|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jun 3, 2018 14:49:26 GMT -5
we can argue about what constitutes infringement I can't imagine how the requirement to register all guns infringes on anybody's right to keep and bear arms. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We also need to define "people". I believe schizophrenic homicidal maniacs are "people" too, are they not? |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jun 3, 2018 17:28:26 GMT -5
Gun registration has historically been a precursor to confiscation---a definite infringement. Exactly - so you've made my point. Registration is not the infringement, confiscation is the infringement. Note that the 2nd amendment protects against unreasonable confiscation of arms, but not to any precursors. So you have a valid complaint when arms are confiscated, but not before. I should note that gun registration has been around for a long time but I am unaware of any widespread unreasonable confiscation of guns. By the way, I notice that the author of your article, Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D., is the editor-in-chief of Medical Sentinel, the journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. From wikipedia: |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jun 3, 2018 17:34:50 GMT -5
Despite the presence of maniacs among us, it's the psychopaths, of which many are politicians, that you might want to watch more carefully.  I believe maniacs AND psychopaths, politicians and otherwise, should be carefully watched. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 18:42:20 GMT -5
A civilian militia is no match for the US military. If every adult in America were armed with a machine gun they would be no match for the US military. Those machine guns are useless without ammo. A few stratigically placed bombs on munitions factories and those machine guns become clubs.
Every soldier in the US military has taken an oath to defend our Constitution. Our country can never turn into a dictatorship so the right wing nut jobs have nothing to worry about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 19:00:07 GMT -5
I am very pro 2nd amendment. I strongly believe in the regulation of arms. When and if we (the people) form a Militia, then there needs to be some regulation How many people does it take to form a "militia"? If it is 100, then can 99 people get together and plot whatever they want to plot without regulation? And if it takes 99 people to form a militia, then would 98 people be unregulated? And so on. So you would regulate "freedom of assembly" as well? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 19:03:39 GMT -5
we can argue about what constitutes infringement I can't imagine how the requirement to register all guns infringes on anybody's right to keep and bear arms. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We also need to define "people". I believe schizophrenic homicidal maniacs are "people" too, are they not? Indeed they are, but one side of the aisle finds it abhorrent to regulate them... care to comment on what that has led to? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 19:03:52 GMT -5
I am very pro 2nd amendment. I strongly believe in the regulation of arms. How many people does it take to form a "militia"? If it is 100, then can 99 people get together and plot whatever they want to plot without regulation? And if it takes 99 people to form a militia, then would 98 people be unregulated? And so on. So you would regulate "freedom of assembly" as well? It's already been regulated. A permit is needed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 19:06:06 GMT -5
A civilian militia is no match for the US military. If every adult in America were armed with a machine gun they would be no match for the US military. Those machine guns are useless without ammo. A few stratigically placed bombs on munitions factories and those machine guns become clubs.... Th USSR thought the same thing about the third world people of Afghanistan vs their own military. How did that work out for them? |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jun 3, 2018 19:16:29 GMT -5
So you would regulate "freedom of assembly" as well? I believe in regulating anything that needs regulating. Since assemblies don't kill 30K people and injure 70K people per year, I don't see the need for regulating them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 19:33:38 GMT -5
So you would regulate "freedom of assembly" as well? I believe in regulating anything that needs regulating. Since assemblies don't kill 30K people and injure 70K people per year, I don't see the need for regulating them. I wonder if the KKK ever got a permit to assemble.... I love to stir the pot sometimes to see what will come up to the surface.  |
|
|
|
Post by agog on Jun 3, 2018 20:06:21 GMT -5
We also need to define "people". I believe schizophrenic homicidal maniacs are "people" too, are they not? Yes that's true socalfan. but on this site we're often referred to as Jackie's OTTs. And it hurts. |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jun 3, 2018 23:10:36 GMT -5
I wonder if the KKK ever got a permit to assemble.... This is interesting. The 1st amendment right to peaceful assembly applies to the KKK as it does to everyone else. The govt cannot refuse to issue a permit to the KKK (or anyone else) to assemble. However, the govt can impose reasonable conditions on the permit (e.g. time and place) but only to the extent necessary to preserve order. The govt can also charge the KKK for the actual cost the govt incurs to maintain order. www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_pdf_file/kyr_protests.pdf |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2018 14:40:59 GMT -5
As our friendly repartee continues, some of you may enjoy this article from Imprimis, a Hillsdale College publication. Although it comes from the March 2013 edition, it is still currently relevant to the concerns many have concerning the Second Amendment; the article's author is Edward J. Erler of California State University, San Bernadino: imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-second-amendment-as-an-expression-of-first-principles/An excerpt from the article: ...In his Heller dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens boldly asserted that “there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.” In a perverse way, Justice Stevens was correct for the same reason Justice Scalia was wrong: What the Framers did was to recognize the natural right of self-defense. Like the right to revolution, the right to self-defense or self-preservation can never be ceded to government. In the words of James Wilson—a signer of the Declaration, a member of the Constitutional Convention, and an early justice of the Supreme Court—“the great natural law of self-preservation . . . cannot be repealed, or superseded, or suspended by any human institution.”
Justice Stevens, however, concluded that because there is no clause in the Constitution explicitly recognizing the common law right of self-defense, it is not a constitutional right and therefore cannot authorize individual possession of weapons. What Justice Stevens apparently doesn’t realize is that the Constitution as a whole is a recognition of the “the great natural law of self-preservation,” both for the people and for individuals. Whenever government is unwilling or unable to fulfill the ends for which it exists—the safety and happiness of the people—the right of action devolves upon the people, whether it is the right of revolution or the individual’s right to defend person and property... |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jun 4, 2018 15:46:17 GMT -5
What the Framers did was to recognize the natural right of self-defense. I'm fine with gun ownership and self defense. Gun registration does not prevent that in any way. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2018 16:09:43 GMT -5
What the Framers did was to recognize the natural right of self-defense. I'm fine with gun ownership and self defense. Gun registration does not prevent that in any way. Thinking that knowing where a gun is will prevent it's misuse is pure fantasy. Gun Registration would have to come with a whole parade of other distasteful intrusions to have any usefulness, and thinking people know it's just the first step in using incrementalism to subvert the 2nd amendment. Your arguments add weight to the adage: Gun Control... more about control than it is about guns. |
|
