losing dem majority in 2010

Damocles said:
The SCOTUS Ruled that the requirement of registration on guns violated the 5th for those who had violations that would make it so they couldn't have guns. While their owning the guns is still illegal, they have a 5th Amendment right not to incriminate themselves.
Click to expand...

the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited.

...

Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does
not “have a problem with . . . licensing” and that the District’s
law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an
arbitrary and capricious manner.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75.
We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license
will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address
the licensing requirement.

...

The Constitution leaves the
District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that
problem, including some measures regulating handguns,

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf
 
There are implied limitations w/ just about any right we have, that aren't specifically drawn out in the language. The most obvious that is always cited is that we don't have a right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, but there are plenty of others that apply to speech.

People have a right to own firearms. Again, I have to register a car; I don't consider that to be any kind of infringement on car ownership in America.

Registration just seems sensible to me; I know that law enforcement has said it's a valuable tool. What possible negative consequences could it have on a law-abiding gun owner?
 
Onceler said:
That wasn't really the point. I think most people feel free to buy a car in America, despite registration.

Honestly, I don't get it; I don't get how registering a gun is some sort of infringement on gun rights.
Click to expand...

the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed. It is common throughout history, this countries included, that registration leads to confiscation. confiscation would be an infringement. on top of that, registration of firearms does nothing to prevent crime.
 
Onceler said:
There are implied limitations w/ just about any right we have, that aren't specifically drawn out in the language. The most obvious that is always cited is that we don't have a right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, but there are plenty of others that apply to speech.

People have a right to own firearms. Again, I have to register a car; I don't consider that to be any kind of infringement on car ownership in America.

Registration just seems sensible to me; I know that law enforcement has said it's a valuable tool. What possible negative consequences could it have on a law-abiding gun owner?
Click to expand...

let me ask you this:

if registration is required, are you allowed to own a gun without registration? if you do own a gun and do not register it, what happens to the right to own a gun?
 
Yurt said:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited.
Click to expand...
This is the shit I hate the most. When those bastard supreme court justices decided that no right is absolute, they obviously forgot the definition of unalienable rights, 'congress shall make no law', 'shall not be infringed', 'no warrant shall issue', among others.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
This is the shit I hate the most. When those bastard supreme court justices decided that no right is absolute, they obviously forgot the definition of unalienable rights, 'congress shall make no law', 'shall not be infringed', 'no warrant shall issue', among others.
Click to expand...

do you believe free speech is unlimited? do you believe it is your right to yell fire in a crowded theater?
 
Onceler said:
There are implied limitations w/ just about any right we have, that aren't specifically drawn out in the language. The most obvious that is always cited is that we don't have a right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, but there are plenty of others that apply to speech.
Click to expand...
You DO have a right to yell fire in a crowded theater, especially when there's a fucking fire. When there is NOT a fire and you yell 'fire', you are responsible for any damages afterwards. If you had no right to yell fire in a crowded theater, then they would be able to gag you before you went in.

Onceler said:
People have a right to own firearms. Again, I have to register a car; I don't consider that to be any kind of infringement on car ownership in America.
Click to expand...
you register a car with your county/state so that you can show you paid your taxes to operate on a public road. I actually think that's just a bullshit revenue maker, but there it is.

Onceler said:
Registration just seems sensible to me; I know that law enforcement has said it's a valuable tool. What possible negative consequences could it have on a law-abiding gun owner?
Click to expand...

law enforcement is lying. the consequences are the eventual confiscation of weapons that are registered, once a city/county/state government makes them illegal. California, Chicago, and New York have already done this.
 
Yurt said:
let me ask you this:

if registration is required, are you allowed to own a gun without registration? if you do own a gun and do not register it, what happens to the right to own a gun?
Click to expand...

If it's law, then you have to register a gun in order to own it. Again, to me, that seems reasonable; you did not answer my question as to what negative consequences this poses to the law-abiding gun owner.

We also have a right to vote, but we have to register to vote. We can't vote if we don't register. Is the government taking the rights of unregistered voters by not allowing them to vote?
 
Onceler said:
Unwarranted confiscation is an infringement. How does mere registration lead to confiscation?
Click to expand...

look up california assault weapons ban and confiscation. The precursor to the roberti-roos act required that people REGISTER certain weapons classified as assault weapons. then when california passed the roberti-roos act, the sent letters to all registered owners of these assault weapons ordering them to surrender those weapons to law enforcement.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
look up california assault weapons ban and confiscation. The precursor to the roberti-roos act required that people REGISTER certain weapons classified as assault weapons. then when california passed the roberti-roos act, the sent letters to all registered owners of these assault weapons ordering them to surrender those weapons to law enforcement.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that; even if they are made illegal, if people bought them, the gov't shouldn't have a right to do that.

There are safeguards that can be built in, however. Registration on its own does not lead to confiscation; that's a fear tactic. All they have to do is grandfather in something about previous ownership.
 
Onceler said:
If it's law, then you have to register a gun in order to own it. Again, to me, that seems reasonable; you did not answer my question as to what negative consequences this poses to the law-abiding gun owner.

We also have a right to vote, but we have to register to vote. We can't vote if we don't register. Is the government taking the rights of unregistered voters by not allowing them to vote?
Click to expand...

are you actually claiming that if you don't register there will be no penalty?

are you ok with the government requiring you to register your bible or anyone's bible?
 
Yurt said:
are you actually claiming that if you don't register there will be no penalty?

are you ok with the government requiring you to register your bible or anyone's bible?
Click to expand...

Not really, but that's a complete non sequitor. Gun registration is a law enforcement tool; it is not an infringement of rights. People can own a gun; they just have to register it. Again - for law abiding citizens, who use their guns in a lawful manner, this should not be an issue.
 
Onceler said:
I don't agree with that; even if they are made illegal, if people bought them, the gov't shouldn't have a right to do that.

There are safeguards that can be built in, however. Registration on its own does not lead to confiscation; that's a fear tactic. All they have to do is grandfather in something about previous ownership.
Click to expand...

onceler, the government SHOULD NOT have the right or authority to do that, but guess what happened? They did it anyway and the california state courts, nor the federal courts did anything about it. American citizens had their government confiscate weapons because they were registered. THAT is why i'll never register mine and why I will react violently if they try it.
 
Onceler said:
Not really, but that's a complete non sequitor. Gun registration is a law enforcement tool; it is not an infringement of rights. People can own a gun; they just have to register it. Again - for law abiding citizens, who use their guns in a lawful manner, this should not be an issue.
Click to expand...

how so....you asked me if it had any negative consequences...unless you believe there will no penalty for not registering your gun, then yes, there will be negative consequences...not sure how you believe that is a non sequitor
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I need you to detail to me how gun registration is a law enforcement tool please.
Click to expand...

It allows police to trace a weapon used in a crime to the person who registered it. How does that NOT help?

I know - how often do they recover the weapon, how often is the weapon actually registered to the person who used it, how often is that person using truthful info, etc. The answer is sometimes, sometimes, and sometimes. It DOES help solve some violent crimes.
 
No guns, no problem.

A spate of mass shootings across the country, from Binghamton, NY to Carthage, NC, has left at least fifty-seven people dead since March 10th. In the wake of the violence, many Americans are calling for stricter laws across the nation.
 
Onceler said:
It allows police to trace a weapon used in a crime to the person who registered it. How does that NOT help?
Click to expand...
because the person that was holding it when they committed a crime is usually not the original owner of the weapon.

Onceler said:
I know - how often do they recover the weapon, how often is the weapon actually registered to the person who used it, how often is that person using truthful info, etc. The answer is sometimes, sometimes, and sometimes. It DOES help solve some violent crimes.
Click to expand...

the answer is not sometimes, its rarely. numerous police agencies have up front admitted that tracing the registration ONLY tracks the travel of the gun but hardly EVER solves the crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top