[bane]

My "?" is this... if something like a registry went into effect... don't they *ALREADY* have your stats from when you first bought your gun (if you bought it in a store, etc)???

If that's true, how are you able to have guns that are NOT part of the registry??? (Short of stealing them or buying stolen ones, that is)

 

[bane]

It is looking more and more like the Germany of 1938 every day thanks to socialists like Hilary and those of her ilk!

I absolutely agree with you... that being said, the folks on the other side of the aisle aren't helping the situation a whole lot either... all they are doing is feeding the fire and compounding the problem. To say that this country is getting more and more polarized every day is an overstatement. And all the while the polarization looks like it's leading us down the slippery-slope you alluded to... <SCARY>

 

[bane]

To the 2 people who voted "yes":

1) Of course, you needn't respond and "out" yourself... j/k :wink:

2) This is not my attempt to "assault" your beliefs

3) I am interested to hear your reason(s) for why you would choose to vote "yes" (I may disagree with your reason(s) and you may disagree with mine, but I am genuinely interested in hearing any sound and logical reasoning you have for voting this way, if you are so inclined to share)

4) If you merely voted "yes" to deflect your true feelings, you also needn't respond.

 

[bane]

I think a lot would depend on the punishment for non-compliance. I havent voted because I honestly dont know what I would do.

I understand your point. Suffice it to say that I like to consider what I would do based on reflecting on history. From what I am aware of (I'm no history buff, but I do try to get my history from fairly reliable sources (i.e. not the internet, or word of mouth, or conspiracy books, etc.)) every fascist/communist state of the 20th century began by first initiating a nationwide registration of it's citizens firearms. It was only after that step that they went around and confiscated the weapons. And it was only after that that they seized absolute power.

Food for thought.

 

[bane]

And I understand that forcing the registration of guns is a big step in taking them away, but as long as they are not being taken from my posession, I cannot argue that it is a direct violation of 2A. (i.e. I am still "keeping and bearing") Now, when the Gestapo comes to confiscate them, it will turn into a different story...

Very well put. I appreciate your argument, and am even partially convinced!
Of course, you are likely to become an immediate martyr at that point, but I'm sure you are prepared for that.
Thank you for the well-reasoned response. I'll have to chew on it for a bit.

 

[bane]

Very well put. I appreciate your argument, and am even partially convinced!
Of course, you are likely to become an immediate martyr at that point, but I'm sure you are prepared for that.
Thank you for the well-reasoned response. I'll have to chew on it for a bit.

Nope. Reading the posts by PW convinced me (thanks, Bro -- I liked them so well I bookmarked them!) Of course, we all have our own "line" to draw in the sand, as the author of the 2nd link alluded to. I will obey with current CC laws and wait for my permit -- after all, I can still OC if needed. And though I think a CC permit is a little overboard it hasn't quite crossed my line. But a federal registry would.

 

[bane]

Oh too true, bold indeed. Having family members who have done such bold things, however, I think he may have done so intentionally. Publishing things like that in public forums can serve as part of a defense later on should issues arise. While he may still be convicted, for example of CC'ing without a permit, he can respond to any allegations of criminal intent with this document which serves as a public "notice". Some people in my family have filed similar types of "notices" over the years with the County Clerk for this very reason; to aid in their defense later on, should it become necessary. I, for one, am not a fan of handling legal issues this route but it is done and does sometimes serve it's purpose.

 

[bane]

Hunter, I agree with what you have said -- 100%. I also took the same oath you did, and I took and still take it very seriously.

Like you, I think (however naively, or not) that the odds of having our weapons taken from us are pretty low SO LONG AS we voice ourselves and we REPRESENT OURSELVES correctly (i.e. always trying to be law-abiding and showing people around you that good guys can have guns and still be good -- thus, hopefully, gaining more supporters and voices).

This is a hypothetical poll, of course, but where I think we differ on this issue is that I view, based on my reading and understanding of history, national gun registries as the first of the last steps to totalitarianism -- the obvious implication from such an event would be the suspension of the U.S. Constitution. And I do not consider my oath to include upholding actions that would lead to such a suspension.

In other words, in my mind a federal registry would put our nation in a crisis and the Constitution would at that point be a mere formality -- our nation has been very close to such a situation a few times in the past, such as the Communist shakedowns during the earlier part of the "Cold" war, and fortunately we have successfully avoided that ultimate crisis.

But, as you, I have faith that we will continue to be able to avoid those moments of crisis so long as there are sizeable numbers of law-abiding citizens willing to practice *ALL* of their rights.

 

[bane]

Sorta like the Lautenberg Amendment is unconstitutional? In reality, something is only unconstitutional if the courts rule it so.

Huh. I'm not sure if that's 100% accurate. Well, maybe it's one of those "in the eye of the beholder" type of things -- a question of perception.

However, I'm not sure one could come to that understanding by reading the writings of our founding fathers.

Also, it fails logically. Allow me to explain...

1) The Constitution (at least the portions that deal with Individual Rights, namely the first 10 Amendments) all address rights INHERENT to people as human beings. Which means that you have those rights regardless of whether or not you live in a society that does or does not have a Gov't -- the fact that a Gov't may or may not recognize those Rights is irrelevant. If we agree on this point, we can continue...

2) The Constitution was created based on a recognition of an individual's inherent Rights and built all of it's principles based on those Rights. It was not the Constitution that granted us those Rights, and the Constitution was not created PRIOR TO us having those Rights -- man has always had those Rights, and always will; the Constitution was merely the first government document to fully recognize those Rights. If we agree on this point, we can continue...

3) The Supreme Court did not exist prior to the Constitution -- it was the Constitution which created the Supreme Court. If we agree on this point, we can continue...

4) To say, then, that the U.S. Constitution only says what it does by virtue of the Supreme Court is double-speak. B/C by that definition, the Supreme Court would have absolutely no authority -- after all, if the Supreme Court are the only ones to weigh in on the issue of what the Constitution says, then how would the Court have rec'd it's authority in the first place (prior to it's creation)??? The Supreme Court cannot exist without relying on the authority of the Constitution -- which document was not created to give man his Rights but only to formally recognize those Rights. Just as the authority of the Court is derived from the Constitution, the authority of the Constitution is derived from the collective Rights of every individual person. If we agree on that point, let's keep going...

5) Although we have all "agreed" to rely on the Supreme Court's decisions regarding Constitutionality (in order to maintain a civilized and orderly society), the Supreme Court does not maintain exclusive power to decide whether something is Unconstitutional or not -- what they do, in fact, is give us their EXPERT OPINION. If enough of us disagree, we vote in a Pres. who will shift the balance of power of the court (or, in extreme measure, the Justices can be removed and replaced) as soon as an opening occurs -- and thus, provide opportunity for new opinions, and thus new interpretations of law. But the court is merely an EXPERT WITNESS, not an end-all-be-all-final-say of what is Constitutional or what isn't.

You may still disagree.
Consider one scenario first.

A bit over 200 years ago pen was put to ink and our fathers declared that something was SELF-EVIDENT; that something was that all men were created with certain rights and were equals. Sadly, our nation and our highest of courts failed to recognize and accept that those words meant "ALL OF HUMANKIND" not simply all white people, or all males, etc. We didn't fully recognize that fact until the Civil War, and later the Civil & Women's Rights movements. Now, for the most part, all people in this country and truly free and equal (I said, for the most part).

But what if we suddenly got a series of Supreme Court Justices on the bench who suddenly decided that those movements were wrong and that women, for example, were not in fact to be included in the collective definition of "free people"??? What if they said that to afford women equal rights and freedoms along with men was an Unconstitutional principle??? Would that suddenly actually render the concept Unconstitutional??? Of course not.

Or, are you saying that it would?
Or did I totally mis-read your post? (Please forgive me if I did!)

 

[bane]

Don,

I agree with your response to my questions/scenario. I def. agree that a lot has to come into play for the court to change, and even then it's very slow (as I think it should be -- this country is all about liberal progress which I think that that dynamic factor is responsible for so much of our success, but when it comes to the court I do think they serve us well be being usually slow and traditional).

My point was that they only give us their expert opinion, but aren't necessarily right (though probably right most of the time) -- I understand and agree with your position, I just thought your original phrasing of it was misleading/not wholly accurate ( I think a more accurate statement could have been achieved by merely substituting the word "practice" for "reality").

I liked your correction to my scenario -- I think you are correct when you stated that you don't think the court can summarily disregard an amendment, that they can "only chip away at it over time". That being said, you pointed out very validly that my scenario was mis-placed.

[EDIT]: None of this should be construed, however, to indicate that I have changed my position on the concept of a Fed. Registry of firearms. While I don't think such a registry actually violates my 2A rights, I feel it sufficiently crosses the line for me to consider it, personally, as an outright attack on my rights. To me it seems a similar thing as if a new law were placed on the books stating that any time I choose to make a public statement contrary to current Administration policy I must first register myself and what I am going to say with the federal gov't so they will know who the dissenters are. Sure, no ACTUAL violation of my 1A rights would have occurred since I am still allowed to say whatever I want -- BUT the sheer intimidation and hassle factor of such a measure IN PRACTICE would absolutely violate and limit my 1A rights. I view the idea of a fed. registration of firearms as no different.