California: Gun Registration

[kelpdiver 2]

answered.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

At the time of writing, how would one know whether a gun owner was "trained"?

Citizens used to get together and drill to keep their unit proficiency high. Like the 60 men at Lexington that challenged the British and started the war for Independence.

Sort of the same way that modern "hillbillies" get together and train, which you so dislike, and are so afraid of.

I'm sure glad those Lexington hillbillies got together with their guns back in 1775. Aren't you?

"Disperse you Rebels. Damn you, throw down your arms and disperse!"
- British officer, Lexington, 1775

"Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon. But if they mean to have a war,let it begin here."
- Captain Parker, hillbilly colonial militia, Lexington, 1775

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Based on this, without having researched-out any cases on this (if there are any), if I was a judge, I think I would focus not so much on whether the individual was part of the organized or unorganized militia, but on whether the person was or was not "in actual service in time of War or public danger". And then, yes, we'd probably, in turn, have to get into definitions of "war or public danger".

Interesting. I didn't read it that way, where the actual service part refered back to those being in the Militia. I read it as refering to a seperate group.

I read it as excluding those in the land and naval forces. Excluding those in the militia. Excluding those in actual service in time of War or public danger.

Reading it now, your version makes more sense.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It's not the guns that make us free, it's how we think and relate to each other that makes us free.

If you don't have the arms to win and keep your freedom from your enemies, it doesn't matter how you think and relate. They don't give a damn about your thinking and relating.

But feel free to try and talk a muslim suicide bomber out of committing an atrocity, by walking up to him as he's about to pull the trigger, and tell him all about your need to think and relate with him.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

War is not the answer.

Ahhhh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VtaVXZMu-s

Cut it out ... you'll make me cry!

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

I am a gun owner.

What do you own?

Why do you want to know?

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

you can define the militia as clowns on unicycles and the 2nd will still read: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I thought Congress had included a definition in the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, but apparently not.

The definition of militia does have relevance to the 2nd Amendment, because "militia" is expressly mentioned therein; and a basic principle of statutory/Constitutional construction is that express language in a statute, regulation or constitutional provision is there for a specific reason, and should not be dismissed as mere surplusage.

Yes, it's there for a specific reason - to explain the rationale. And that cannot be altered by a subsequent definition change to militia.

Yes, it can. "Militia" as the Act currently defines it has a pretty broad definition, and that helps those who argue that the right is an individual one, and not merely a collective one: (Example) "the militia, including the unorganized militia, is rally big and scattered all over; therefore everyone must individually have the right to keep and bear arms so as to adequately arm and support the militia."

But if in the future the definition of "militia" is made much narrower; for example, only active duty members of the regular armed forces, that might conceivably strengthen the argument of those who view the right as "collective-only" : (Example) "The regular military has its own weapons and secure bases; therefore individual citizens don't need to keep weapons in their homes so as to have them available to arm and support 'the militia' ".

Quote

The individual versus collective right never should have been in doubt, and Heller did effectively end it. It's a shame that aspect is only 5-4 split when the evidence is overwhelming as to the intent.

I've often said, and I'll say it again: a closely-divided Court is itself proof that the issue decided is NOT a slam-dunk either way.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

But feel free to try and talk a muslim suicide bomber out of committing an atrocity, by walking up to him as he's about to pull the trigger, and tell him all about your need to think and relate with him.

Shooting him won't help either. Logic often used by the pro-gun side of this argument would dictate that they would simply switch to remote detonation.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I am a gun owner.

What do you own?

Why do you want to know?

Because you opened the door by saying you own guns. I want to know what types. Many anti-gun people claim to own guns, but actually don't - they just say that to try and deflect arguments. So I want you to describe your guns to me to the point that I believe you're not just making that up.

Are you afraid that the government will be watching this thread?
Are your guns all properly licensed and registered?
What do you have to be afraid of?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

But feel free to try and talk a muslim suicide bomber out of committing an atrocity, by walking up to him as he's about to pull the trigger, and tell him all about your need to think and relate with him.

Shooting him won't help either. Logic often used by the pro-gun side of this argument would dictate that they would simply switch to remote detonation.

It would stop THAT suicide bomber. Remote detonation is much more complicated, and less reliable.

So you're in favor of not shooting suicide bombers who are about to commit a massacre. That's really sweet of you.

Did you hear about the bombing a few days ago, where 40 people at a wedding were murdered? Yeah, that was really sweet too. I guess you're glad that no one shot the poor suicide bomber to stop him. Eh?

[Andy9o8 3]

If you must know, he has a Red Ryder BB gun with a compass in the stock, and this thing which tells time.

He'll shoot his eye out.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

At the time of writing, how would one know whether a gun owner was "trained"?

Citizens used to get together and drill to keep their unit proficiency high. Like the 60 men at Lexington that challenged the British and started the war for Independence.

Sort of the same way that modern "hillbillies" get together and train, which you so dislike, and are so afraid of.

I'm sure glad those Lexington hillbillies got together with their guns back in 1775. Aren't you?

"Disperse you Rebels. Damn you, throw down your arms and disperse!"
- British officer, Lexington, 1775

"Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon. But if they mean to have a war,let it begin here."
- Captain Parker, hillbilly colonial militia, Lexington, 1775

Isn't it also true that the main mission of the British at Lexington and Concord was to confiscate/destroy the heavier weapons of the Local Militia?

I was taught that the Brits were going there to capture or destroy the cannons and powder that the locals had.

And "Regulated" didn't mean controlled by governmental laws back then.

Quote

Note that "well-regulated" clearly refers to how well the militia
functions and how well trained are the militia members. It does not
refer at all to the degree to which the government controls the militia
or the members of the militia.

From http://parts.singerco.com/
Near the top of the page when I googled "well regulated".

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

So you're in favor of ......
I guess you're glad that .....

You know, that tactic really insults everyone's collective intelligence. Just saying.


I suppose if you talk to people that way, you wouldn't mind drowning kittens. Really sweet of you.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

It's not the guns that make us free, it's how we think and relate to each other that makes us free.

If you don't have the arms to win and keep your freedom from your enemies, it doesn't matter how you think and relate. They don't give a damn about your thinking and relating.

But feel free to try and talk a muslim suicide bomber out of committing an atrocity, by walking up to him as he's about to pull the trigger, and tell him all about your need to think and relate with him.

Great. That's all we need in the U.S. is unregulated gun-nuts spotting what they think are would-be "muslim" suicide bombers and shooting them before they blow themselves up.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I am a gun owner.

What do you own?

Why do you want to know?

Because you opened the door by saying you own guns. I want to know what types. Many anti-gun people claim to own guns, but actually don't - they just say that to try and deflect arguments. So I want you to describe your guns to me to the point that I believe you're not just making that up.

Are you afraid that the government will be watching this thread?
Are your guns all properly licensed and registered?
What do you have to be afraid of?

So now you're calling me a liar?
You're accusing me of being a criminal?


BUG OFF!

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

If you're determined to have a certain right, then you shouldn't then have to explicitly ask for it in order for it to apply to you and be told that if you don't ask you don't get it.

Then would you support a guy with no criminal record walking into a gun store and buying a Full Auto M4?

As a matter of fact, yes, once she had proved that she was in the set of people who have that right (as you pointed out, there are people who do not). The Supreme Court, however, thinks such restrictions are OK (DC vs Heller)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you're determined to have a certain right, then you shouldn't then have to explicitly ask for it in order for it to apply to you and be told that if you don't ask you don't get it.

Then would you support a guy with no criminal record walking into a gun store and buying a Full Auto M4?

As a matter of fact, yes, once she had proved that she was in the set of people who have that right (as you pointed out, there are people who do not). The Supreme Court, however, thinks such restrictions are OK (DC vs Heller)

And they have already said once that Chicago gun laws are not constitutional. And they soon will say it directly to the Mayor and city council

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you're determined to have a certain right, then you shouldn't then have to explicitly ask for it in order for it to apply to you and be told that if you don't ask you don't get it.

Then would you support a guy with no criminal record walking into a gun store and buying a Full Auto M4?

As a matter of fact, yes, once she had proved that she was in the set of people who have that right (as you pointed out, there are people who do not). The Supreme Court, however, thinks such restrictions are OK (DC vs Heller)

And they have already said once that Chicago gun laws are not constitutional. And they soon will say it directly to the Mayor and city council

Do you honestly believe Daly and his machine will listen and obey? Those in charge of Washingtion DC certainly didn't. They put loads of hoops and hurdles in the way of potential gun owners.

That is winding it's way through the courts right now.

Daley has clearly stated he plans to do the same.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7451247

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rushmc 23]

No, Daley and his tribe think themselves as the law. SC be damned

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skybill 22]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I am a gun owner.

What do you own?

Why do you want to know?

Because you opened the door by saying you own guns. I want to know what types. Many anti-gun people claim to own guns, but actually don't - they just say that to try and deflect arguments. So I want you to describe your guns to me to the point that I believe you're not just making that up.

Are you afraid that the government will be watching this thread?
Are your guns all properly licensed and registered?
What do you have to be afraid of?

Hi John,
God I love i!! God Guns and Guts that's what!! Never mind how many, what kind and or caliber they are, how many we have, or don't, the 2A says,">>>>Keep and bear Arms>>>>>!!" not "Guns" per say! Arms are any device that can do damage, from a Hammer to an "H"-Bomb!! So, never mind the guns, lets start building tactical Nukes in our garages!! Wouldn't the Brady bunch be amused!!??????? ... kinda reminds me of the old Smokin Bananas in the '60's Mary Jane daze!! All of a sudden there was a $10,000 fine and 10 years law passed in Michigan for "Smoking Bananas!!" Ain't no laws yet about makin Homemade Nukes?? Lets' give it a try!! The 4th of July is just around the corner, who can put on the best "Display!!!!!!"

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Then let me ask you something. In all seriousness.

If the government would simply crush any internal resistance by it's armed populace, why hasn't it done so in Iraq?

Because the country is ungovernable, in large part, due to the fact that there are far too many armed NUTS in Iraq who believe that violence is the path to freedom and they are killing each other and us.

so the armed populace is preventing the military/government machine from taking over their country and ruling effectively...

exactly!! I don't think I've ever had anyone make my point quite so well for me here.

Quote

War is not the answer.

If the armed populace in Iraq prevails, do you really think that they would be free?

they will be free to choose the type of country they wish to live in and government they wish to form.

Quote

Which "armed populace" are you referring to? The ones who think democratically or the one's who don't?

we don't have a democracy. nor do they in Iraq. I'm not sure what you're referring to unless it's your quote you pulled from somewhere. (not an original thought as you keep berating others for posting quotes)
***
It's not the guns that make us free, it's how we think and relate to each other that makes us free.

and what gets us to the position where we're able to relate to each other freely? Sometimes it's the guns.

--
Rob

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you're determined to have a certain right, then you shouldn't then have to explicitly ask for it in order for it to apply to you and be told that if you don't ask you don't get it.

Then would you support a guy with no criminal record walking into a gun store and buying a Full Auto M4?

As a matter of fact, yes, once she had proved that she was in the set of people who have that right (as you pointed out, there are people who do not). The Supreme Court, however, thinks such restrictions are OK (DC vs Heller)

proving again, with your own words, that you don't consistently believe in a notion of rights by default.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Because you opened the door by saying you own guns. I want to know what types. Many anti-gun people claim to own guns, but actually don't - they just say that to try and deflect arguments. So I want you to describe your guns to me to the point that I believe you're not just making that up.

Are you afraid that the government will be watching this thread?
Are your guns all properly licensed and registered?
What do you have to be afraid of?

So now you're calling me a liar?

It seemed to me that he's spotted what looks to be a familiar pattern and is identifying that pattern. One could say he's giving you the benefit of the doubt asking you to describe what you have (asking this assumes that you actually have some to describe).
***
You're accusing me of being a criminal?


BUG OFF!

Appeared to me to be a simple question asking if you're followed local laws in IL regarding firearms registration. Careful if you haven't, I've seen them confiscate firearms from a dead man rather that let them be returned to his family. (if I recall correctly it was a .44 revolver. It's been a while though.)

I saw nothing resembling an accusation until you accused him of calling you a liar and a criminal.

--
Rob

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

That's all we need in the U.S. is unregulated gun-nuts spotting what they think are would-be "muslim" suicide bombers and shooting them before they blow themselves up.

You have very elaborate fantasies when it comes to gun owners.

Since all the cries of "blood in the streets" from the anti-gun crowd when gun carry laws are passed have never, ever come true, I don't think you have to worry about a wave of gun folks shooting muslims because they thought they saw a stick of dynamite under their robe while walking into WalMart.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So now you're calling me a liar?
You're accusing me of being a criminal?
BUG OFF!

You also have very elaborate fantasies about people accusing you of things, and of directing personal insults towards you.

If this is all you've got in reply, you've got nothing. I guess this tactic is the refuge of someone who has no facts, logic or knowledge on his side, and just doesn't know when to shut up. When you're digging a hole and hit rock bottom - quit digging!

For example, when your only come-back to quotes from the founding fathers is to claim that it's "NRA propaganda", really, that's a lame argument. The NRA didn't exist at that time. And the quotes are real. You can find them in places like "The Federalist Papers", available in any college bookstore. Have you read them? Try "The Anti-Federalist Papers" too. You might even come up with something better than "NRA propaganda" as a counter-argument. Then we would at least have some respect for the fact that you've educated yourself on the subject with some research That's just one of the more egregious examples that shows you really aren't well-informed enough on this subject to be arguing it with the zeal you have for it. All you ended up doing was showing a lack of respect for the very wise men who crafted our very successful form of government, as well as disrespect for the Constitution, and specifically, the Bill of Rights.

I've said some harsh words towards you here, but this is a rough and tumble place, and if you're going to throw around the kind of stuff you've been using, you've got to expect to get verbally slapped for it. You better develop some callouses for that, and stop being so sensitive.

So, tell me what kind of guns you own, and maybe I'll go easier on you.