They cannot license our Constitutional rights

[BernieP]

Originally Posted by migtig

I've read the federalist papers and much more. I'm actually quite well rounded in my knowledge.

Which is why I say the rights that you presume that you have per the US Consititution do NOT exist anylonger. What remains is an illusion. The US Federal government is so large and so powerful, something it was never meant to be, is now unstoppable. If they want to take away your guns, they will. It's just a matter of time. Look at MD, they want it so that if you don't follow their law, you will go to jail for three years. You are not an individual with rights. You are a servant to the government. They own you from birth to death.

ummm I don't think we disagree. Our rights, as defined in the constitution, have been eroded by the ever increasing size of government - at least those portions of the government that deal with regulations.
Over the years we have allowed the courts to broadly interpret the constitution to give up our rights in certain areas.
The 2 most over used, The Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. "During the Marshall Court era, Commerce Clause interpretation empowered Congress to gain jurisdiction over numerous aspects of intrastate and interstate commerce as well as non-commerce. During the post-1937 era, the use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to authorize federal control of economic matters became effectively unlimited. Since the latter half of the Rehnquist Court era, Congressional use of the Commerce Clause has become slightly restricted again, being limited only to matters of trade (whether interstate or not) and production (whether commercial or not)."
In fact it will probably be the commerce clause that will allow the government to force private, religious hospitals to perform abortions. Which will in essence pit the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, against the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[BernieP]

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.
Unless you live in Chicago, New York, Maryland....

[spr1975wshs]

Originally Posted by BernieP

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.
Unless you live in Chicago, New York, Maryland....

Once the words "...of the people..." completely cease to mean the individual citizen in good standing in the 2nd Amendment, the rest of the Founding Documents mean nothing.

[ylexot]

Originally Posted by DEEKAYPEE8569

Oh.....well, I have all I feel I need. Picture a 9 on right hip; the other 9 strapped to the ankle; a quiver with a .22 bolt-action and another quiver with a 12ga; each of these strapped to the back.

For the long gun, I'd like to get a break-action shotgun and this:
http://www.gearupcenter.com/products...pre-order.html

[DipStick]

People like me may not like it, but the Second Amendment IS absolute.

[foodcritic]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

I heard that on some radio program today when I was coming home from school.

The concept being that if we agree we have a right to keep and bear arms under our Constitution, the government has no business requiring us to be licensed in order to do so.

Sounds good, right?

Where it falls apart is that we also have a right to free speech, yet we must have a license in order to form a mass physical protest, such as a march or gathering on the Mall.

We have a right to privacy, yet must obtain a license in order to marry.

We have a right to interstate travel, but must have a license in order to do so while driving a vehicle.

We have a right to vote, yet must be registered to do so.

Etc etc.

I think most conservatives would agree that it's a good idea to require drivers to be trained and licensed. Also a good idea to register voters in order to prevent fraud. Most likely a good idea to make protest groups obtain an assembly license before they just start taking over every city street.

Discuss?

Interesting. Our free speech is not licensed yet. Protests as large groups require permits but only in certain areas. No one has to have a drivers license in theory. Even if you own a car you dont have to have insurance unless u put it on the road.

[Merlin99 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by foodcritic

Interesting. Our free speech is not licensed yet. Protests as large groups require permits but only in certain areas. No one has to have a drivers license in theory. Even if you own a car you dont have to have insurance unless u put it on the road.

There are a lot of places (including here) that you are not allowed to have an unlicensed vehicle, doesn't matter what it looks like if it isn't on the road it's a public hazard subject to ticketing and confiscation.

[BernieP]

Originally Posted by Merlin99

There are a lot of places (including here) that you are not allowed to have an unlicensed vehicle, doesn't matter what it looks like if it isn't on the road it's a public hazard subject to ticketing and confiscation.

First, equating driving and motor vehicle ownership with with the gun control is out of order, you don't have a constitutional right (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) for owning and operating a vehicle.

That said...

There are also a lot of exemptions (not sure of MD).
For example, "Farm Use" vehicles are exempt and you can even buy tax exempt fuel fo ruse on the farm.

Registration of vehicles and licensing drivers were not designed to control ownership and operation of motor vehciles, they were designed to
1. Raise revenue to build and maintain the roadways those vehciles required to operate, to promote the common good.

2. Because you share those roadways with others, a common set of operating guidelines need to be put in place or chaos would exist - sort of like 235

The goal of most of the ant-gun ownership legisltion is to deter the legal ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens.

If you want to go back to the motor vehcile comparison, do we make owning an operating a motor vehcile more difficult because a minority choose to ignore the law?
If we reacted to each "driving without a license" or operating a motor vehicle without proper registration infraction like we do the gun debate, none of us would be driving. No, we fine and imprision those caught breaking the law, we don't increase the rules on ownership, we don't make getting a license impossible, we punish the law breaker.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Merlin99

There are a lot of places (including here) that you are not allowed to have an unlicensed vehicle, doesn't matter what it looks like if it isn't on the road it's a public hazard subject to ticketing and confiscation.

You can buy any vehicle you want and, if it never leaves your property, you don't need to license it or register it or insure it. The gun grabbers don't want you to have 'scary' gun, no matter what. Even if it never leaves your home.

Next straw man, please. I been working on this.

[Merlin99 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by BernieP

First, equating driving and motor vehicle ownership with with the gun control is out of order, you don't have a constitutional right (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) for owning and operating a vehicle.

That said...

There are also a lot of exemptions (not sure of MD).
For example, "Farm Use" vehicles are exempt and you can even buy tax exempt fuel fo ruse on the farm.

Registration of vehicles and licensing drivers were not designed to control ownership and operation of motor vehciles, they were designed to
1. Raise revenue to build and maintain the roadways those vehciles required to operate, to promote the common good.

2. Because you share those roadways with others, a common set of operating guidelines need to be put in place or chaos would exist - sort of like 235

The goal of most of the ant-gun ownership legisltion is to deter the legal ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens.

If you want to go back to the motor vehcile comparison, do we make owning an operating a motor vehcile more difficult because a minority choose to ignore the law?
If we reacted to each "driving without a license" or operating a motor vehicle without proper registration infraction like we do the gun debate, none of us would be driving. No, we fine and imprision those caught breaking the law, we don't increase the rules on ownership, we don't make getting a license impossible, we punish the law breaker.

You reading the response as me relating gun control to car ownership, didn't even consider it at the time. I was responding only to FC's statement that "even if you own a car, you don't have to have insurance unless it's on the road", if you can't have the car unless it has tags, and you can't have tags without insurance, you can't have a car without insurance (A=B, B=C, A must also equal C).