Freeballin: Am I the only one glad this guy didn't hop in his car and drive home? If he had, we'd be talking about banning cars and alcohol, not guns, right?

automobiles do kill more people per year in the US than guns especially for children under the age of 5. Wont someone think of the children!

shruggingdowntheroad:
Actually, that is Jefferson quoting someone else. Link (new window)

Ok, I stand corrected. He did not come up with the wording but did include it in his "Legal Commonplace Book." I think that he included it because he believed in the sentiment however, which goes along with the point that was made.

jso2897:
Let's not forget, in all the excitement, that the gun shows exist for one reason - to circumvent the laws.

not true. Aside from the dealers charging excessive fees (this state has legally capped them at $35 for a transfer) I have never seen a single instance of someone circumventing the laws.

The fact that no law exists federally requiring private party transfers to file paperwork and some states have similar laws that does not circumvent the law any more than driving the speed limit circumvents the speeding violation laws.

You can sell those same firearms in the classifieds of a news paper and it would be just as legal.

All new firearms sold at gun shows still have the ATF form 4473 filed, back ground checks, and everything else required under the law. In my state every firearm has at least state paperwork done for a transfer.

Additionally gun shows have other things that are not considered a firearm. Sights (scopes, iron sights, red dot, etc), holsters, grips, replacement parts, ammo, etc. There are also vendors selling non gun things at many of the shows, from hunting gear to really bizarre things that have nothing to do with guns.


Not the confiscatory, repressive laws that Heller mostly struck down anyway, but the reasonable, constitutional laws that forbid selling guns to drunks, drug addicts, felons or lunatics.

"shall not be infringed" is there for a reason. It is legally binding but it is not constitutional as it goes against the wording in the constitution. If you accept this "modification without ratification" perhaps you would enjoy a permit to speak or perhaps just all forms of speech that does not put the government in a good light banned? If they can modify without ratification one section of the constitution what prevents them from doing it to other parts?


I have been to a couple of gun shows - and a sizable fraction of the attendees appeared to be drunks, addicts, felons and lunatics. I walked out of the second and last one I attended because there were so many freaks waving guns around. I'm only surprised that incidents like this aren't more common.


I am not sure what shows you have gone to, but I have never seen that and know that it would not be tolerated at any of the ones I have gone to. Perhaps it is your choice of shows that is the problem and not the shows themselves.

I also wonder how you know that someone is a felon based on appearance.

I have also never seen anyone wave a gun around except in the middle east when they shoot in the air in celebration of well almost anything if the news is any indication.

Most of the shows I go to the police even have a booth set up where they demo their latest swat gear or whatever.


I myself will choose to stay away from them, and patronize my local brick & mortar gun dealer - he'll be there if I have a problem, and his store isn't full of crazy dirtballs when I go there.

Many of them go to the shows to sell stuff, at least to the ones I go to.

R.A.Danny: stevarooni: jso2897:
Let's not forget, in all the excitement, that gun shows ricer motorcycles exist for one reason - to circumvent the laws.
You lie and slander your betters.

Hey now, just because the Hayabusa and Ninja ZX11R have 200hp and can do several times the maximum speed limit does not mean that anyone ever actually does that.

LawnDartCatcher:
And yet, they still wrote the second amendment.

yes - but when the constitution was written, it took considerable time and dexterity to load a musket.

/just sayin'

under that logic at the time the constitution was written it took considerable cost to operate a press, as such they should all be censored by the government to only say nice things about them.

If you dont like the 2nd amendment propose a 28th to change it. There are two methods available, one is to get congress to do it and the other is to have a constitutional convention (the states get together). After each of those it requires the states to ratify them (meaning the people vote). If enough people agree that things should be changed then they can be. A 28th amendment can be done. The 27th was done in 1992 so it is not like amending is an ancient art totally forgotten about.

When you use excuses to justify ignoring parts of the constitution you dont like you open the door for people to ignore parts they dont like but you do.

Secret Polish Boyfriend: dittybopper: ...In fact, one could say that it's over-regulated. Here are some examples why:

1. Buying a new gun is the only enumerated constitutional right where you have to get prior permission from the government in order to exercise it.


I'm not going to address all of your derp, but the essence is that this is not factually accurate, only Fox News accurate. To refudiate your truthiness:


1. Under many circumstances, your right to free speech (First Amendment) can require permission. All broadcasting and much publishing is regulated, and the right to peaceful assembly may require permits (which can be denied and do cost money).

The first amendment starts out with "Congress shall make no law", and I think it unconstitutional for congress to have made laws that require permits to broadcast. As for the permits to assemble that is a city/county/state permit and not congress. Congress is defined in Article I, and the States (as used elsewhere in the bill of rights) are not subject to limitations on Congress nor do they have the powers they gave to Congress.


2. Your right to protection from search and seizure (Fourth Amendment) requires that you have some registered ownership or control; otherwise, you don't have the authority to prevent such actions (see privacy rights and garbage).


The 4th states in part "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ..." Because it is "their" papers, effects, etc, abandoned property (which garbage out for collection is considered) is no longer "theirs" and thus not protected.

You would have done better to say "when TSA was formed and the government replaced the private security companies at airports they started searching without probable cause" or "DUI checkpoints do searches without probable cause" (outside of checkpoints it is considered an "illegal stop" if the police cannot make up er I mean demonstrate probable cause prior to the stop).


3. Citizenship (14th Amendment) requires documentation and registration, as all Freepers and Birthers will tell you to no end (and apparently if you are black, it requires special documentation).

The documentation is only proof of citizenship and not citizenship itself. legally the two are different.


4. The right to vote is only a smidge more open than the right to bear arms (various amendments); you have to get permission, and that requires documentation. Sometimes the "waiting period" for voting is much longer than a week.


In many states there have been challenges against requiring documentation to get the voter ID card. So far it is illegal for them to demand things like a drivers license (disenfranchises the poor and minorities according to the claims) and other items. The last election saw many lawsuits over this very issue where states wanted people to prove identity, proof of residency, and similar things before being put on the rolls to vote.

R.A.Danny: There is an Amendment defending our rights to bear arms. There are also numerous SCOTUS rulings defining those rights. There is NO Amendment supporting a right to abortion, but there are SCOTUS rulings protecting it.

Think a little when you feel the need to protect something.

In the same vein it took the 18th amendment to ban alcohol but it only took the stroke of a pen to ban drugs. SCOTUS has upheld the ban on drugs making it legally binding even though there is no constitutional power for them to make that ruling.

Secret Polish Boyfriend:

The first amendment starts out with "Congress shall make no law", and I think it unconstitutional for congress to have made laws that require permits to broadcast. As for the permits to assemble that is a city/county/state permit and not congress. Congress is defined in Article I, and the States (as used elsewhere in the bill of rights) are not subject to limitations on Congress nor do they have the powers they gave to Congress.

Your perception of constitutionality is irregardless to my earlier refudiation, since dittybopper claimed that 2nd Amendment rights are the only rights which require permits. They aren't. Gun licenses, and especially conceal-and-carry, are state issues, too. The problem is that you are apparently unaware of the 10th Amendment, which requires that states uphold the US constitution. The states ARE subject to the limitations of the federal government.

No I am not unaware, I was stating that it is not a first amendment violation for a state to do anything not allowed in the first amendment. The first amendment is a limit on congress and congress alone. To reiterate "Congress shall make no law ..." it does not say the states cant, so it is not a violation for a state to do that. To support this belief MA and CT both had mandatory religious laws after the first amendment was passed, it was not seen as a violation then. When this happened was when SCOTUS claimed the right to do the "incorporation doctrine" where they get to pick and choose which of the bill of rights apply to the states. When they said the first applies to the states (which they did bit by bit and not as a all or nothing decision) they modified the first amendment without ratification.

As such getting a permit to assemble is perfectly valid for a state to do (but not the federal government). The rights in the first are not absolute rights, they are only limitations on the federal government (congress as defined in Article I).


2. Your right to protection from search and seizure (Fourth Amendment) requires that you have some registered ownership...

The 4th states in part "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ..." Because it is "their" papers, effects, etc, abandoned property (which garbage out for collection is considered) is no longer "theirs" and thus not protected.

You missed the point; registration is required.


I do not have to register my lease with the government on a rental that I may have, yet it is still protected under the 4th amendment. I do not have to register my person with the government, yet it too is protected (aside from all the unconstitutional exceptions like TSA, DUI check points, etc).

I am unsure how to even register a rented apartment or my person to get 4th amendment protections, could you provide a source for that?


3. Citizenship (14th Amendment) requires documentation and registration, as all Freepers and Birthers will tell you to no end (and apparently if you are black, it requires special documentation).

The documentation is only proof of citizenship and not citizenship itself. legally the two are different.

I could say "the right to theoretically own guns does not require a permit." Theoretical citizenship is irrelevant.

I was not talking about theoretical citizenship, I was referring to actual citizenship. In fact there is no law that requires you to carry documentation (ID) in this country, something about the 4th amendment. There is not even a legal requirement to prove your citizenship status to be president in this country, the vetting process is done by the party that nominates you. PA was going to pass a law right after the 2008 elections but iirc that failed, so currently there is still no requirement to prove citizenship status to run for president.

The requirements that you are talking about are for other things to prove that you are a citizen, such as purchasing a firearm, registering to vote (only in select areas), and applying for a passport. To be clear there is no requirement for you to prove citizenship to be a citizen, there is no documentation requirement and attempts to do that were shot down most recently shortly after 9/11 when the dems proposed a national ID card.


4. The right to vote is only a smidge more open than the right to bear arms (various amendments); you have to get permission, and that requires documentation. Sometimes the "waiting period" for voting is much longer than a week.

In many states there have been challenges against requiring documentation to get the voter ID card. So far it is illegal for them to demand things like a drivers license (disenfranchises the poor and minorities according to the claims) and other items. The last election saw many lawsuits over this very issue where states wanted people to prove identity, proof of residency, and similar things before being put on the rolls to vote.

So you are saying that the clear example here of requiring registration/permission is proof that no registration/permission is required?


I was stating a different point than the one you are now making. Let me be clear on voting. You do not have a right to vote (new window) Claiming that you have to register for this right is a false argument in this context.


Are you arguing for the absolutely false statement that dittybopper made?


No, in fact I gave examples that agreed in part with some of what you said, they were just different examples than your incorrect examples. Some of the problems with your examples is your lack of comprehensive understanding of the constitution and what it actually says, such as the first amendment arguments that you made.

The fact that I corrected your inaccuracies does not mean that I am taking the other side, especially when I never actually said what my position was.

namatad:

people really HATE when common usage cahnges the original meaning of words.

It is only common usage because of ignorance and the lack of correction. There is a difference, the words are not interchangeable. I can use incorrect words all I want, that does not make me magically correct by claiming that the definition changed. A cat is still a cat even if I call it a dog.

R.A.Danny:
Just noticing how many of the anti-gun people lean towards the left, the same demographic that wants to keep abortion 100% legal with no government interference whatsoever. While not talking about my feelings on either subject, I just think it would behoove the lover of rights to embrace all rights lest their favorites are trodden.

If you do not agree with their position you obviously are not smart enough to be allowed to make a decision on the matter.

namatad: R.A.Danny: There is an Amendment defending our rights to bear arms. There are also numerous SCOTUS rulings defining those rights. There is NO Amendment supporting a right to abortion, but there are SCOTUS rulings protecting it.

Think a little when you feel the need to protect something.

In my opinion under the 10th amendment abortions are a state right not a federal one. Remember that states are sovereign and only gave up specific and limited powers to the federal government. Those rights are specifically enumerated in the constitution, and to further this, the 10th clearly states anything not given to the feds nor restricted by the constitution is fair game on a state level.



pretty certain there is no right to keeping confessions and consultations with a priest or lawyer private either.

The priest stuff is under religious freedom, which as I said elsewhere is a federal limit not a state one. The states may or may not have in their state constitutions (or by statute) similar limits on government. The first amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law ..." and congress is defined in Article I. Basically you cannot fully practice a religion that requires confessions (Catholicism is the major one, protestants allow it but do not require it) if what you say can be used against you.

In a similar vein there is the journalist protecting their source thing. There is no protection for sources, and if compelled to reveal their source the journalist is free to opt for contempt of court (which some have done and gone to jail for not revealing sources). Some areas have laws that protect sources but not all.

As for lawyer conversations that is protected under "due process". You cannot get a fair trial if you cannot discuss your case with your lawyer freely. If anything you say to your lawyer can be used against you you are less inclined to reveal to your lawyer what actually happened. With that said, if you tell your lawyer that you are going to commit a crime they are supposed to report you, the protection applies to past events not to future ones. However proving that you told them anything becomes difficult and most lawyers know that.


/I dont get why these tards still have problems with income taxes. THAT was legally amended to the constitution.

There are several issues with that. First SCOTUS said that the 16th amendment did not confer any new ability for the government to tax. I have not checked that case to see the logic so I am not well versed to give an opinion on why they said this or the facts that prompted them to rule in this way.

Another issue is the claims that there is no proof the 16th was ever passed. However if it did not confer new powers of taxation then does it matter? There are claims, again ones I have not verified, that in most every state the page in the journal showing who voted which way for ratification is missing. These are public records so there is the ability for people to validate this claim if they were so inclined.

Then you get into the CFR definitions. Some claim that "income" is defined oddly, such that most people do not qualify.

You also have the issue of how can you file a 1040 without waiving your 5th amendment right against self incrimination? If you do not declare illegally gained money you end up like John Gotti and Al Capone who both were convicted of tax evasion. If you do declare it then those records can be used against you for whatever you did to get the money (per a NY case against a burglar who declared such income). This is more of an implementation issue than one over whether or not income tax is actually legal.

You also run into issues of payment. Checks are not payment, they are a promise to pay. You are not "paid" until you deposit or cash the check (and funds are transferred). Your final paycheck is often cleared or cashed after Dec 31 if that is your payday. This means that the income is technically next year and not the previous year. It is not counted that way however.

There is also the belief that you did not receive income when you get paid. I am unsure of the legal status of this claim because I never researched it. When you work you do an equal value trade of labor for money. When you trade other items you are only taxed if there is a profit, for example if you have a garage sale (or ebay sales) if you broke even or lost money on the deal you owe nothing. If you profit you only owe on the profit itself. Labor for money is the only trade that triggers income tax. Some claim that work really fits into the "garage sale" rules and thus is not subject to any income tax since it is an equal value trade and no profit is generated. This goes back to how income is defined in the CFR as well, see that argument above.

In short if you are going to talk about people who dispute income tax you have to look at which argument they are using :)

LawnDartCatcher:
my point was referring to TFA that it was hard to be loaded and load a musket.

i think the framers would be amazed and perhaps sickened by RPGs, armor piercing bullets, automatic weapons, etc. not that they wouldn't like to try them out if given a chance.

Perhaps it would be hard while tanked to load a musket (I have loaded a black powder rifle with one hand but I do not mix alcohol and guns so I cant say on that aspect). That however does not exempt the 2nd amendment, and I have to believe that they did not look at the history of weapons and how it evolved from the sword to powder based and not think that weapons would have evolved.

As for the list of weapons that you mentioned, I imagine that many would be somewhat surprised. I am unsure they would be sickened, as the preamble of the 2nd amendment goes into the point is to allow the average citizen the option (at their discretion) to be able to own military weapons. The second amendment does not protect hunting weapons or sporting weapons but military weapons. This point was not lost on SCOTUS when in Millar (1934) they specifically debated whether a sawed off shotgun had military application. The government said no, and iirc Millar's lawyer did not even show up.

If the state of "war machines" is such that RPGs, armor piercing projectiles, and similar are military grade then they are protected under the 2nd amendment.

The purpose of this is two fold. one it lets you have a militia. Note the militia is not an army, instead it is volunteer. When bullets start flying you are free to go home if you want, the national guard - once enlisted - is not volunteer. Two armies go into foreign soil, militias only defend their home turf. The national guard is in Afganistan at least and I think parts of Iraq. It reduces the requirement for a standing army, something the founders feared. This would reduce cost to the tax payers. You would still have armies on demand, and Article I Section 8 allows for congress to call forth the militia, train and equip them. And finally you get the ability for the people to deal with a tyrannical government should it ever come to that - something implicitly stated by multiple founders.

namatad: The National Guard of the United States is a reserve military force composed of state National Guard militia members or units under federally recognized active or inactive armed force service for the United States. Militia members are citizen soldiers, meaning they work part time for the National Guard and hold a civilian job as well.

so yah, the national guard is the collected state militias

no, it is an army that reports the the governor of each state. If they were solely a militia they would not be overseas as part of an army. They can say that it is a militia in name, but in function it is not a militia, it is an army operating in a theater of war on foreign soil.