Is more stringent gun control inevitable?[W:1622]

[Juanita]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

Then maybe, just maybe, nobody considers your solutions workable. Or solutions.

Maybe you're right, but maybe you're not!

 

[Crimefree]

Re: Is more stringent gun control inevitable?

I do not consider the idea of a registry of mentally unstable people to be gun control!

So you agree we should nor be doing stuff that we cannot prove makes the slightest difference and most certainly does not work as advertised? How much money do you think that gobbles up each year and how many people are devoted to this useless task?

What would be the impact on crime of utilising that money, resources and manpower to fight violent crime and ensure the perps face swift sure punishment?

Why do we need a register of mentally unstable people?

Define mentally unstable as you see it.

How many people will be on this register with your definition?

 

[Crimefree]

So nothing new that has not been crushed and flushed. Got it loud and clear.

Is this an admission the stuff you presented is dead? That you are letting it go as it cannot float any better than a solid ball of lead?

 

[Crimefree]

to see if you have anything new that has not been thoroughly destroyed by me in previous posts. And there never is.

What now do we have a pair of Haymarket (TM) rose tinted glasses?

 

[haymarket]

it was not a registry of all weapons and there was no penalty for those who didn't comply since most were exempt anyway

Weapons were registered in forms filled out by the representatives of the US Government.

here is the language in the law mandating it

and again - the specific language from that bill

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted,Adjutant-general in each state, his duty. That there shall be an adjutant-general appointed in each state, whose duty it shall be to distribute all orders from the commander-in-chief of the state to the several corps; to attend all public reviews when the commander-in-chief of the state shall review the militia, or any part thereof; to obey all orders from him relative to carrying into execution and perfecting the system of military discipline established by this act; to furnish blank forms of different returns that may be required, and to explain the principles on which they should be made; to receive from the several officers of the different corps throughout the state, returns of the militia under their command, reporting the actual situation of their arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, their delinquencies, and every other thing which relates to the general advancement of good order and discipline: all which the several officers of the divisions, brigades, regiments, and battalions,1803, ch. 15 are hereby required to make in the usual manner, so that the said adjutant-general may be duly furnished therewith: from all which returns he shall make proper abstracts, and lay the same annually before the commander-in-chief of the state.

Penalties or compliance is not an issue as the Founders in Congress passed the law and another Founder in the White House enforced it. Something you told us would be unconstitutional because of the same Founders ORIGINAL INTENT.

As to if it was truly a REGISTRY as I and other have stated -

What was described was a system that today would be called a registry. I am sorry if the parlance of two centuries ago did not use that term - but what it did is what we would today call a registry.

In fact, one of your allies here - Ockham - provided this for us in this very thread

(n.) return
An account, or formal report, of an action performed, of a duty discharged, of facts or statistics, and the like; as, election returns; a return of the amount of goods produced or sold; especially, in the plural, a set of tabulated statistics prepared for general information.

A formal report of actions or duties discharged and that formal report was of the firearms in the hands of citizens of the USA and mandated by the US Congress as empowered by the militia clauses of the US Constitution. Something which your side told me in direct questions would have been unconstitutional as Congress had no power to do anything with the weapons of private citizens and the original intent of the Founders.

The facts prove me right. The evidence your side introduced proves me right.

 

[haymarket]

Is this an admission the stuff you presented is dead? That you are letting it go as it cannot float any better than a solid ball of lead?

Every single objection that your side to my argument has been dealt with and refuted with the presentation of evidence and historical fact.

If you have any new argument that has not already been thoroughly refuted by me, I will be glad to read it, consider it and then respond to it.

 

[Crimefree]

Weapons were registered in forms filled out by the representatives of the US Government.

here is the language in the law mandating it

and again - the specific language from that bill

A tally, inventory of the SERVING militia

As to if it was truly a REGISTRY as I and other have stated -

What was described was a system that today would be called a registry. I am sorry if the parlance of two centuries ago did not use that term - but what it did is what we would today call a registry.

You have not shown, oh! hang on this sounds like your infringe garbage, that such word use and changes are factual because you are impotent to do so.

You have offered absolutely no evidence of that and as already pointed out to you is was a return of serving militia, a tally of resources and inventory. Had it been a register and the term was known at the time it would have been called a register. No personal details was kept. Nobody but delusional people with an agenda would even try to call it a register today. Your claim is rejected as having no VALID evidence.

The facts prove me right. The evidence your side introduced proves me right.

Nothing you have claimed as your opinion changes the historical record and your claims are not supported by anything you have presented. You are impotent to show the historical record is incorrect or that its meaning is different to that stated in the record. Return does not equal register and no law would deliberately use the incorrect language.

Now it is truly dead. Nobody is interested in your proven false opinion.

​

 

[Crimefree]

Every single objection that your side to my argument has been dealt with and refuted with the presentation of evidence and historical fact.

You have presented your proven false opinion. It will remain false for forever and a day.

If you have any new argument that has not already been thoroughly refuted by me, I will be glad to read it, consider it and then respond to it.

Not one of my arguments has been refuted and you have been shown with historical record that needs no interpretation or equivalence that you are wrong. You are impotent to refute that historical record and have not done so.

 

[haymarket]

A tally, inventory of the SERVING militia

every point you have brought up - some several times now repeating the same thing - has been dealt with thoroughly refuting it with evidence and historical fact. A review of your previous posts and my replies on previous pages over the last few days will confirm this. Should you have anything new to add, please present it.

 

[haymarket]

You have presented

Please see my previous post.

To help you avoid repeating the same stuff over and over and over - like your continual objection to the word REGISTRY which has been dealt with several times already- I refer you to the following posts

1789, 1809, 1810, 1813, 1839, 1849, 1854, 1855, 1857, 1861, 1863, 1965, 1867, 1888 and 1895.

Not one thing anyone inducing yourself has tried to come up with has not been refuted in those posts from me. Its all there for you.

 

[Ockham]

to see if you have anything new that has not been thoroughly destroyed by me in previous posts. And there never is.

So where are the names of the people registered to the 1,065 pistols in 1804 haymarket?

 

[TurtleDude]

Please see my previous post.

To help you avoid repeating the same stuff over and over and over - like your continual objection to the word REGISTRY which has been dealt with several times already- I refer you to the following posts

1789, 1809, 1810, 1813, 1839, 1849, 1854, 1855, 1857, 1861, 1863, 1965, 1867, 1888 and 1895.

Not one thing anyone inducing yourself has tried to come up with has not been refuted in those posts from me. Its all there for you.

nothing you have EVER Posted has shown ANY intent or desire or language from the founders that even hints that they believed or wanted or intended or empowered the federal government to be able to restrict what sort of weapons private citizens could own, bear, keep, buy or purchase. And you have never denied that. You instead go on and on about a "registry" which had no criminal sanctions and was not applicable to private citizens not in service is proof. In court we call it the "best evidence" rule and your "best evidence" is no evidence of the essential fact

 

[TurtleDude]

So where are the names of the people registered to the 1,065 pistols in 1804 haymarket?

That completely destroys his argument and proves that this "registry" had nothing to do with any federal gun control power

 

[Ockham]

That completely destroys his argument and proves that this "registry" had nothing to do with any federal gun control power

Yep - and the funny thing is I led him to the water and he bit, and as soon as he did, he lost. Now it's just trying to minimize the damage time.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yep - and the funny thing is I led him to the water and he bit, and as soon as he did, he lost. Now it's just trying to minimize the damage time.

if that "registry" is the "best evidence" supporting his claim that the founders intended federal gun control powers, the argument has been completely lost and this argument is over.

Which it has been to anyone who actually reads the words of the documents and understands these men had just thrown off a tyrannical government that tried to seize their weapons. These men were first citizens of their respective states: a fact that the gun restrictionists never seem to understand and it was the state where regulations of firearms were to come from

 

[haymarket]

So where are the names of the people registered to the 1,065 pistols in 1804 haymarket?

I have no idea what you are talking about of what it has to do with the 1792 Militia Act.

 

[haymarket]

Yep - and the funny thing is I led him to the water and he bit, and as soon as he did, he lost. Now it's just trying to minimize the damage time.

Every single point of relevance you have brought up has been thoroughly and completely refuted with verifiable evidence.

I do not have to minimizing damage because no damage has been done.

 

[TurtleDude]

Every single point of relevance you have brought up has been thoroughly and completely refuted with verifiable evidence.

I do not have to minimizing damage because no damage has been done.

That is not correct. The "law" you cite fails to prove anything relevant to this discussion

 

[haymarket]

nothing you have EVER Posted has shown ANY intent or desire or language from the founders that even hints that they believed or wanted or intended or empowered the federal government to be able to restrict what sort of weapons private citizens could own, bear, keep, buy or purchase. And you have never denied that. You instead go on and on about a "registry" which had no criminal sanctions and was not applicable to private citizens not in service is proof. In court we call it the "best evidence" rule and your "best evidence" is no evidence of the essential fact

Your opinion on the Founders ORIGINAL INTENT has already been completely discredited and shown to be of no value because of your false claims that are at the center of this entire discussion.

You are yet again - and its several times now, attempting move the goal posts.
Please go to this page in the gun threads

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-co...search-22.html (The current state of gun control opinions in the US, according to Pew Research)

We were talking about registering firearms.

In post 214 I asked you a very direct question

If we go by what you claim was the Founders ORIGINAL INTENT - would a registry be constitutional?

In 215 you gave an answer

not at all since the federal government was never given such power (first reason) and second

it is an infringement on the RKBA

and finally, it violates several other rights since the right of privacy and the right against search and seizure

You stated very clearly that a registry of firearms would “not at all” be constitutional because “the federal government was never given such a power”.

I applaud you for at least your consistency on this matter since you have always maintained that the Constitution and our Founding Fathers never gave the federal government any power over firearms. I usually come back with Article I, Section 8 and the militia clauses to show you that the Founders did indeed give Congress powers over privately owned firearms and you consistently reject that.

You also stated that it would be unconstitutional because it is an infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms.

You also stated that it violates other rights such as the right to privacy and search and seizure.

So you are on record here stating quite clearly that a registry of firearms from citizens would be unconstitutional because the Founders in the Constitution never gave the federal government any such power.

So I then introduced in this thread the Militia Act passed in 1792 along with its language ordering what was then called a RETURN which mandated that private citizens had to have forms filled out listing the firearms they owned and this was done by the federal government. We even looked at a report from President Jefferson presenting the RETURN to the Congress. So we know it was ordered and we know it was carried out.

This was ordered by Congress which had among its many members the very same Founding fathers which you claim would never have done such a thing because of their ORIGINAL INTENT. Another Founder- President Jefferson carried it out.


Now if you take all the components of the RETURN it is obvious that today we no longer use the term RETURN for such a mandated program but would call a mandated reporting and listing of these weapons as a REGISTRY. The parlance and label has changed over the last 220 years. But the components are the same and the US government - someone who you claimed never had such power because it violated the Founders so called ORIGINAL INTENT - did in fact institute such a program.

What this proves Turtle is that you were proven to be wrong about the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Constitution and the powers given to the federal government by the Constitution. Congress - which had Founders as its members - did exercise a power that you claim they did not have. The President carried out those same duties and he was a Founder also.

The point here is a simple one: you have a great deal of knowledge about firearms and I respect that. You also have some knowledge about the law and firearms and I respect that also. But when you talk about the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Founding Fathers and claim that the US Constitution never gave Congress the power to carry out registering privately owned firearms, you are completely and totally wrong. You made a serious mistake and the historical record proves that beyond any dispute.

 

[Ockham]

Every single point of relevance you have brought up has been thoroughly and completely refuted with verifiable evidence.

I'm sorry you're now to the point of lying ... that's sad. You were destroyed days ago. I set a trap, you bit, you're done.

I do not have to minimizing damage because no damage has been done.

Then where are the names of the people registered to the 1,065 pistols in 1804 haymarket? :lamo

 

[TurtleDude]

Your opinion on the Founders ORIGINAL INTENT has already been completely discredited and shown to be of no value because of your false claims that are at the center of this entire discussion.

LOL, so what words of the founders have you produced supporting a claim they wanted a FEDERAL POWER TO RESTRICT WHAT ARMS PRIVATE CITIZENS COULD OWN

your reliance on this "registry" is a complete fail because that has NOTHING TO DO WITH RESTRICTING PRIVATE ARMS OWNERSHIP at a federal level

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm sorry you're now to the point of lying ... that's sad. You were destroyed days ago. I set a trap, you bit, you're done.



Then where are the names of the people registered to the 1,065 pistols in 1804 haymarket? :lamo

if you don't know the names, how can it have any restrictive powers?

its a nuke that blows away the specious claims that this "registry" was intent of gun control at a federal level

Off to buy a pistol, back in an hour

 

[haymarket]

That is not correct. The "law" you cite fails to prove anything relevant to this discussion

So in your opinion the Militia Act of 1792 which mandates the government to fill out forms registering the privately owned weapons of American citizens is not relevant in a discussion about proving that you have no credibility on the Founders ORIGINAL INTENT because it shows you to be wrong?

Amazing!!!! Truly incredibly Amazing.

 

[haymarket]

if you don't know the names, how can it have any restrictive powers?

its a nuke that blows away the specious claims that this "registry" was intent of gun control at a federal level

Off to buy a pistol, back in an hour

That does not even make sense since I never used the term GUN CONTROL about the registry. The argument is NOT about gun control. It is about your claims about ORIGINAL INTENT and how they have been proven to be wrong and without foundation or basis in fact.

Let us look at that again since you keep forgetting and trying to move the goal posts.

Please go to this page in the gun threads

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-co...search-22.html (The current state of gun control opinions in the US, according to Pew Research)

We were talking about registering firearms.

In post 214 I asked you a very direct question

If we go by what you claim was the Founders ORIGINAL INTENT - would a registry be constitutional?

In 215 you gave an answer

not at all since the federal government was never given such power (first reason) and second

it is an infringement on the RKBA

and finally, it violates several other rights since the right of privacy and the right against search and seizure

You stated very clearly that a registry of firearms would “not at all” be constitutional because “the federal government was never given such a power”.


That is the foundation for this discussion - NOT an attempt to make it about gun control.

 

[haymarket]

I'm sorry you're now to the point of lying ... that's sad. You were destroyed days ago. I set a trap, you bit, you're done.



Then where are the names of the people registered to the 1,065 pistols in 1804 haymarket? :lamo

I have no idea what you are talking about.

All you have done for days now is dream up crap and thrown it against the wall to see if anything sticks. And over and over and over and over I have destroyed every single bit of nonsense you have dreamed up to the word REGISTRY to the date of the law to the content of the law.

All of your nonsense from the year the law was passed to the content of the law to the word registry and what it means to the forms filled out to Jefferson and his report to Congress to Washington not being president --- its all been brought up by you and its all been refuted point by point by point --- sometimes several times sine you pretend it was not and you keep bringing up the same nonsense again and again.

Now this nonsense about pistols. And I have no idea what you are talking about other than some red herring that you hope is the thing that sticks this time.