New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Should gun possession and voting be treated the same

Abatis

Council Member
Many think that everyone should produce an document that says the person is registered with the govt in order to exercise their right to vote.
I believe the entire legitimacy of the electoral process depends upon the certainty that only those qualified to vote are permitted to cast ballots. I believe those who intend to exercise their franchise should have their eligibility predetermined and be compelled to prove their identity when casting a ballot.

If so then would they agree that this same requirement should apply to exercising an individual's right to posses firearms and ammunition.
You would be arguing against one of the imperatives that held out any and all power from government to impact in any fashion the right of the people to keep and bear arms . . . To keep in awe those in power; to remind the government that the people, as a general body, have retained and shall forever possess, the means to rescind their consent to be governed.

To argue that government should have the power to amass a list of all those who possess the means to resist illegitimate government action is an oxymoron of the highest order.

Meaning that all firearms and their ammunition in an individual's possession must be able to be matched with record for that person in a federal database.
I reject giving government that power without a restoration of a full and complete militia law. Under that constitutionally established legal framework the government is empowered to census enrolled militia members and record the particulars for the single arm that an enrolled member intends furnish himself with, and muster with, to fulfill his militia obligation.

In 1903 Congress chose to relieve the citizens of all militia obligations (by federalizing the state militias / overriding the militia Act of 1792). In doing so it extinguished any and all legitimate interest that government could be said to possess in the arms possessed by the people.

So, if you would be happy with a very limited database of guns and their civicly responsible owners then you should be lobbying Congress to reinstate a real federal Militia Act that conforms to Art I, § 8, cl's 15 & 16.

Barring that, the government is barred from instituting any such database.
 

Spamature

President
To argue that government should have the power to amass a list of all those who possess the means to resist illegitimate government action is an oxymoron of the highest order.
Voting is the primary means the people have to available to them to resist an illegitimate govt. While the force of arms is the primary means an illegitimate group would seek in overthrowing a legitimate govt.

Yet you seem to think that the govt should use technicalities to deny the people the ability to exercise that primary right.
 

Spamature

President
I find it revealing that most on the left seem to feel that little to nothing should be done to prevent voter fraud, while the right wants all that can be reasonably done to stop it implemented. I think that tells us pretty clearly who is more likely to benefit from fraudulent votes, at least in the minds of the left.
Prior to the last election we had two elections that were tainted by what many saw as ELECTION FRAUD. It wasn't the voters who tainted the 2000 and 2004 elections, it was the vote counters. I don't see any Republican effort to counter the real problem in the system only the one they drummed up to that would make election fraud on their part less necessary.
 

Abatis

Council Member
Voting is the primary means the people have to available to them to resist an illegitimate govt.
Voting is the primary means the people utilize to alter a government that is not to their liking . . . An illegitimate government is one that no longer counts the votes of the people (or on point to your opening post, either allows or cultivates the corruption of the electoral system to the point of meaninglessness).

While the force of arms is the primary means an illegitimate group would seek in overthrowing a legitimate govt.
So, you believe the mass of American gun owners and their guns should be registered and identified because they could be an illegitimate group that might seek to overthrow the "legitimate" government but that government should be elected by an anonymous mob of unquestionable, unverifiable whoevers and don'tknows we must be compelled to grace with the privilege of voting?

Is that really your position?

Yet you seem to think that the govt should use technicalities to deny the people the ability to exercise that primary right.
Such shallow thoughts . . . So incapable of intellectual integrity.

What is this primary right to vote and to what does it extend federally?
 

Spamature

President
So you consider gun owners and gun right superior to voters and voting rights ?

As for a right to vote the constitution requires that federally elected office holders (senators and congressmen) to be chosen by people and enumerates ways in which voting can't be obstructed.


PS

If you actually read what I have posted. You won't find me taking an explicit position on the issue.

I am only asking questions.

Pay attention to them instead of posting what you think of me personally.
 

ya-ta-hey

Mayor
works for me pal
Mr. Gabe,

The you undoubtably read this:

"Sale of a firearm by a federally licensed dealer must be documented by a federal form 4473, which identifies and includes other information about the purchaser, and records the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. Sales to an individual of multiple handguns within a five-day period require dealer notification to the ATF. Violations of dealer record keeping requirements are punishable by a penalty of up to $1000 and one year's imprisonment."

Sorry to ruin your snarkiness.
 

gabriel

Governor
feel free to link us to any opinion onm made on your registration laws! and that bit of info doesnt answer his question. is EVERY gun owner required to have all of his firearms registered? answer the question , pal
 

Abatis

Council Member
So you consider gun owners and gun right superior to voters and voting rights ?
Under the Constitution most definitely.

The "right" to vote is a civil right and completely a product of the social compact and the power to establish the rules for the exercise of the privilege of voting has been completely conferred to various governmental structures. You have no right to exercise a privilege of citizenship without certifying / proving you meet the required criteria (i.e., citizenship and residency in the Congressional district you are voting in).

Like voting, when the people had a public, civic obligation to perform militia duty the government possessed a power to compel the citizen to register their militia arm and assemble on muster days with it. Once relieved of said obligation, when a person was no longer obligated to perform militia duty (attaining the age of 45 years for instance) the mandate of undergoing the return of militia was relieved. Similarly, in the case of voting, there is no mandate to register yourself with the government or certify your identity / residency once one is no longer in the eligible pool of citizens (i.e., just choosing not to vote) .

However, since government has chosen to not rely on the citizenry to serve in any civil service / defense role, all governmental authority to have any interest in any arms owned by a citizen has been vacated.

We are left with just the right to arms of the citizen which represents a power never conferred to government . . . No power was ever granted to the federal government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen so NONE EXISTS. As an original, fundamental right, the right to arms is superior to a "right" to vote that is entirely dependent upon structures erected by government to exist.

If you actually read what I have posted. You won't find me taking an explicit position on the issue.
Yeah, . . . OK, whatever you say.

Pay attention to them instead of posting what you think of me personally.
Typical Progressive response.

The direct challenge to your statements is perceived as a personal attack.
 

Abatis

Council Member
feel free to link us to any opinion onm made on your registration laws! and that bit of info doesnt answer his question. is EVERY gun owner required to have all of his firearms registered? answer the question , pal
Current federal law forbids maintaining such a registration.

The information that would be used in such a database is recorded but only on form 4473 at point of purchase for the purpose of the NICS (National Instant Check System) background check. That form remains on file at the FFL and can not be electronically stored. That form is not transferred to the federal government unless the FFL goes out of business.

All personal information pertaining to an approved background check must be destroyed by start of business the following day.

"The NICS is not to be used to establish a federal firearm registry; information about an inquiry resulting in an allowed transfer is destroyed in accordance with NICS regulations. Current destruction of NICS records became effective when a final rule was published by the Department of Justice in The Federal Register, outlining the following changes. Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3), the NICS Section must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day. If a potential purchaser is delayed or denied a firearm and successfully appeals the decision, the NICS Section cannot retain a record of the overturned appeal."

FBI

Multiple purchases are recorded on a separate form and that information is transmitted to the local authorities for follow-up.

There is a destruction timeframe for that information as well which if memory serves is 90 days. Very, very few local authorities do any investigation of multiple purchases (weeding out straw buyers) which is why most have opted out of the notification as it is expensive to store and then destroy these records which nobody ever looks at.

It seems to be much easier to get legislatures to enact one gun a month laws that impact everyone instead of actually investigating those who make multiple purchases.
 

888888

Council Member
what you don't know about won't hurt you if your a law abiding citizen is what I have heard 1000 times when the patriot act was put into place. Why would an honest man worry about it? What's surprising is the patriot act was pushed by those on the right and those on the right are the ones who now are so against it. GO FIGURE

I bet Paul worries about it.
 

Spamature

President
Under the Constitution most definitely.

The "right" to vote is a civil right and completely a product of the social compact and the power to establish the rules for the exercise of the privilege of voting has been completely conferred to various governmental structures. You have no right to exercise a privilege of citizenship without certifying / proving you meet the required criteria (i.e., citizenship and residency in the Congressional district you are voting in).

Like voting, when the people had a public, civic obligation to perform militia duty the government possessed a power to compel the citizen to register their militia arm and assemble on muster days with it. Once relieved of said obligation, when a person was no longer obligated to perform militia duty (attaining the age of 45 years for instance) the mandate of undergoing the return of militia was relieved. Similarly, in the case of voting, there is no mandate to register yourself with the government or certify your identity / residency once one is no longer in the eligible pool of citizens (i.e., just choosing not to vote) .

However, since government has chosen to not rely on the citizenry to serve in any civil service / defense role, all governmental authority to have any interest in any arms owned by a citizen has been vacated.

We are left with just the right to arms of the citizen which represents a power never conferred to government . . . No power was ever granted to the federal government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen so NONE EXISTS. As an original, fundamental right, the right to arms is superior to a "right" to vote that is entirely dependent upon structures erected by government to exist.



Yeah, . . . OK, whatever you say.



Typical Progressive response.

The direct challenge to your statements is perceived as a personal attack.
2nd Amendment

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.

26th Amendment

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Both rights are spelled out as RIGHTS under the constitution. So why would you say that one right is superior to another ? Do believe it's the supreme right; above speech and assembly maybe ? As for govt construct the govt puts limits on every right even the right to keep and bear arms.

Oh and I don't know how you see it but most would consider this a direct personal attack

Such shallow thoughts . . . So incapable of intellectual integrity.
And you topped it off with an indirect one

Typical Progressive response.

The direct challenge to your statements is perceived as a personal attack.
 

oicu812

"Trust, but Verify"
there is no law compelling private transfer of firearms to be registered. buy em at a swap meet, through the want ads, from your neighbor...
 

Huskyoverlord

Council Member
I love this , what firearms are we talking about and what state? belt fed machine guns? long arms , handguns, muzzle loaders they all fall within the firearm catogory
 

oicu812

"Trust, but Verify"
fully auto firearms are, and have been regulated since the 30s...you need a license to own them, as you know..handguns, longuns, not so...buy a weapon from a dealer, its registered...buy it from yo mamma, its not,,you can choose to re-register in your name,,,but not required.
 

oicu812

"Trust, but Verify"
oh, and you can buy smooth bore muzzle loaders through many magazines without any restrictions..smooth bore cannons as well...black powder, ball and cap..you can buy insert barrels for black powder derringers that allow you to fire 22 rim fire cartridges...no background check, no registration...several magazines sell the receivers for any fully auto you want, {they have been cut, so as to make them in-operable, but fine welding and finishing can restore the receivers to operating condition} same magazines then offer the rest rest of the parts necessary to complete the weapon..since the receivers have been cut, and they are sold as "for display purposes" no laws have been violated, and if you can restore the receiver, you can build damn near any full auto military weapon ever made..on a side note...if all you want is a full auto assault weapon, buy a cheap sks, and the little booklet "how to convert your sks to full auto" you can do it in about an hour with 4 in. of weld wire and some needle nose pliers...or, buy a hellsfire, or any of the many other trigger actuators, that will allow you empty the mag in one pull, or 3-5 rd. burst..all perfectly legal...full auto is fun for about 2 mags...then, if you dont melt your barrel, you realize its a waste of ammo and money..3 rd. burst is best, and easier to achieve with a actuator that requires practice to find the "sweet spot"..many people can empty the mag on most semi-auto just by letting their finger BE the acuator..takes practice, and you gotta hold the rifle in your left hand with the butt on your hip and stick your finger through the trigger guard and let the trigger "oscillate" back and fourth on its own..again, with practice, you can empty a 30 rd. mag. in 2 sec. me, well, i would just as soon squeeze one well placed shot and avoid all the noise.
 
Top