Does registration infringe on your right to...

Goobieman · Oct 13, 2009

Assume that you are required to register with the government to exercise the rights included in the poll options.

Which of these registration requirements violate your rights?

Please explain your answer.

Ikari · Oct 13, 2009

The only one there I can see has a reasonable registration interest is voting. Only due to fraud sorts of things though.

other · Oct 13, 2009

Ikari said:
The only one there I can see has a reasonable registration interest is voting. Only due to fraud sorts of things though.

I agree w/ this

liblady · Oct 13, 2009

Goobieman said:
Assume that you are required to register with the government to exercise the rights included in the poll options.

Which of these registration requirements violate your rights?

Please explain your answer.

argument being that the act of registration violates your right to privacy? because registering a gun certainly doesn't violate your right to bear arms.

Goobieman · Oct 13, 2009

liblady said:
argument being that the act of registration violates your right to privacy?

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

because registering a gun certainly doesn't violate your right to bear arms.

Its a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to that right.
Thus, an infringement.

In that, it violates the right to arms every bit as much as it violates the right to have an abortion.

liblady · Oct 13, 2009

Goobieman said:
Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

Its a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to that right.
Thus, an infringement.

but it does not bar you from bearing arms.

Ikari · Oct 13, 2009

liblady said:
argument being that the act of registration violates your right to privacy? because registering a gun certainly doesn't violate your right to bear arms.

It is an infringement. And registration does violate the 4th as well.

other · Oct 13, 2009

liblady said:
but it does not bar you from bearing arms.

The constitution says the right "shall not be infringed," not "shall not be barred from..."

Goobieman · Oct 13, 2009

liblady said:
but it does not bar you from bearing arms.

Aside from the fact that "infringe" covers more than simple prohibition....same can be said for registering in order for having an abortion.

However...
The requirement to register DOES bar you from bearing arms until you meet that the precondition.

The precondition is the infringement, as said precondition is not inherent to the right -- that is, something necessary in order for the right to be exercised due to the nature of the right itself.

Dav · Oct 13, 2009

Ikari said:
And registration does violate the 4th as well.

That is a real stretch.

Ikari · Oct 13, 2009

Dav said:
That is a real stretch.

Is it? I have the right to secure myself, papers, effects, property, etc. against unreasonable search and seizure. Do I not? Did that change somewhere? Fingerprints, purchases, etc these are myself, papers, effects, property, etc. The government must have legitimate reason to conduct a search of these things and obtain proper warrant. Just buying ammunition does not count as legitimate reason to conduct a search. Therefore, the government gathering and databasing my fingerprints, purchases, property, etc is an unreasonable search specifically forbidden by the 4th amendment. Less the 4th amendment doesn't exist anymore, I mean that could have been part of the Patriot Act.

obvious Child · Oct 13, 2009

Goobieman said:
Aside from the fact that "infringe" covers more than simple prohibition....same can be said for registering in order for having an abortion.

However...
The requirement to register DOES bar you from bearing arms until you meet that the precondition.

By that measure, a sales tax which pushes the price of the firearm slightly above what I can pay is unconstitutional because it infringes upon my right to own a firearm. The requirement to pay sales tax bars me from bearing arms until I can scrounge up enough cash to pay for the sale tax. How insane do you want to go in your less the subtle argument?

Considering your posting history, you need to define infringe or this thread is going straight down the toilet.

Goobieman · Oct 14, 2009

obvious Child said:
By that measure, a sales tax which pushes the price of the firearm slightly above what I can pay is unconstitutional because it infringes upon my right to own a firearm.

Not any more than your right is infringed by having to pay for the gun itself.

Sales tax is part of the purchase price.
Purchasing the firearm is a precondition necessary to the exercise of the right, and so simple sales tax does not infringe the right.

Considering your posting history, you need to define infringe or this thread is going straight down the toilet.

Considering -your- posting history and your penchant for deliberatly failing to understand the points made to you, you need not bother posting at all...

liblady · Oct 14, 2009

Goobieman said:
Aside from the fact that "infringe" covers more than simple prohibition....same can be said for registering in order for having an abortion.

However...
The requirement to register DOES bar you from bearing arms until you meet that the precondition.

The precondition is the infringement, as said precondition is not inherent to the right -- that is, something necessary in order for the right to be exercised due to the nature of the right itself.

i completely disagree. registration in no way violates your right to bear arms.

liblady · Oct 14, 2009

let's define infringement:

Main Entry: in·fringe·ment
Pronunciation: \in-ˈfrinj-mənt\
Function: noun
Date: 1628
1 : the act of infringing : violation
2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

how exactly does registration fit this definition? the right itself has not been altered.

Goobieman · Oct 14, 2009

liblady said:
let's define infringement:

Main Entry: in·fringe·ment
Pronunciation: \in-ˈfrinj-mənt\
Function: noun
Date: 1628
1 : the act of infringing : violation
2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

how exactly does registration fit this definition? the right itself has not been altered.

I explained this to you.

It would be an 'encroachment' or a 'tresspass' in that it creates a precondition to the right not inherent to same -- that is, something that if it were not in place, the right could not be legitimately exercised because said precondition creates the conditions necessary for that exercise.

Unless you can show that the nature of the right to arms -requires- that the governemnt knows who has a gun and that it is not possible to legitimately exercise that right w/o said registration, then the argument that it is an infringement stands.

Goobieman · Oct 14, 2009

liblady said:
i completely disagree. registration in no way violates your right to bear arms.

Unless you can show that the nature of the right to arms -requires- that the governemnt knows who has a gun and that it is not possible to legitimately exercise that right w/o said registration, then the argument that it is an infringement stands.

liblady · Oct 14, 2009

Goobieman said:
Unless you can show that the nature of the right to arms -requires- that the governemnt knows who has a gun and that it is not possible to legitimately exercise that right w/o said registration, then the argument that it is an infringement stands.

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.

sure to be challenges, so we shall see.

Ikari · Oct 14, 2009

liblady said:
let's define infringement:

Main Entry: in·fringe·ment
Pronunciation: \in-ˈfrinj-mənt\
Function: noun
Date: 1628
1 : the act of infringing : violation
2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

how exactly does registration fit this definition? the right itself has not been altered.

Because it's a violation. I have to register with the government, I have to be on a list and be watched...for what? Exercising my rights? Really? You think that consitutes reasonable probability to obtain warrant against my person? Do you? Why should the mere exercise of a right be met with such suspicion? If you wanted to speak in public, would you accept being fingerprinted, all your personal information taken, given to the police so they can database it and watch your activities? Is that not an infringement upon free speech?

The base of our rights are constraints upon the government, not the other way around.

Goobieman · Oct 14, 2009

liblady said:
sure to be challenges, so we shall see.

Aside from the fact that the claim in your quote (from a biased, anti-gun source) is factually wrong...

So, you dont have a counter to my argument?
You cannot show that the nature of the right to arms -requires- that the governemnt knows who has a gun and that it is not possible to legitimately exercise that right w/o said registration?

Then on what do you base your assertion that "registration in no way violates your right to bear arms."?

Tell me:
How do you argue against the position that registration in no way violates your right to an abortion?

liblady · Oct 14, 2009

Goobieman said:
Aside from the fact that the claim in your quote (from a biased, anti-gun source) is factually wrong...

So, you dont have a counter to my argument?
You cannot show that the nature of the right to arms -requires- that the governemnt knows who has a gun and that it is not possible to legitimately exercise that right w/o said registration?

Then on what do you base your assertion that "registration in no way violates your right to bear arms."?

Tell me:
How do you argue against the position that registration in no way violates your right to an abortion?

why is the claim in my quote "wrong"? and why are you bringing up abortion?

my counter to your argument is that registration in no way prohibits you from keeping a gun. the constitution does not prohibit a registration requirement.

Ikari · Oct 14, 2009

liblady said:
why is the claim in my quote "wrong"? and why are you bringing up abortion?

my counter to your argument is that registration in no way prohibits you from keeping a gun. the constitution does not prohibit a registration requirement.

2nd and 4th.

Goobieman · Oct 14, 2009

liblady said:
why is the claim in my quote "wrong"?

Because that us not what the SCotUS said in Heller.

and why are you bringing up abortion?

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

my counter to your argument is that registration in no way prohibits you from keeping a gun. the constitution does not prohibit a registration requirement.

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.

jackalope · Oct 14, 2009

Goobieman said:
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 specific terms.
Your counter is nothing more than you saying "nuh-uhhh!!"

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.

Where is your argument, legal argument rooted in law and case citations, that registrations are not constitutional?

You have none. No right, other than freedom of thought is absolute, and the state has the right to require registrations - even for constitutionally protected rights.

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.

Goobieman · Oct 14, 2009

jackalope said:
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.

This is, of course, absolutely incorrect, as we have both provided sound arguments.
Disagree?
Then provide a counter to the argument I made.

Even more absurd is the notion that you have a constitutionally protected right to purchase ammunition. You don't.

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

Does registration infringe on your right to...

Which of these registration requirements violate your rights?

The requirement to register... to vote

... to have an abortion

... to attend a political rally

... to send a letter to the editor

... to publish a letter to the editor

... to buy a gun

... to post a blog

... to go to church

... none of the above

... all of the above

pirate lover

pirate lover

Equal Opportunity Hater

pirate lover

pirate lover

pirate lover

pirate lover