State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53:127]

[Crimefree]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

Excellent post.

Blush, thanks.

 

[Crimefree]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

Appealing to ignorance of our own laws is not a privilege or immunity for any civil Person in our republic.

Not an appeal to ignorance is it.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

It's not relevant because it's not the topic and there is a big difference between the two scenarios.

You tried to claim that just because its specifically not in the constitution that the government could make the law to register guns. Being an analogy it is irrelevent that it is not the topic. It is also irrelevent on the differences between the two as the analogy pertains to your claim that just because its not in the Constitution then the Government can make the law. The commonality is that they are both not in the Constitution.

We agree there's nothing in the 2nd Amendment prohibiting it.

Just because there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment which prohibits it does not mean that it is not unconstitutional. There are other parts of the Constitution which must be considered also. The reason that it is unconstitutional is because it is an invasion of our privacy. The government has no need or valid reason to know if someone that is legally able to own a gun has an assault weapon or not. If it had such a reason, and it was valid enough and of enough concern then, and only then, could the government have the ability to disregard our Right to Privacy. If they do not have that, and they still disregard our Right to Privacy then that is considered Tryanny.

Gun registration is not an invasion of right to privacy.

Simply saying this does not make it true. You have yet to give valid reasons WHY it is not an invasion of our privacy.

Yes, in this case, it does.

No, it doesn't.

Completely different. You're arguing against "Legislation A" because of fictional scenario resulting from fictional "Legislation B". That's a worthless endeavor.

How is it fictional? No government has ever become tyrannical? You have a guaruntee that our government cannot become tyrannical? Those are the only two scenarios in which it would be fictional.

And states are actively passing clearly unconstitutional laws suggesting federal gun law nullification. The Supreme Court has clearly been on the side of gun owners. The assault weapon ban of '94 lapsed and has never been re-instituted. Republicans fall over themselves to be in the good graces of the NRA.

Yes the states have. And yes SCOTUS has. But do ALL laws make it before SCOTUS? How many of those laws that the states have passed laws restricting gun rights have made it before SCOTUS? Every single one of them? Nope.

Don't tell me gun control has gotten tighter. The only thing which has changed is the amount of fear-mongering from both sides.

Compared to before the ban of felons from owning guns? Yes...they have gotten tighter.

Uhh...neither one.

Oh? How does wanting to train 1st graders how to properly use guns restrict guns? How does your other example restrict guns? Oh that's right...a total ban.

It is. We don't have gun bans and we don't have unlimited access to firearms.

And before there were NO gun bans (we do have a current gun ban of fully automatic weaponry for 99.99% of the populace) and people were not limited in how much their gun could have loaded in it. Heck, a citizen could even own a gatlin gun in the past.

No, it has not.

Already addressed this.

GunCite - Gun Control: Canada's 10 Reasons for gun registration

None of those are good enough to invade our right to privacy.

No citizen has to follow any law, they just have to be prepared to face the consequences if they don't.

Good thing there's Jury Nullification.

Yes it is, and I have.

Apparently you haven't. I even gave you a quote from the person who wrote the 2nd Amendment which disproves your claim.

The Constitution doesn't protect against a gun registry. You can keep claiming all you want that it does, but it does not.

Already addressed this.

You said earlier there was "a legitimate reason to have voters register before voting". Are you claiming registering to vote is also in violation of the Constitution and the so-called privacy you keep touting? How about when someone gets arrested and the person's information is made publicly available...is that a violation of privacy? How about for public employees whose income is shared with the world, is that a violation of privacy?

1: So called privacy? Do you not think that we have that Right? If so that would explain alot.

2: Yes, it does violate our right to Privacy. Just as getting arrested for yelling fire in a crowded theater is a violation of our right to free speech. As with any Right there are legitimate reasons to curb a right in certain situations. As such its an acceptable violation of our Rights. What is the acceptable reasons for violating our right to privacy when it comes to guns? And do those reasons over ride the reason for not only our Right to privacy but also the very reason we have the 2nd amendment? In this case the right to privacy is closely intertwined with our right to bare arms.

These words were directed to others, not you.

So? I still addressed it. Does it being addressed to others some how negate my response? Of course not.

 

[danielpalos]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

How does your reply contradict my statement?
They discovered quickly that the logistics required for supporting a militia of the time was not sustainable/practical if the members were to use their own firearms. That led to the requirement for the government to provide suitable weapons when assembled as a militia.

Washington noted in one of his letters that militias under the command of officers of the same communities from which they came were useless and needed professional officers to train and lead them. I seem to remember reading that he thought it was disastrous.

Hubris is not a substitute for understanding and is not beneficial to civil discourse in our republic.

Only a well regulated Militia is enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State.

Only our federal Congress is delegated the social Power to Arm the Militia of the United States.

Only our federal Congress may prescribe, wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[danielpalos]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

Not an appeal to ignorance is it.

Yes, it was, simply because nothing posted is in our federal Constitution.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

Only a well regulated Militia is enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State.

Only our federal Congress is delegated the social Power to Arm the Militia of the United States.

Only our federal Congress may prescribe, wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.

more idiocy. That has nothing to do with with the inalienable right of citizens to KBA

 

[danielpalos]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

more idiocy. That has nothing to do with with the inalienable right of citizens to KBA

nothing, but more idiocy from those of your point of view; there is no inalienable for the citizenry, not well regulated, to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific Terms; Acquire and Possess to denote, specifically, rights in private property.

Just reply with another fallacy so even Ogres can start to make fun you for trolling.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

nothing, but more idiocy from those of your point of view; there is no inalienable for the citizenry, not well regulated, to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the specific Terms; Acquire and Possess to denote, specifically, rights in private property.

Just reply with another fallacy so even Ogres can start to make fun you for trolling.

thanks for the admission.

 

[danielpalos]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

thanks for the admission.

hello private, dunsel.

 

[Helix]

Re: State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners.[W:53]

Moderator's Warning:

Closed for review.