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

[TurtleDude]

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.

Its not an opinion. its a fact that the law you cite has nothing to do with a federal power to restrict private citizens owning any guns.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

Note, I just got back from a business 11 minutes from me: a business where they already had my information on file so when I electronically filled out Form 4473 it already had my name, address SS# age, weight height etc. And I was first one there meaning I didn't have to wait and it still took about an hour. So the next time someone talks about "heat of the moment" and why a waiting period is needed, you can note that this was about as fast as anyone can legally buy a gun from start to finish

 

[Ockham]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You don't remember your argument and why it was destroyed by me? Also sad.

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

 

[haymarket]

Its not an opinion. its a fact that the law you cite has nothing to do with a federal power to restrict private citizens owning any guns.

Your credibility on the implications and powers of the federal government regarding the Constitution and firearms has already been destroyed on several fronts where both the US Supreme Court say you are wrong as well as the recent discussion here on the Militia Act of 1792.

 

[haymarket]

You don't remember your argument and why it was destroyed by me? Also sad.

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

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about regarding these pistols.

But if you feel you have something - this should be item #12 or so on your laundry list that keeps changing and growing as the others fall by the wayside - please do present that argument and evidence and I will be happy to examine it.

Of course, in the past when things like this come up, you refuse to do so and simply keep repeating that you already did it without even a link or citations. Lets see if this is any different this time.

 

[TurtleDude]

Your credibility on the implications and powers of the federal government regarding the Constitution and firearms has already been destroyed on several fronts where both the US Supreme Court say you are wrong as well as the recent discussion here on the Militia Act of 1792.

You keep saying that and no one really believes it. Even anti gun groups don't even mention that as a federal gun control law. The fact is, every law review article that discusses the evolution of supreme court jurisdiction on gun issues start with the FDR administration.

and you have CONSTANTLY REFUSED to say whether this "militia act" has anything to do with the federal government having the power to RESTRICT what private citizens owned

since you REFUSE to answer that, the obvious answer is you ADMIT that the alleged power to inventory militiamen's suitable weaponry has NOTHING TO DO WITH A POWER TO RESTRICT WHAT PEOPLE OWN

since the COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS NOT Expanded until the FDR ADMINISTRATION what clause actually empowered federal gun control GIVEN THAT NOT A SINGLE LAW HAS EVER USED THIS MILITIA ACT as support nor THE MILITIA CLAUSE

the problem is-your argument is completely ignorant of constitutional law and its evolution and again your argument would be far more credible if you ended the futile attempt to pretend the founders actually intended a federal gun control power and admit what the rest of us do,, that the power was not "found" until FDR created it in the 1930s

 

[jimbo]

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

It would seem that if indeed an accounting of firearms and other ordnance was attempted by the government, it would have been to get a handle on the effectiveness of the militia in the event of further problems with other countries. Which proved to be the case in 1812. It would have been wise for the new country with limited resources to know that John Smith had a cannon which could be borrowed in the event an unauthorized vessel was sailing up the James.

Don't we currently do the same thing with the people every 10 years?

 

[Crimefree]

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.

Every point you claim is both refuted has been trashed many times and should you have any new evidence please present it. The fact you cannot accept that it has been refuted is your problem forcing repetition. There are many people here who will confirm that you will not accept any evidence which refuted your specious claims of falsified mangled interpretation.

Thus if you insist on behaving like a two year old child that cannot accept no, my claims have not been refuted. I have quoted word for word the laws to which your refer for serving militia and not once have you challenged the meaning of inventory, tally or return or produced a verifiable reason why "register" was not used your false claims are in ashes and you are now deliberately baiting.

 

[Crimefree]

You don't remember your argument and why it was destroyed by me? Also sad.

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

He does not have them just the same as he will not accept that the returns were on SERVING militia or that a return was an accounting of militia fighting "stock". Stock for which it was vital the federal government be aware since the SERVING militia were its fighting forces in defence of the country. The government would have been delinquent of its duties had it not done so. Good grief if somebody is so dumb as to think the government should not know what it fighting forces had or that the returns were for some other purpose I have yet to see one shred of evidence for it.

I can only wonder what kind of container would hold arguments like that.

 

[haymarket]

You keep saying that and no one really believes it.

Another appeal to Argumentum ad Populum.

"No one" being the entire universe or perhaps a half dozen gun afficianado's on carefully controlled gun threads on this site.

Got it.

Your post fails because of that false premise

btw - the use of the word BELIEVE tells all. people believe what they want to believe because they have decided to believe it. Gods, unicorns, faeries, or your view of the Constitution.

 

[TurtleDude]

It would seem that if indeed an accounting of firearms and other ordnance was attempted by the government, it would have been to get a handle on the effectiveness of the militia in the event of further problems with other countries. Which proved to be the case in 1812. It would have been wise for the new country with limited resources to know that John Smith had a cannon which could be borrowed in the event an unauthorized vessel was sailing up the James.

Don't we currently do the same thing with the people every 10 years?

its just hilarious to claim that such a law-if it actually does what someone says it does (yet there were NO NAMES in the alleged registry) was somehow indicative of an attempt to demonstrate a desire for federal gun control powers. That this is THE BEST argument advanced for such a power is an absolute admission no such intent was ever expressed by the founders

 

[haymarket]

Every point you claim is both refuted has been trashed many times and should you have any new evidence please present it.

Okay - name three of them right here and who me where it was trashed many times.

 

[haymarket]

He does not have them just the same as he will not accept that the returns were on SERVING militia or that a return was an accounting of militia fighting "stock". Stock for which it was vital the federal government be aware since the SERVING militia were its fighting forces in defence of the country. The government would have been delinquent of its duties had it not done so. Good grief if somebody is so dumb as to think the government should not know what it fighting forces had or that the returns were for some other purpose I have yet to see one shred of evidence for it.

I can only wonder what kind of container would hold arguments like that.

Not one word in that post refutes anything I have stated as fact.

 

[haymarket]

its just hilarious to claim that such a law-if it actually does what someone says it does (yet there were NO NAMES in the alleged registry) was somehow indicative of an attempt to demonstrate a desire for federal gun control powers. That this is THE BEST argument advanced for such a power is an absolute admission no such intent was ever expressed by the founders

Your credibility as far as ORIGINAL INTENT of the Founders goes has been completely destroyed by the Supreme Court and the evidence I have presented here.

 

[haymarket]

its just hilarious to claim that such a law-if it actually does what someone says it does (yet there were NO NAMES in the alleged registry)

Could you elaborate on this please? What exactly are you referring to and why do you think its so important in this discussion?

 

[TurtleDude]

Your credibility as far as ORIGINAL INTENT of the Founders goes has been completely destroyed by the Supreme Court and the evidence I have presented here.

see that is silly because the Supreme Court, consisting of those cowed by FDR completely reversed 140 years of jurisprudence and expanded the commerce clause. and find me a mainstream law review article which actually says the WICKARD line of cases was an accurate reflection of either PRECEDENT or the intent of the founders

and if you want to use supreme court holdings for the original intent of the founders, I note that the decisions CLOSEST to the founding of this nation all reject your specious argument that the founders intended any federal gun control or that the Commerce Clause actually was a federal power over INDIVIDUALS

 

[TurtleDude]

Could you elaborate on this please? What exactly are you referring to and why do you think its so important in this discussion?

I am still waiting for you to answer directly and honestly the following question

DO YOU believe that the "registry" component of the 1792 militia clause proved that the founders intended that the federal government have a power to BAN or RESTRICT what firearms private american citizens could own

 

[haymarket]

see that is silly because the Supreme Court

says you are wrong.

What is silly is you pretending that you are right and they are wrong.

and if you want to use supreme court holdings for the original intent of the founders, I note that the decisions CLOSEST to the founding of this nation all reject your specious argument that the founders intended any federal gun control or that the Commerce Clause actually was a federal power over INDIVIDUALS

Go direct to the source and cut out the middle man Turtle. We have already seen that the actual Founders in the first Congress exhibited the opposite of what you claim their own ORIGINAL INTENT was with the passage of the Militia Act and the forced registration of privately held weapons by US citizens.

So much for your claims about their intentions.

 

[haymarket]

I am still waiting for you to answer directly and honestly the following question

DO YOU believe that the "registry" component of the 1792 militia clause proved that the founders intended that the federal government have a power to BAN or RESTRICT what firearms private american citizens could own

So you apparently have not the foggiest idea of what your ally Ockham is talking about with these pistols either? Terrific. I did not think you would be able to explain it as it makes nonsense to me either.

 

[haymarket]

Every point you claim is both refuted has been trashed many times and should you have any new evidence please present it. The fact you cannot accept that it has been refuted is your problem forcing repetition. There are many people here who will confirm that you will not accept any evidence which refuted your specious claims of falsified mangled interpretation.

Thus if you insist on behaving like a two year old child that cannot accept no, my claims have not been refuted. I have quoted word for word the laws to which your refer for serving militia and not once have you challenged the meaning of inventory, tally or return or produced a verifiable reason why "register" was not used your false claims are in ashes and you are now deliberately baiting.

Not one thing you have presented refutes or negates the reality of the Founders in Congress acting to establish the Militia Act and the forced registration of privately owned firearms by American citizens.

Not
one
thing.

 

[jaeger19]

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



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



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.. you need to read what you just quoted.. actual read it. It was not a registry of personal gun use.. it was an accounting of the weapons that were brought to militia service.. in order to ascertain whether the milita's in each state were compliant with 1792 militia act which required every militia member to provide a certain weapon.

Its certainly not a registry of all firearms in private hands. The facts prove you wrong.

 

[haymarket]

Haymarket.. you need to read what you just quoted.. actual read it. It was not a registry of personal gun use.. it was an accounting of the weapons that were brought to militia service.. in order to ascertain whether the milita's in each state were compliant with 1792 militia act which required every militia member to provide a certain weapon.

Its certainly not a registry of all firearms in private hands. The facts prove you wrong.

It was a registry of privately owned weapons of US citizens done by the Federal government acting on the militia clause powers in the US Constitution passed by Congress which included members who were Founders and enforced by a US President who was a Founding father. Yes, you are correct that they brought their own private weapons with them. And no doubt they returned with them also. This is something which others her claim would have been Unconstitutional because of their own personal view of the ORIGINAL INTENT of those same Founders.

This shows conclusively that they are talking out of their hat when they give us their own view of the Founders ORIGINAL INTENT.

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.

 

[jaeger19]

It was a registry of privately owned weapons of US citizens done by the Federal government acting on the militia clause powers in the US Constitution passed by Congress which included members who were Founders and enforced by a US President who was a Founding father. Yes, you are correct that they brought their own private weapons with them. And no doubt they returned with them also. This is something which others her claim would have been Unconstitutional because of their own personal view of the ORIGINAL INTENT of those same Founders.

This shows conclusively that they are talking out of their hat when they give us their own view of the Founders ORIGINAL INTENT.

No it was not a registry of privately owned weapons.. it was an accounting of the weapons brought to militia service and whether they militia units were meeting their obligation under the militia act..

It was no more a registry than a return detailing whether the militia member had obtained a knapsack (per the militia act) was a registry of all privately owned knapsacks... :doh

 

[haymarket]

No it was not a registry of privately owned weapons..

Lets begin with that then since you led with it: who owned these weapons being registered with the federal government?

 

[jaeger19]

Lets begin with that then since you led with it: who owned these weapons being registered with the federal government?

First.. they weren't being registered.. they were returns to show that militia men were showing up for training with the proper equipment. That's not a registry.. any more than showing up to the militia with one knapsack and having it cataloged that each member of a unit had a knapsack is a registry of knapsacks.

Second: Why is this such an emotional issue for you? You have to realize at some level that your premise is absurd.. heck its so obvious. So do you continue because you simply hate to lose a debate? Or is there some other issue involved here?