Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sigh.It's not unconstitutional to have registration of firearms.Let's see how it will stop crime or gun violence
Resident of Connecticut reluctantly stood in line in order to sign up for the mandated gun registry that goes into effect January 1, 2014. Gun owners feel not only that the registry is unconstitutional but also that this could be a sign of bigger things to come.
Connecticut Gun Owners Line Up For Unconstitutionally Mandated Gun Registration // Mr. Conservative
You can bet the farm I will be watching this very closely.
The 2nd amendment clearly states a "well-regulated milita."
That means keeping tabs on the guns.
Let's see how it will stop crime or gun violence
Resident of Connecticut reluctantly stood in line in order to sign up for the mandated gun registry that goes into effect January 1, 2014. Gun owners feel not only that the registry is unconstitutional but also that this could be a sign of bigger things to come.
Connecticut Gun Owners Line Up For Unconstitutionally Mandated Gun Registration // Mr. Conservative
You can bet the farm I will be watching this very closely.
It's not unconstitutional to have registration of firearms.
The 2nd amendment clearly states a "well-regulated milita."
That means keeping tabs on the guns.
Thank you for yet again helping tp prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.The constitution forces you to buy guns? Who knew?Unconstitutional as well.Nobody is forcing you to buy a gun in the first place...self imposed penalty. Brilliant is right.
But then, anti-gun loons don't care about that.
Ironic statement, given that all of your arguments stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.LOL! Yes, I can just imagine the thoughts behind a criminal's intent to murder innocents.
"It's ok if I murder innocents because by gawd my insurance is paid up."
Some of you people are basically insane is my only conjecture at this point.
I doubt you put much thought into anything.
Let's see how it will stop crime or gun violence
Connecticut Gun Owners Line Up For Unconstitutionally Mandated Gun Registration // Mr. Conservative
You can bet the farm I will be watching this very closely.
It's not unconstitutional to have registration of firearms.
The 2nd amendment clearly states a "well-regulated milita."
That means keeping tabs on the guns.
"well-regulated militia." = being in proper working order
Thank you for --yet again-- helping tp prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestyThat you equate 26 dead kids as an "oopsie" is a mental disorder. That isn't an attack, that's a fact.Thank you for yet again helping tp prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.The 26 or so families of the Newtown kids; murdered.
Ironic statement, given that all of your arguments stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.I doubt you put much thought into anything.
Yet you keep responding.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.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).
So, no.
Let's see how it will stop crime or gun violence
Connecticut Gun Owners Line Up For Unconstitutionally Mandated Gun Registration // Mr. Conservative
You can bet the farm I will be watching this very closely.
It's not unconstitutional to have registration of firearms.
The 2nd amendment clearly states a "well-regulated milita."
That means keeping tabs on the guns.
"well-regulated militia." = being in proper working order
It's not unconstitutional to have registration of firearms.
The 2nd amendment clearly states a "well-regulated milita."
That means keeping tabs on the guns.
"well-regulated militia." = being in proper working order
How dare you cite the Constitution in your argument. Obviously you're emotional about this.
Only to point out how well you serve to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.Yet you keep responding.Ironic statement, given that all of your arguments stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.I doubt you put much thought into anything.
It's not unconstitutional to have registration of firearms.
The 2nd amendment clearly states a "well-regulated milita."
That means keeping tabs on the guns.
"well-regulated militia." = being in proper working order
And has absolutely nothing to do with registering firearms.
Thank you for continuing tp prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.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).
So, no.
What part of what you quoted says that I believe any registration mandate is enforceable upon any citizen not enrolled in the militia?
That private individual citizens possess the right to arms without militia conditioning, for a myriad of lawful uses, does not extinguish the government's constitutionally legitimate powers over militia members performing their militia duty (see 5th Amendment for another example, grand jury rights suspended in lieu of UCMJ for crimes committed when in actual service.
Ironic statement, given that all of your arguments stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Yet you keep responding.
He's just trying to insert logic into the conversation rather than knee jerk liberal gobblety-goop.
So, you just had to go ahead and demonstrate in total your inability to argue your case without inserting your emotions?
You blatantly proved his point.
Yet you keep responding.
He's just trying to insert logic into the conversation rather than knee jerk liberal gobblety-goop.
When he gets his ass whipped (as he always does) he gets into cut-and-paste mode. Much like the kid in the back seat during a long car trip..."I'm not touching you".
It's his defense mechanism.
