So if Muslims in America started organizing militias...

[RobDownSouth]

I did, but I shot them all.

You fathered children? Quite an accomplishment for a guy who has never been on a second date with a woman.

 

[Boxlicker101]

If you have to be licensed, then it's a privilege.

License is from licet, licere: "it is permitted."

There was a time when the state granted permission for two people to marry, back when black/white marriages were not permitted in many States, but today the "license" isn't denied and isn't revoked, so it's lost the function of a license even though it retains the name.

Some jurisdictions don't issue marriage licenses, but marriage certificates, and many recognize Common Law marriages.

I don't believe marriage is a right, comparable to speech, etc. However, it is more than a privilege. It's a contract between two people but, before that contract can be undertaken, the participants must attest to certain things, such as not being already married and being otherwise eligible. They also must be able to prove the marriage is genuine, not a sham entered into in order to gain legal immigrant status or some other benefit not usually considered a part of the marriage contract. The recent marriage of Kim Kardashian might be considered a sham, depending on overall circumstances.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I'm not even for the tax part...just regulatory licencing/training.

No criminals won't give a rip....but the criminals won't have a licence either meaning if they get caught with guns without a licence they lose their shit and go to jail. Allowing LE to bring the hammer down on those non law abiding citizens in possession of weapons.

What do you think happens today? The police run their ID, find out they're convicted felons, and they lose their shit and go to jail. A license is unnecessary.

But if you are a law abiding citizen, have behaved and demonstrate competency with a firearm you get a licence and if questioned you just show your licence and go on about your merry way.

And what happens now? The police run your ID, find out you've no priors, not even been arrested, and you go on about your merry way. Same thing. No need for a license.

The only other two options are continue the free for all semi grey half ass regulated failure we currently have until enough bad shit happens the left get's their way. Or go with the dumb shit's on the left for more idiotic assault weapons bans...and we all know what a brilliant success those are.

As shown above, when the police detain someone, the same thing happens now as would happen with a license.

So we can all work together and try to accomplish something productive, or continue the all or nothing partisan pissing contest until one side wins and we are back to square one.......which is the most likely outcome anyhow but hey...doesn't hurt to try.

I don't see your proposal as productive; I see it as a gun-grabber's wet dream. This is the sort of place where you find this idea being floated:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...guns-in-the-US-and-only-2-deaths-in-80-years#

 

[BotanyBoy]

I don't see your proposal as productive;

Why not it's proven to be quite effective...why would it hurt to try? You even said yourself it wouldn't be any different. If you streamlined it into a functioning system so that it was just another part of the DPS just like CHL/CCW's...1 time pain in the dick and 15 min on line at the DPS website each year....hell just make CHL's required for gun ownership, various endorsements for different class's of weapons just like a DL...

I see it as a gun-grabber's wet dream.

But then I realized you were fucking nuts....

This is the sort of place where you find this idea being floated:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...guns-in-the-US-and-only-2-deaths-in-80-years#

What is so bad about that?

 

[cjh]

I don't believe marriage is a right, comparable to speech, etc. However, it is more than a privilege. It's a contract between two people but, before that contract can be undertaken, the participants must attest to certain things, such as not being already married and being otherwise eligible. They also must be able to prove the marriage is genuine, not a sham entered into in order to gain legal immigrant status or some other benefit not usually considered a part of the marriage contract. The recent marriage of Kim Kardashian might be considered a sham, depending on overall circumstances.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/case.html

 

[cjh]

So? As I said, it's a license in name only.

When?

Whose analysis?

It's already illegal for convicted felons to possess firearms. What would be the point?

Is it revokable?

Byron, you proved the sophistication of your constitutional analysis when you argued vehemently that Florida's Doc v. Clocks law did not infringe the First Amendment.

A license requiring safety training is not a license in name only. As Koala indicated, some states already require that. There's a good chance a licensing scheme including that requirement would survive 2nd Amendment review.

Here's a First Amendment licensing case for you.

4. A state law providing that no parade or procession upon any public street shall be permitted unless a special license therefor shall first be obtained from the selectmen of the town, or from a licensing committee for the city, and subjecting any violator to a fine, held constitutional, in view of its construction by the state supreme court, as applied to members of the band of "Jehovah's Witnesses," who marched in groups of from fifteen to twenty members each, in close single files, along the sidewalks in the business district of a populous city, each marcher carrying a sign or placard with "informational" inscriptions. P. 312 U. S. 575.

5. In exercise of its power to license parades on city streets, the State may charge a license fee reasonably adjusted to the occasion, for meeting administrative and police expenses. P. 312 U. S. 576.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/case.html

Well, the analysis certainly would not be yours. Or mine. The Supreme Court regularly employs tests to determine whether a statute or regulation unconstitutionally interferes with a citizens right. My guess is that it would employ a strict scrutiny analysis.

 

[koalabear]

You fathered children? Quite an accomplishment for a guy who has never been on a second date with a woman.

^^Slob can't keep his mind off children.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Byron, you proved the sophistication of your constitutional analysis when you argued vehemently that Florida's Doc v. Clocks law did not infringe the First Amendment.

"Vehemently"? Link plz.

A license requiring safety training is not a license in name only.

I was addressing your faulty marriage license analogy, if you recall.

And yes, if they're like California, then it is a license in name only. In fact, in California you get what's called a "Handgun Safety Certificate" which lets you buy 60 handguns. I'm pretty sure it would pass Supreme Court scrutiny, since it doesn't obstruct or deny one's 2nd Amendment rights, except for people who are severely mentally deficient, like Rob.

But there is no license required to own a firearm in California, and no requirement to register it (although they've found a way around the latter as I've explained a couple of times already).

As for other States, it looks as though they're like California, except Massachusetts, which looks suspicious.

As Koala indicated, some states already require that. There's a good chance a licensing scheme including that requirement would survive 2nd Amendment review.

I'm not so sure. Let's try and find the worst State of all. Perhaps one that requires a license for firearm ownership.

Here's a First Amendment licensing case for you.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/case.html

"Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 388 U. S. 4-12."

^ Is that what you meant to link to? Looks more like an interracial marriage case to me.

Well, the analysis certainly would not be yours. Or mine. The Supreme Court regularly employs tests to determine whether a statute or regulation unconstitutionally interferes with a citizens right. My guess is that it would employ a strict scrutiny analysis.

Since it would be dealing with the possible infringement of a fundamental right, I'd say it'd better.

 

[Byron In Exile]

^^Slob can't keep his mind off children.

Yeah, wtf is that about?

 

[cjh]

"Vehemently"? Link plz.

I was addressing your faulty marriage license analogy, if you recall.

And yes, if they're like California, then it is a license in name only. In fact, in California you get what's called a "Handgun Safety Certificate" which lets you buy 60 handguns. I'm pretty sure it would pass Supreme Court scrutiny, since it doesn't obstruct or deny one's 2nd Amendment rights, except for people who are severely mentally deficient, like Rob.

But there is no license required to own a firearm in California, and no requirement to register it (although they've found a way around the latter as I've explained a couple of times already).

As for other States, it looks as though they're like California, except Massachusetts, which looks suspicious.

I'm not so sure. Let's try and find the worst State of all. Perhaps one that requires a license for firearm ownership.

"Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 388 U. S. 4-12."

^ Is that what you meant to link to? Looks more like an interracial marriage case to me.

Since it would be dealing with the possible infringement of a fundamental right, I'd say it'd better.

Serious question--do you have Asperger's or a related disorder?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Serious question--do you have Asperger's or a related disorder?

Byron Littlefella in a nutshell:
http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1340/33/1340336204749.jpg

 

[Dream59]

Nothing like using the people your nation conquered to prove the righteousness of your own self-indulgent cause. What hypocritical crap. (Just to clarify, I'm referring to the stupid billboard.)

Nothing like using the families of murdered children to push gun legislation that would not have save those same families children.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Nothing like using the families of murdered children to push gun legislation that would not have save those same families children.

Nothing like using convenient rhetoric after shit happens to other people besides yourself.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Serious question--do you have Asperger's or a related disorder?

Are you as challenged at reading comprehension as you appear to be?

 

[saberhab1]

Back to the topic

None of the Bill of Rights stands alone and can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with organizing Militia...that was already established in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16. There Congress is granted its powers for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions, and thus organizing, arming, disciplining, and training the Militia. Article 2, Section 2 Clause 1 empowers the President as commander in chief of the Militia, as well as the Army and Navy.

The only way the states would ratify the Constitution and accept the Federal Militia was that it be well regulated by the people. "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." In other words, if the Militia is not well regulated by the people keeping and bearing arms, the Militia becomes a threat to the security of a free state.

So, Jon Stewart's premise is flawed. The Militia has no right to keep and bear arms. Rather, it is only the right of the people to keep and bear arms (that) shall not be infringed. Also, I suspect that people who are current members of "militia" groups would want nothing to do with the word, if they understood how the Constitution defines it.

 

[cjh]

Are you as challenged at reading comprehension as you appear to be?

Meh. I read well enough to have understood that when Florida restricted private physicians' speech with their patients, both the patients' and the physicians' First Amendment rights had been compromised.

It clearly isn't a 1st Amendment case. I just don't see a lawyer making a ridiculous argument like that without being paid to do it, nor can I see one resorting to the sort of transparent tap dance routine CJH is performing here even then.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=37568021&postcount=634

A federal judge has blocked the state of Florida from enforcing a new law pushed by firearm advocates that banned thousands of doctors from discussing gun ownership with their patients.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke, who had already issued a preliminary injunction last September, made her decision permanent late Friday when she ruled in favor of groups of physicians who asserted the state violated their free speech rights. She said the law was so “vague” that it violated the First Amendment rights of doctors, noting the legislation’s privacy provisions “fail to provide any standards for practitioners to follow.”

The physicians’ lawsuit, an ideological battle between advocates of free speech and the right to bear arms, has been dubbed “Docs vs. Glocks.” The state Department of Health could appeal her summary judgment, which addressed legislation signed into law last year by Gov. Rick Scott.

In her 25-page ruling, Cooke clearly sided with the physicians, saying evidence showed that physicians began “self-censoring” because of the “chilling” effect of the legislation.

“What is curious about this law — and what makes it different from so many other laws involving practitioners’ speech — is that it aims to restrict a practitioner’s ability to provide truthful, non-misleading information to a patient, whether relevant or not at the time of the consult with the patient,” Cooke wrote, citing the benefit of such “preventive medicine.”

“The state asserts that it has an interest in protecting the exercise of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms,” Cooke wrote in another section about the Second Amendment issue. “I do not disagree that the government has such an interest in protecting its citizens’ fundamental rights. The Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act, however, simply does not interfere with the right to keep and bear arms.”

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/...i-federal-judge-sides-with.html#storylink=cpy

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/02/v-fullstory/2879089/miami-federal-judge-sides-with.html

Forgive me, Byron, if I place more confidence in my ability to read the law than I do yours.

 

[JohnnySavage]

(In 1789, "well regulated" referred to the training the militia received, not its membership or armaments)

 

[eyer]

....democracy is a real bitch when it doesn't go your way isn't it?

What's really funny is you thinking America is a "democracy"...

...of course, I may be just speaking fact to a brain bowl full of jello again because you've given basically total indication that you really don't give a crap that the Constitution dictates a republican form of government to specifically prevent the exact type of "democracy" majority rule-loving lemmings like you crave.

As the the self-appointed fluffer of the most well-informed generation the world has ever known...

...you're doing an excellent job, though.

 

[eyer]

(In 1789, "well regulated" referred to the training the militia received, not its membership or armaments)

And your fountain of knowledge for that offering is what?

 

[eyer]

So we can all work together and try to accomplish something productive, or continue the all or nothing partisan pissing contest until one side wins and we are back to square one.......which is the most likely outcome anyhow but hey...doesn't hurt to try.

Dude, there's nothing "partisan" about it:

You believe a majority in a "democracy" has the authority to remove every individual's unalienable rights if it so desires (thus proving you do not recognize - or maybe you just don't understand what the word means - unalienable rights at all)...

...while the Constitution specifically prohibits any such thing at all.

You understand that, in factual essence, you and your "side" are advocating for the complete repealing of the republican form of government the Constitution dictates, right?

Answer this, fluff Boy:

Where does your and/or the majority's authority root from that gives you any power to disavow any individual's unalienable rights...

...except from brute force?

 

[bigkahuna9]

... buying up thousands of assault rifles they purchased online without any sort of background checks, would Conservatives be alright with it? Maybe they start training out in the woods somewhere?

How long until this happens? How would Conservatives react?

I believe they would be quickly outnumbered and a great target. When do we start ?

 

[phrodeau]

I believe they would be quickly outnumbered and a great target. When do we start ?

Right away. Just use a Jew for bait.

 

[BotanyBoy]

What's really funny is you thinking America is a "democracy"...

To an extent it is....that's why it's called a democratic republic.

the Constitution dictates a republican form of government to specifically prevent the exact type of "democracy" majority rule-loving lemmings like you crave.
.

Uhhh no it doesn't derpina....it dictates certain aspects of both in order to buffer each other.

Sure some things get pushed and the republican aspects of our gov win out...they regulate the mob rule no doubt.

But sometimes if enough people back something... 2/3 of them or more if I'm not mistaken... then the clearly democratic aspects of our gov win out.

The split senate/house congress is another clear example of the republican/democratic duality of our gubbmint...with the same intent of senate/mob rule buffering each other.

Dude, there's nothing "partisan" about it:

You believe a majority in a "democracy" has the authority to remove every individual's unalienable rights if it so desires (thus proving you do not recognize - or maybe you just don't understand what the word means - unalienable rights at all)...

Considering your rights are nothing more than social constructs that live within the minds of the other people within your community (the USA) who have all agreed to respect those imaginary social constructs under penalty of law....they are not unalienable. SORRY! as soon as enough of the herd decides you no longer have that right...it's gone bubba.

The concept of "unalienable rights" is a fallacy....they cannot exist without the herd saying they do, making them subject to what the herd says they are, making them NOT unalienable.

...while the Constitution specifically prohibits any such thing at all.

Where does it specifically prohibit amendment?

I call total bullshit...quote it.

You understand that, in factual essence, you and your "side" are advocating for the complete repealing of the republican form of government the Constitution dictates, right?

I haven't seen anyone advocate the dissolution of the senate or the reconstruction of our political process in order to eliminate the republican aspects of our gov. That is to stay....in factual essence, you are full of shit.

OH and just in case you missed this part of the other most important political document in our nations history

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

Amending.....if something isn't working for us we have the power to change it, that's why some consider it a "living document" ever herd that term?

If we the people decide any of these supposedly "Unalienable" rights become destructive we can abolish it....

Yea....like I said...they only exist b/c every agrees they do.

Answer this, fluff Boy:

Where does your and/or the majority's authority root from that gives you any power to disavow any individual's unalienable rights...

...except from brute force?

You cannot disavow that which does not exist....

Brute force is the only authority high speed.

 

[Sean Renaud]

It's not often that I say this but BotanyBoy is clearly playing below his league here. It's basically kicking a puppy. Sure this particular puppy needs kicking but it's still mean.

 

[eyer]

Where does it specifically prohibit amendment?

I call total bullshit...quote it.

You do understand the Amendment process is not democratic, right?

Brute force is the only authority high speed.

Wow, what a surprise Mr. Badazz...

...you champion "Brute force" as "the only authority" needed to enforce the abolition of Declared unalienable rights.

You maintain that if a majority decides that the unalienable right of free speech is nonsense and that speech can be regulated as much as a majority deems...

..."Brute force" is "the only authority" needed to guarantee that that mob-rule rules.

That America is not a nation of law (which intentionally and specifically dictates that the very things you champion cannot be done)...

...but is a nation of men whose arbitrary whims are authorized by whatever "Brute force" is mustered.

Have I got that right...

...you petty little friggin' wannbe tyrant?

You actually think you can abet mustering enough "Brute force" to persuade that many individual Americans that their unalienable rights aren't unalienable at all?

Maybe you ought to just go ahead and eat that bullet...

...so you can consult personally with King George about how that worked out for him.