• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

Ikari you said you don't support registration but it seems like you do in this case. I would think that you would be against government databasing of this kind. Just because it supports gun possession in a big way, which is something you favor, doesn't make it any less intrusive.

Orius, apparently ready my posts isn't something you like to do before making assumptions. As stated SEVERAL TIMES NOW in this very thread. I don't actually support the legislation. Thanks for playing, please in the future try to pay attention.
 
Can the State regulate it? There's always freedom of assembly and association. The only legitimate claim I could think of by the government is if they deem them some form of revolutionary army as they are allowed to put down revolution. As for the National Guard I would say that ideally they were to act as some form of State "militia" in some sense. But the Federal govenrment has usurped it well and now functionally it's basically an arm of the federal standing army. In which case makes it not a militia at all.


Yes, the State can regulate the formation of paramilitary groups (citizen 'militias'), up to and including outlawing them. Scalia cites Presser in Heller and re-states that States have the authority to ban groups organizing to conduct military drills and parades.
 
Can the State regulate it? There's always freedom of assembly and association. The only legitimate claim I could think of by the government is if they deem them some form of revolutionary army as they are allowed to put down revolution.
Since jakckalope didnt feel like doing his homework (or knew that doing so would result in being on the losing end of the argument)...

According to the court in Pesser, citizenship does not confer the right to assemble under arms outside the auspices of the state, as this is the sole purview of the government.

This is, of course, hogwash. Said argument necessitates that only the governemnt may legitimately project force of a collective nature. Clearly, the people have the right to project force at the individual level; any right held by the individial is also necessarily held by a collection of same.
 
Owning a gun has absolutely nothing to do with being a member of a militia. Someone who knows how to accurately call in artillery is far more useful than someone who can shoot cans with a 10/22.
 
Yes, the State can regulate the formation of paramilitary groups (citizen 'militias'), up to and including outlawing them. Scalia cites Presser in Heller and re-states that States have the authority to ban groups organizing to conduct military drills and parades.

Boo on that! I'm not so sure they should be allowed to. In general, I see no problem with it. If people want to practice militia crap, I don't see a problem with it. If it's overtly anti-government; I can see how the government would have a problem. But I think the SCOTUS overstepped it's boundaries a bit on that ruling as I fear it significantly infringes upon assembly and association.
 
Boo on that! I'm not so sure they should be allowed to. In general, I see no problem with it. If people want to practice militia crap, I don't see a problem with it. If it's overtly anti-government; I can see how the government would have a problem. But I think the SCOTUS overstepped it's boundaries a bit on that ruling as I fear it significantly infringes upon assembly and association.

It's a long-standing ruling tho, that dates back to 1886.
 
I just want to make sure I understand you correctly, lest I get accused of creating a strawman. Tell me if/where I am misrepresenting your views:

1. Participation in the militia is compulsory (should it ever be necessary), and your participation is assumed.
2. A militia requires the militiamen to own a gun...but since owning a gun isn't mandatory, participating in the militia is NOT compulsory.
3. There needs to be a registry for people who DON'T own guns, so that they can be excluded from something they are legally compelled to do.
4. A registry of non-gun owners is an effective way of knowing who can't be a part of the militia, even though participation is compulsory anyway and even though people could sell their guns at the last minute to avoid service if the state ever called them up for duty.
5. The state has a compelling interest in registering 90-year-old women as non-gun owners, to prove that they can't be part of the militia.

:doh

Actually, they want to publish the list of people who DON'T own guns so the criminals will know who it's safe to rob.
 
Actually, they want to publish the list of people who DON'T own guns so the criminals will know who it's safe to rob.

LOL crunch ya finally made me laugh.

Also blame the victim not criminal for not having a gun LOL
 
It's a long-standing ruling tho, that dates back to 1886.

God damned it, Jefferson was right!

"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. "

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
 
God damned it, Jefferson was right!

"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. "

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."


Hey, Jefferson really didn't like the courts, did he? :shock:
 
I think he was reasonably suspicious of that branch of government for sure. It's relatively easy to constrain legislature and executive; but it's harder to get a net around the judiciary. Especially if they assume they have the power to declare things unconstitutional or not.
 
I think he was reasonably suspicious of that branch of government for sure. It's relatively easy to constrain legislature and executive; but it's harder to get a net around the judiciary. Especially if they assume they have the power to declare things unconstitutional or not.


And have lifetime tenure .... I would be in favor of terms for SC justices. (Long terms, but terms, nonetheless.)
 
Alright lets define how and what a State Militia is,

In the State of Mass. which Maine was part of, if you were over the age of 16 a Free Male you were required by State law to be part of the Militia your name was on record with the your local town scribe. Your were require to keeping in working order the following 1 Long barrow Free Firing Rifle,1 Short barrow rifle pistol. Also Gentlemen of Rank were required to maintain the above along with a Cutter Sword and provide funds for drill of the local Militia Group.

Now what has change since this not much if you go back and look at most US State's Const. you will find some sort of mention of standing Militia and what they are required to have and when they must drill.
 
LiveLeak.com - Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?



Hahah. Of course, I don't really agree with databasing and registering...well most anyone. So I really wouldn't support something like this. But I like the idea of it, makes me laugh. Why should the gun owners be the one's to register, we're just exercising a right. It's much better to register non-gun owners as they're the one's refusing to do their duty to the Republic and will be useless in a zombie fight.

Umm...I also don't know why there's a video with that link, there's other links

A Novel Idea. Register non-gun owners - Patriotic Resistance

If health-care is a right, and you will be fined for not exorcising it, then so can you be fined for not exorcising any other right.
 
WHAHAHAHahahahahahahaha...

Oh that was a good laugh...see how they like the shoe on the other foot.

:mrgreen:
 
What would be the purpose in registering non-gun owners? So that when your non-gun isn't found at the scene of the crime, the cops will know you're innocent? :confused:
No, so you can be rubber hosed for not having your gun.
 
Orius, apparently ready my posts isn't something you like to do before making assumptions. As stated SEVERAL TIMES NOW in this very thread. I don't actually support the legislation. Thanks for playing, please in the future try to pay attention.

I read your posts and found them ambiguous... I wanted you to clarify, for me.

But thanks for eating my head off over nothing. That felt nice.
 
This legislation should be shot down. The 2nd Amendment doesn't mean that gun ownership is mandatory, it means you have the right to bear arms if you choose and the state cannot infringe upon that.

Then again, I suppose one extreme reaction triggers another.
 
I'm sorry, I understood you to say the national guard was not the militia? Did I misunderstand?

Just to help clarify things...

Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈli-shə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date: 1625
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

militia - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
 
This legislation should be shot down. The 2nd Amendment doesn't mean that gun ownership is mandatory, it means you have the right to bear arms if you choose and the state cannot infringe upon that.

Then again, I suppose one extreme reaction triggers another.

Actually it does if you had bother to read what I posted about what the US States define as a Standing State Militia you would noted that almost every State in the United States still has some sort of this document still on the books. Hence yes you are required to own a Gun and be part of a standing Militia.
 
What I find even more interesting is that most of the folks who are so very much against this idea based solely on the whole "shouldn't be fined for not exercising a right" crap, are the ones who are all for fining me for not exercising my "right" to buy health insurance.

To some here, having health insurance is a "right". One that I should be fined for not exercising. Why wouldn't this apply to other rights?
 
This legislation should be shot down. The 2nd Amendment doesn't mean that gun ownership is mandatory, it means you have the right to bear arms if you choose and the state cannot infringe upon that.

Then again, I suppose one extreme reaction triggers another.
Very clever.
 
Actually it does if you had bother to read what I posted about what the US States define as a Standing State Militia you would noted that almost every State in the United States still has some sort of this document still on the books. Hence yes you are required to own a Gun and be part of a standing Militia.

This is Oregon's.

Military Beginnings
Oregon has a long and distinguished military history of selfless volunteerism and notable "firsts" described later in this text. Oregon's provisional government passed the first militia law on July 5, 1843, almost sixteen years before Oregon became a state. Soldiers of Oregon's military were not paid for training until 1916, and prior to the Spanish American War, were not paid at all.

Oregon State Defense Force History
 
I read your posts and found them ambiguous... I wanted you to clarify, for me.

But thanks for eating my head off over nothing. That felt nice.

Yes cause:

Of course, I don't really agree with databasing and registering...well most anyone. So I really wouldn't support something like this. But I like the idea of it, makes me laugh.

is not ambiguous at all.
 
Last edited:
And have lifetime tenure .... I would be in favor of terms for SC justices. (Long terms, but terms, nonetheless.)

Yeah, that would be ok. And maybe a way for the People to call for the removal of a Justice. It would have to be a large barrier so you couldn't do it willy nilly; but maybe something. That way if the SCOTUS really f's up; they can be held accountable by the People.
 
Back
Top Bottom