• 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!

Does registration infringe on your right to...

Which of these registration requirements violate your rights?


  • Total voters
    29
Actually, you and Ikari have nothing to your arguments. It's like Orly Taitz filings. To make a constitutional argument, you must have something to argue with. You are both basically saying, because I say so.

Actually, I posted exactly how the 4th is applicable. You're just deflecting away to not have to deal with the debate. Yeah, that's helpful.
 
This is, of course, absolutely incorrect, as we have both provided sound arguments.
Disagree?
Then provide a counter to the argument I made.


As noted before, ammunition is as protected by the 2nd as words are by the first.


No, you haven't. Neither of you have. Contemporaneous to the writing of the constitution, the new country actually had registration laws. This is a big problem for strict constructionists, because they look at original intent, and contemporaneous meanings of words.

And, you made no argument for the constitutionally protected right to purchase ammunition. It is not inherent ... because common practice was not to purchase ammunition at the time of the writing of the document.




(snip ... ) Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in Heller noted that, because the plaintiffs "conceded at oral argument" that they do not "have a problem with... licensing," the court would "not address the licensing requirement." The appeals court in that case did, however, and suggested that registration was just fine: "Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a 'well regulated militia.' The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up."

At this point it's probably helpful to look at the actual text of the Second Amendment, which reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In legal circles, there's a never-ending (more like all-consuming) debate about how to interpret such language. To oversimplify: Some conservative justices, including Scalia, tend to look to the original meaning of the words in ordinary use at the time it was written. Others argue for the concept of a "living Constitution," meaning the Constitution is dynamic and should evolve over time to reflect evolving social values.

You can figure out for yourself which school of thought ended up on which side in last year's 5-4 Heller decision.

The problem for gun rights advocates is that, if you look at the language and custom at the time the Second Amendment was written, laws like the Militia Act of 1792 pop up. It required men between the ages of 18 and 45 to register themselves for militia service, and specified they have certain weapons such as a "good rifle." Similarly, a report from Philadelphia in 1823 showed that there were 12,678 rifles in private hands, indicating some records of who owned what.

"Systems akin to registration were quite common at the time of the framing of the Constitution and the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights," says Dennis Henigan, vice president for law and policy at the Brady Campaign and author of the new book Lethal Logic. "Even before that the state militia statutes had the same kind of requirements, so they can track how well the militia was armed."

Sorry, Mandatory Gun Registration Is Constitutional - Taking Liberties - CBS News
 
Actually, I posted exactly how the 4th is applicable. You're just deflecting away to not have to deal with the debate. Yeah, that's helpful.

I saw your post, and it was just .... it was nothing.
 
Because that us not what the SCotUS said in Heller.


I'm applying yout logic to another issue and seeing if you are consistent.


I've explained how your argument is wrong, in clear. specific terms.
Your counter is nothing more than you saying "nuh-uhhh!!"

As such, your counter does nothing to negate my argument, leaving your claim unsupported.
you haven't proved anything, sorry. registration in no way prohibits you from exercising your right to bear arms.

"like most rights, the second amendment right is not unlimited".....the district must permit heller to register his handgun"........heller conceded at oral argument that the dc licensing law is permissable."
 
No, you haven't. Neither of you have.
As I have already asked:
Please provide a counter to the argument I made.

And, you made no argument for the constitutionally protected right to purchase ammunition.
As noted before, ammunition is as protected by the 2nd as words are by the first, as each is as necessary to the exercise of one right as to the other.
 
I saw your post, and it was just .... it was nothing.

Mmmmhmmmm. So pretty much insult is all you have. Awesome. Says a lot about your character and integrity (or lack thereof).
 
As I have already asked:
Please provide a counter to the argument I made.


As noted before, ammunition is as protected by the 2nd as words are by the first, as each is as necessary to the exercise of one right as to the other.


you made no argument. You threw up an Orly Taitz filing. Because I say so!!! That's about the part and parcel of it.
 
Mmmmhmmmm. So pretty much insult is all you have. Awesome. Says a lot about your character and integrity.


It was nothing. And quit insulting me. Attack the ideas, not the person. Jesus.


You make some ridiculous claim about securing your papers property person yadayadayada .... but the ammunition is not yours until you buy it and you can't buy it until you follow the law. :rofl
 
you haven't proved anything, sorry. registration in no way prohibits you from exercising your right to bear arms.
You already said this; I already addressed it.
You're repeating yourself, and you're repeating arguments that have already been debunked -- see post #9.

"like most rights, the second amendment right is not unlimited".....the district must permit heller to register his handgun"........heller conceded at oral argument that the dc licensing law is permissable."
None of this supports your position.

Heller in no way states a presumoption of constitutionality regarding registration, nor does it any way state that the protection of the 2nd is limited to hangduns. That Heller may have conceded a position regarding licensing means nothing as that concession by the plantiff removes the item from consideration by the court.

If you would read the case rather than quote from the Brady Campaign - the leading anti-gun organization in the US - you'd understand this.
 
It was nothing. And quit insulting me. Attack the ideas, not the person. Jesus.p

Holy hypocrisy batman! You just insulted me. The fact that you only had insult, that you couldn't argue against the point. All I said is it reflects poorly on your character and integrity that you refuse to engage in the debate and rely on nothing more than insult. If you don't like it, don't engage in it.


You make some ridiculous claim about securing your papers property person yadayadayada .... but the ammunition is not yours until you buy it and you can't buy it until you follow the law. :rofl

It is never the "government's" property. It's always some individual who has it. Why do they get to conduct searches of my person (HELLO! Fingerprints and identification, those are my person and papers; I get to secure them!) because of private property I bought? They do not have legitimate reason to conduct illegal search on my property, person, and papers. When I buy something, I don't have to report to the government what I bought. Databasing of that nature is clearly against the 4th amendment.
 
you made no argument.
This is an outright lie.

You threw up an Orly Taitz filing. Because I say so!!! That's about the part and parcel of it.
This is an admission that you cannot counter my argument.
 
Carry on, Orly-bots.
 
You already said this; I already addressed it.
You're repeating yourself, and you're repeating arguments that have already been debunked -- see post #9.


None of this supports your position.

Heller in no way states a presumoption of constitutionality regarding registration, nor does it any way state that the protection of the 2nd is limited to hangduns. That Heller may have conceded a position regarding licensing means nothing as that concession by the plantiff removes the item from consideration by the court.

If you would read the case rather than quote from the Brady Campaign - the leading anti-gun organization in the US - you'd understand this.
i don't quote from any campaign. and if you were correct in your interpretation, registration of handguns would not be allowed. but registration is allowed, thus far. so it seems that for now, my take is the correct one.

btw, i have nothing against gun ownership.
 
Carry on, Orly-bots.

Did you not just bitch about being insulted.

It's the same crap, you just throw out insults and not engage in debate. That's your fault and your problem and reflects poorly on your character and integrity. Nothing more.

Why don't you go make another thread making fun of "teabaggers" Mr. "attack the message not the person". HAHAHAHAHA, you should work harder at masking your hypocrisy.
 
i don't quote from any campaign.
YOUR quote:

Even if the court were to hold the Second Amendment applicable to states and localities, such a ruling is unlikely to change the crucial holding by the Supreme Court in Heller that a wide range of reasonable gun laws are presumptively constitutional, and that the Second Amendment right is narrowly limited to guns in the home for self-defense," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

and if you were correct in your interpretation, registration of handguns would not be allowed. but registration is allowed, thus far. so it seems that for now, my take is the correct one.
This is an appeal to authority, not a counter-argument.

Can you counter rmy argument -- that is, illsutrate how my argument is wrong -- or not?
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse, Joe1991, Sanitas

If you had to register with the government before you had an abortion or went to church, your right to do these things would not be infringed?
 
YOUR quote:




This is an appeal to authority, not a counter-argument.

Can you counter rmy argument -- that is, illsutrate how my argument is wrong -- or not?
my bad, i guess i did quote the brady campaign. i didn't realize that.

as for your argument, i repeat, the registration requirement does not, in any way, prohibit you from exercising your right to bear arms. there is no undue burden, and there is no constitutional requirement that there be no "conditions" on those rights.
 
and the state has the right to require registrations - even for constitutionally protected rights.

states don't have rights like people do, they have powers granted by people.

Even more absurd is the notion that you have a constitutionally protected right to purchase ammunition. You don't. Most of the founders made their own. Where's the strict constitutionalist argument now? Out the window it seems, because it's convenient.

They made their own firearms too--the state surely didn't. What does the method of manufacture have to do with anything?

A firearm requires ammunition to be effective, remember?
 
my bad, i guess i did quote the brady campaign. i didn't realize that.

as for your argument, i repeat, the registration requirement does not, in any way, prohibit you from exercising your right to bear arms. there is no undue burden, and there is no constitutional requirement that there be no "conditions" on those rights.

wait...what? There's no Constitutional requirement that there be no "conditions" on rights? They're rights. Rights are restrictions on government, not the other way around. If the government has control over rights, they're not rights; they're privileges. It's not that I'm prohibited or not from doing A, it's whether government has proper cause to be involved in A. And on this front, they don't. To keep and bear arms is a right, so is to secure yourself, papers, property, effects, ect from unreasonable search and seizure. The govenrment has to have reason, the government has to get warrant; not us. The restriction isn't upon the people, it's on the government.
 
wait...what? There's no Constitutional requirement that there be no "conditions" on rights? They're rights. Rights are restrictions on government, not the other way around. If the government has control over rights, they're not rights; they're privileges. It's not that I'm prohibited or not from doing A, it's whether government has proper cause to be involved in A. And on this front, they don't. To keep and bear arms is a right, so is to secure yourself, papers, property, effects, ect from unreasonable search and seizure. The govenrment has to have reason, the government has to get warrant; not us. The restriction isn't upon the people, it's on the government.
saeems to me the gov't granted those very rights, did they not?
 
saeems to me the gov't granted those very rights, did they not?

No, government doesn't grant rights. Those rights were reserved by the People when we created the government. The restriction is on the government, not the People. The rights of the People are free for the People to exercise at their digression. The government isn't supposed to be able to do anything about it. Government doesn't grant anything, it can't. The government doesn't have inherent power, authority, or sovereignty. The People have inherent power, authority, and sovereignty; and it is those which the government borrows by our consent to operate. The People are the seat of everything, and our rights and liberties are to be upheld to the maximum. That's why the Bill of Rights were there in the first place, people feared the government would grow too much and forget its place. Those rights were specifically reserved by us, built into the contract which creates and grants government its power. Government is restricted, not the People.
 
Last edited:
As for your argument, i repeat, the registration requirement does not, in any way, prohibit you from exercising your right to bear arms
I have, and I repeat, illustrated to you in a clear and concise manner how your statement is wrong.

Repeating your statement doesn't change that -- you need to actually counter the argument I put forth and show it to be unsound.

To this point, you have not done so.
 
Last edited:
No, you haven't. Neither of you have. Contemporaneous to the writing of the constitution, the new country actually had registration laws. This is a big problem for strict constructionists, because they look at original intent, and contemporaneous meanings of words.

No it's not. The quote you provided requires that people register for the militia and bring a weapon, that is not the same as registering to purchase a weapon. The 1st case is an example of a "well regulated militia," that people actually show up and bring weapons to fight is intrinsic. The same is not true in the second case, as has been explained to you many times already.

And, you made no argument for the constitutionally protected right to purchase ammunition. It is not inherent ... because common practice was not to purchase ammunition at the time of the writing of the document.

So what? It was common practice to use ammunition in firearms--that's what it's for. Without ammunition a firearm is ineffective.

People make ammo; people make guns. People sell ammo; people sell guns. Some people today still make their own ammo. Some people still make their own guns. What does the government inherrently have to do with the process at all?
 
The requirement to register... to vote

No, the government needs to guard against fraud. Rather or not they do a good job at it is another issue.

... to have an abortion

Women shouldn't have that legal ability anyway, so no.

... to attend a political rally

Yes. There is no compelling state interest to block your right to freely associate.

... to send a letter to the editor

You do not have a right to send anyone a letter through a prvatly owned website, so no. There is no right to be infringed here.

... to publish a letter to the editor

I would assume that the editor is already registered, to then have the ability to post letters. Even-though this question is therefore irrelevant, no, the editor does not have any constitutional right to post just whatever they wish. The editor is accountable to his boss, the readers, and various laws regarding public decency.

... to buy a gun

Yes, though this may be a necessary evil. Making all states shall-issue resolves the problem, imo.

... to post a blog

You have no right to post a blog on someone else s hardware or using someone else's internetz.


... to go to church

The government has no compelling interest in knowing who is going to which church to impose on your right to freely associate.

However, the church itself is free to require some sort of registration as it sees fit.
 
Back
Top Bottom