Why not gun license & registration?

that disarmed policy is also responsible for a few of the mass shootings on military bases. As long as the targets are unarmed there will be tragedies.

- - - Updated - - -

and wrong on the law and the problem

- - - Updated - - -

They are is they are steps to grabbing and have no measurable effect if they are not part of a grab...

 

of course you can't refutes the facts

 

You want facts?

Take a look in article 1 section 8 of the Constitution. Here you will see listed congress' powers. Nowhere in this list will you find any power that enables them to enact legislation requiring licensing or registration.

 

read the second amendment

 

The second amendment grants congress no power. It restricts congress' power. Congress' powers are enumerated in article 1 section 8.

 

according to the supreme court:

"The Second Amendment should not be understood as conferring a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The Court identified examples of “presumptively lawful” firearm laws, including laws prohibiting firearm possession by felons and the mentally ill, forbidding firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and imposing conditions on the commercial sale of firearms. The Court noted that this list is not exhaustive, and concluded that the Second Amendment is also consistent with laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” not in common use at the time, such as M-16 rifles and other firearms that are most useful in military service. In addition, the Court declared that its analysis should not be read to suggest “the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.”

http://smartgunlaws.org/supreme-court-the-second-amendment/

 

And which of congress' enumerated powers would allow legislation requiring licensing and registration?

 

notice how i didn't mention congress' enumerated powers

 

Yes, I did notice that. Congress may only enact legislation to carry into effect its enumerated powers. So which of its powers would it be exercising when it enacts legislation requiring license and registration?

 

These issues will always be present - take the legalisation of recreational cannabis in Colorado and elsewhere - it is demonstrably flowing over to neighbouring states. Yet those states have addressed the problem by placing increased law enforcement on the highways into their states. That this externality exists is no excuse for dominant federal policy - centralising the problem simply allowed select few populous states to get way in every instance, while small states are forced to conform, even where federal-supported externalities screw them over.

Federalism is dead. The unitary state is the new rage.

 

We have a LONG way to go, before the debating settles more and we move away from this wanton blood lust and greed in our society. But every time I see this and related discussions... the term "well regulated" keeps coming to mind. And in truth, I'm pretty certain what we have going on, is NOT 'well regulated'; it's actually a fracking sieve, full of gaps... weaved via fantasy and foolish stubbornness.

I and millions of others, do intend to LOBBY AGAINST the status quo and for many good reasons.

So be it!!

Here is a voice of reason.

 

Congress may only enact legislation necessary to carry into execution it enumerated powers. None of its enumerated powers are to license and register guns.

 

the supreme court says you don't know what you're talking about

 

Then feel free to educate everyone else on what needs to be done. You have bemoaned that the member Bryan, a seasoned prosecuting attorney, has explained in detail how your position is not grounded in reality. Feel free to explain how your knowledge of matters pertaining to law, are superior to those of a seasoned prosecuting attorney, whose entire career is contingent upon knowing the various ins and outs of the law. Be detailed in your disassembling of his position that universal background checks, and centralized databases cannot be easily subverted through false reportings of theft, and how their existence is invaluable.

You have thrown down the gauntlet, and now you are being challenged to defend your position, or abandon it entirely. Prove that your knowledge is superior to that of everyone else involved in the discussion, and how you should be given more credibility that anyone else.

 

Oh, can the Supreme Court point to congress' enumerated power to require license and registration of firearms? You are impotent to do so; maybe they can.

 

"Well Regulated"

I'm there.

 

I don't see that anywhere in article one section eight (congress' powers). Can you post section eight and highlight the relevant text?

 

Not my job as a layperson and individual citizen.

My only duty here on this board, is to let you know my opinion. And of course I know we disagree.

We WILL contend politically and in our nation's courts.

I'm FOR the 2nd Amendment... but not everyone's interpretation of the same.

 

The member Bryan, a seasoned prosecuting attorney, has explained in detail precisely why your position is incorrect.

Seeing as his career requires him to know the legal and physical limitations of the law, he is the default expert on the matter. If you do not agree with his assessment, explain precisely why he is wrong, and should be disregarded as knowing nothing.

 

We aren't lawyers or lawmakers.

I know the outcomes I wish to see, and they are different from those you would pursue.

That is the reality we have before us.

 

your thinking is too narrow to see the meaning of the constitution

 

Their firearm-related homicide rate has always been a fraction of that of the united states. Do not engage in intellectual dishonesty in this discussion, it will not be allowed.

You were asked to post a link directly to the NRA site itself that supports your position. Precisely why is it so hard for you to do that? Their site is hardly the most difficult to navigate. If such material exists, then cite it. Otherwise refrain from your argument due to lack of credible proof.

- - - Updated - - -

The supreme court has not held the second amendment to empower congress to enact firearm-related restrictions. It has held that it empowers private citizens to act in their own defense with effective force.

 

Then perhaps it would be best to refrain engaging in discussion on which you admit to possessing no knowledge of. An expert has already testified on why your proposal will bear no fruit, and thus have no legitimate use to justify its existence. Why should a seasoned prosecuting attorney be given less credibility than you, when he is the one who must know the legal and physical impossibilities of the law itself?

You are the one claiming that the experts on the matter possess less knowledge than yourself. Perhaps you should prove such.

 

it's a fraction of ours because they have a smart system of gun control

you don't know what you're talking about

 

i am curious-what should happen to those who constantly claim that there is no plan to confiscate guns-if such a plan manifests itself. I was in England around 1994 shooting for the USA as an athlete. I heard that the gun registry in England was merely designed to prevent Crime and would never be used for confiscation. a few years later, Dunblane massacre happened and the UK engaged in a collective bed wetting which made licensed pistol owners the scapegoats and confiscated their property.


BTW your citation to a biased lie spewing anti gun propaganda center is hilarious

the Law center to prevent gun violence is almost as bad as the Vile Propaganda Center (VPC) when it comes to half truths, ignoring facts and blatant mendacity