna be incumbent upon YOU to show that your rights are being infringed, not the other way around. THAT'S how the system works.

We're not talking about challenging a specific law, we're talking about the issue in general. Burden is on those that want to impose the restrictions to show that they are not an infringement,

the constitution doesn't anywhere "presuppose" that the right to bear arms is a basic, universal human right - all it presupposes is that, upon the adoption of the constitution by the society, that those living under the rule established by the constitution will have that right.

This is a distinction without a difference. The people had the right before the Constitution was enacted, and it was not granted to them by any government.

I covered that before - it is a right granted by law...

On which you are wrong - unless, of course, you can show where the Constitution specifially that grants the right to arms.

And so, you have still skipped the part where you were to show that licensing and registration are --inherent-- to the right to arms.

Wrong. Preconditions to the exercising of the right are fine unless they constitute "infringements" to the exercising of that right

Which they are, unless inherent to the right.
So, you're back to showing that licensing and registration are inherent to the right to arms.

 

[KungFusion]

"Originally Posted by KungFusion
Because a insecure weapons stockpile (even one on private property) poses a major potential risk public safety.

So, its NOT similar, as you're comparing "potentioal risk" to "actual harm".
How, then, are restrictions on free speech relevant here?"

I'm not comparing - yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre is an example of restricted speech wether or not it actually results in any physical harm or injury. It's only the potential for such harm that makes doing so wrong.


"Quote:
Well, you can try arbitrarily to declare that the burden of proof is on my end, but it doesn't work that way by law.

Its your claim, so its your job to support/defend it."

I have been supporting and defending it. But in the practical world of law and order, if you want gun registration (which is already a widely accepted practice) to be declared unconstitutional, it's gonna be up to YOUR side or the fence to demonstrate it as such. The regulators already have their foot in the door, man.

 

[Ravi]

This is a distinction without a difference. The people had the right before the Constitution was enacted, and it was not granted to them by any government.

Then why bother writing it into the constitution?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not comparing - yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre is an example of restricted speech wether or not it actually results in any physical harm or injury. It's only the potential for such harm that makes doing so wrong.

No. Like the other restrictions on the right to free speech, the prohibition against yelling "fire" is based on the fact that it DOES cuase harm, not that it MIGHT cause harm -- that it DOES run afoul of the rights of othes, not that it MIGHT run afoul.

Apples and oranges -- you cannot use this as a basis upon which to justify restricting a right because it MIGHT cause harm.

I have been supporting and defending it.

So...where did you illustrate how licenseing and registration are an inherent part of the right arms?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then why bother writing it into the constitution?

To protect it from actions against it by the goverment -- just like the rest of the bill of rights.

 

[KungFusion]

"Quote:
Explaining how the system works? Funny, i was just thinking the same thing about what i've been saying to you. If a registration law is in place - or some governing body wants to put one in place - it's gonna be incumbent upon YOU to show that your rights are being infringed, not the other way around. THAT'S how the system works.

We're not talking about challenging a specific law, we're talking about the issue in general. Burden is on those that want to impose the restrictions to show that they are not an infringement,"

You keep saying so, doesn't mean it works that way.


"Quote:
the constitution doesn't anywhere "presuppose" that the right to bear arms is a basic, universal human right - all it presupposes is that, upon the adoption of the constitution by the society, that those living under the rule established by the constitution will have that right.

This is a distinction without a difference. The people had the right before the Constitution was enacted, and it was not granted to them by any government."

The people did NOT have the right - that's why the constitution was framed - otherwise the whole project of drafting the amendments would have been redundant. The forefathers were rejecting British rule and establishing their own system of laws - laws which they extended to include a protection of the "right" to bear arms. No such "right" existed independently in nature prior to the establishment of the law.


Quote:
"I covered that before - it is a right granted by law...

On which you are wrong - unless, of course, you can show where the Constitution specifially that grants the right to arms.

And so, you have still skipped the part where you were to show that licensing and registration are --inherent-- to the right to arms.


Quote:
Wrong. Preconditions to the exercising of the right are fine unless they constitute "infringements" to the exercising of that right

Which they are, unless inherent to the right.
So, you're back to showing that licensing and registration are inherent to the right to arms."

Are you actually reading these posts before you respond to them? I just showed that it's inherent to the right by virtue of the fact that it is law - you quoted me saying as much above your response!


These circles are getting tiresome. I need to do some work now.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Then why bother writing it into the constitution?

The Constitution as written has no words denying anything to the Government. No words or clausing saying that beyond this point the Government can never go.

Several of the big States refused to ratify it. The defense given was that the Constitution does not need to say the Government can not do this or that because the document only says what the Government CAN do, anything else is automaticly precluded. The argument being this was better then trying to make all the lists of things that can not be done and instead just listing what CAN be done.

The States were not satisfied with the answer so the "Bill of Rights" was agreed to be added. I might add over 180 amendments were proposed. These were paired down to 12 and then just 10. That is why most of them include more than one thing in them.

 

[Ravi]

The Constitution as written has no words denying anything to the Government. No words or clausing saying that beyond this point the Government can never go.

Several of the big States refused to ratify it. The defense given was that the Constitution does not need to say the Government can not do this or that because the document only says what the Government CAN do, anything else is automaticly precluded. The argument being this was better then trying to make all the lists of things that can not be done and instead just listing what CAN be done.

The States were not satisfied with the answer so the "Bill of Rights" was agreed to be added. I might add over 180 amendments were proposed. These were paired down to 12 and then just 10. That is why most of them include more than one thing in them.

Okay, thanks. I understand the reasoning behind not wanting to include thousands of rights. Though I do disagree that gun ownership is somehow a natural right as Shooter is claiming.

 

[LOki]

the constitution doesn't anywhere "presuppose" that the right to bear arms is a basic, universal human right - all it presupposes is that, upon the adoption of the constitution by the society, that those living under the rule established by the constitution will have that right.

The constitution presupposes all rights to exist. It does not declare that the right to bear arms is a basic, universal human right, but it absolutely presumes that the right to bear arms exists, and that those living under the rule established by the constitution will have that right protected by the government.

I covered that before - it is a right granted by law, so any preconditions to the exercising of that right deliniated by the law are inherent by default unless those preconditions constitute infringements - and registration does not.

Rights are not granted by law--they are protected by law.

Registration of fire arms does not protect the right to keep and bear them--it threatens that right.

Wrong. Preconditions to the exercising of the right are fine unless they constitute "infringements" to the exercising of that right (having to register in order to vote, for instance). As i said before, registration doesn't constitute and "infringement".

There are no "preconditions" to the excersize of rights--rights pre-exist.

Registering to vote protects the validity of each voter's vote; it does not place an impediment to voting, and that is why it does not infringe upon the right to vote--registering guns threatens the right to keep and bear arms and ABSOLUTELY infringes upon the right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

These circles are getting tiresome. I need to do some work now.

I'd skip out on this conversation too, if I were you.

 

[KungFusion]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
These circles are getting tiresome. I need to do some work now.

I'd skip out on this conversation too, if I were you."

I'm not skipping out - but i happen to work for a living. You have yet to contradict any of my points with anything other than "your wrong" and "it doesn't work that way" . . .

Until you can produce a viable argument that registration constitutes an "infringement" upon the right to arms, then anything else we say is just chasing our tails. So far, all youve done is proclaimed that to be the case, without giving any supporting reasons: practical, legal, or otherwise . . .

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not skipping out - but i happen to work for a living. You have yet to contradict any of my points with anything other than "your wrong" and "it doesn't work that way" . . .

And you havent done anything to show that licensing and registration are inherent to the exercise to the right of arms.

Until you can produce a viable argument that registration and licensing are inherent to the exercise of the right to arms, the claim that they are an "infringement" upon the right to arms stands.

 

[BrianH]

And you havent done anything to show that licensing and registration are inherent to the exercise to the right of arms.

Until you can produce a viable argument that registration and licensing are inherent to the exercise of the right to arms, the claim that they are an "infringement" upon the right to arms stands.

While I don't believe that having to go out of your way to "register" a firearm.

I wonder what it is that people think that guns aren't registered. Anytime someone buys a gun from a store. You fill out federal paperwork that records the serial number, type of gun, when it was purchased, who purchased it, along with an FBI criminal background check. Your gun is technically registered the second you buy it. As for buying it from an individual, the gun is registered to them when they purchased it from a store. That's why I tend to not buy used guns from someone I'm not familiar with. You could be buying a murder weapon registered to someone else who didn't do the murdering.

 

[KungFusion]

"Registering to vote protects the validity of each voter's vote; it does not place an impediment to voting, and that is why it does not infringe upon the right to vote--registering guns threatens the right to keep and bear arms and ABSOLUTELY infringes upon the right."

You keep saying so - but you make no argument as to why or how!

Any legal right which you would choose to exercise is subject to practical restrictions in cases where the exercise of that right poses a potential risk to the welfare of others. Registration does not prevent anyone from exercising their right to arms, but it does allow for certain basic general social protections to be in place which help ensure the public safety.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I wonder what it is that people think that guns aren't registered. Anytime someone buys a gun from a store. You fill out federal paperwork that records the serial number, type of gun, when it was purchased, who purchased it, along with an FBI criminal background check. Your gun is technically registered the second you buy it.

This paperwork does not go to the government. It remains with the dealer for a short while, and then, well, I don't know what happens to is. Its not registration, as the law that created this system was set up specifically to ensure that it wasn't.

I have a vast multitude of guns.
None are registered, and I have no license for them.