Chicago Firearms Confiscation Begins

And you don't understand what a militia is or the fact the 2nd amendment was put in place to ensure virginia could keep it's slaves via force.

 

nice of one of you to admit that registration DOES lead to confiscation..see how easy that was?

 

The 2nd was to codify the right to self defense.... Nice race baiting with the slavery comment.

 

Absolutely, especially because our rights are not granted to us by our government but to us from our creator. This was specifically included in the Constitution to prevent our overlords from attempting to reduce or eliminate our rights.

The National Guard is at the control of each individual State government. Not the fed. This control is important because the National Guard does not report to the President. The president may call upon the individual State militias in times of national defense, but at the end of the day the militia represents the peoples interest.

 

Absolutely and 100% incorrect.

The respective state National Guards are authorized by the Constitution of the United States. As originally drafted, the Constitution recognized the existing state militias, and gave them vital roles to fill: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion." (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15). The Constitution distinguished "militias," which were state entities, from "Troops", which were unlawful for states to maintain without Congressional approval. (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3). Under current law, the respective state National Guards and the State Defense Forces are authorized by Congress to the states and are referred to as "troops." 32 U.S.C. § 109.
Though originally state entities, the Constitutional "Militia of the Several States" were not entirely independent, however, because they could be federalized. According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 14, the United States Congress is given the power to pass laws for "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Congress is also empowered to come up with the guidelines "for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" (clause 16). The President of the United States is the commander-in-chief of the state militias "when called into the actual Service of the United States." (Article II, Section 2).
The traditional state militias were redefined and recreated as the "organized militia"—the National Guard, via the Militia Act of 1903. They were now subject to an increasing amount of federal control, including having arms and accouterments supplied by the central government, federal funding, and numerous closer ties to the Regular Army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States​

Like all things USA, this is yet another example of Federal desire to remove power from the individual states. In this case, by removing the very entity INTENDED to prevent a power grab. *Ironic*

Anyway, as I served 8 years in the Army National Guard, I can tell you that the organization is comprised of citizens. If the federal government decides to get all tyrannical, they will align with the people.

 

That would be like claiming drivers licenses lead to suspension and seizer of vehicle. That is simply false.

 

No, it's been shown by several historians that Virginia had issue with the northern states and they wanted to be able to keep their slaves and wanted guarantee that they could by organizing 'militias' that were armed to make sure their slaves didn't defect. It's why it mentions STATE instead of NATION in the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't ratified until Virginia was on board with it. Keep in mind, slavery was the norm at the time.

If you're going to ignore the social structure of the time, you're ignoring the viewpoints of the founders.

 

registration DOES lead to confiscation
http://www.examiner.com/article/nyc...ain-that-gun-registration-equals-confiscation

http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-...-gun-control-confiscation-could-be-an-option/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/california-gun-confiscation-bill_n_3117238.html
hmmm, they are calling it confiscation. So. I'll take it slow.
You need one thing before you can confiscate. (I'll take this one even slower)
What is that?
You need to know where they are.
How is that done?
It is done by collecting information.
What happens to the information that was collected?
It is formed into a data base. You see, a data base is already being collected. The manufacturers keep records. The wholesalers keep records. The stores keep records. All sales are required to be reported to the BATF. So they have a pretty good idea who has what. It's just that it cannot be used to confiscate weapons unless it is for a crime, like a murder, as a national data base.. Congress is forbidden to pass such legislation. it is not only illegal, it is unlawful.
The law in NYC restricts any firearm which holds more than 3 rounds. The rest are to be turned over to the authorities. That's confiscation. And how did they know who had what? Why, that would be because of registration.
Australia called it confiscation.
NYC calls it confiscation.
Chicago calls it confiscation.
California calls it confiscation.
I guess you are wrong...............

 

If you are unfit to own a firearm, then registration tells them where and from who to confiscate a weapon.

Again.. that is no different than automobile drivers license.

 

no they dont, they totally ignore all the gangbangers and such who own guns. they only want to make it hard for law abiding citizens to protect themselves, they could care less about the criminals packing heat.

 

Doubt it. They will be placing US citizens in concentration camps along with the US military and police.

 

Not sure if a requirement for graduation is necessary. However the CMP needs to play a larger role.

 

Can you explain how it makes sense (logistically) to register your weapons with a government or authority that you may one day have to use those weapons to defend yourself against?

Can you imagine what the founding fathers would have said if the King attempted to force them to 'register their muskets' prior to the revolutionary war?

 

Well, that would be just fine if they stopped there, but now it's more than a 3 round magazine. registration allows them to go after those firearms that have a capacity of 4 rounds or more.
What's next? Kicking in your door to make sure you are in compliance with the code? WTF happened to the 4th A? Does one automatically surrender the 4th A just because he owns a firearm? And what about the 5th A......you have a gun so you may become a mass murderer? Punishment just in case?
Wow, nothing new from a gun grabber.

 

So after reading this thread I have a question about the 2nd amendment.

It says (quote from wiki)

A militia (again wiki) seems more convoluted because of the various modifications to its accepted definition.

This says (to me) that a Militia (today) requires some semblance of organization and training, rather then the consideration that anyone over 17 becomes a part of some sort of Militia that is every citizen of the US.

I would think that the focus for this amendment is for the individuals of the country to have their own 'military' force if the need to rebuff the Federal Govt is required. This also seems to run anathemas to the current idea (by some) that anyone should be able to have a gun with only the slightest of restrictions.

Is this an accurate examination or am I off?

Personally I think that nobody should be able to own a gun without taking some sort of comprehensive training class on proper usage and safety. Anything to refocus people on the idea of how dangerous guns can be without proper training, as these days there seems to be more focus on making sure people can have a gun, rather then whether they are capable and responsible enough to have said gun.

As for Registration, I am a supporter of our (Canada) system, though I know that some here disagree with it.

 

You're a little off.

It seems that you thing the right to keep and bear arms comes from the government and (more specifically from the 2nd. Amendment.

It doesn't.

The right to keep and bear arms pre-dates the Constitution and even the formation of our government, for that matter.

The 2nd Amendment is an expansion of our pre-existing right to bear arms - essentially warn the Government that "we the people" also have the right to assemble with our guns in the form of a Militia.

I was born a 'gun owner' so how do you propose to deal with that?

I didn't realize you were Canadian.... but still, I have the same question for you.

"What sense does it make to register your guns with a government that you may one day have to use your guns to defend yourself against?"

 

Rahmbo is boiling the firearms frog in Chicago.

Behold! The path to Cuba is shown!

 

Interesting. I'm curious, how was this right exemplified if not in documents used to form the Country and how it was governed? I mean, the same constitutional amendment is used to propel a segments argument that the right to bare arms must not be infringed, so why is that part the sticking point, but the Militia part glossed over?

You weren't born a gun owner. You were born to Gun Owners (a subtle difference) who (I believe) should have to have taken said training in safety and responsible usage. While I understand (born to an owner of multiple guns) the notion of being trained by ones parents, I think to actually buy a gun should require a training course.

I'll address this after, but a counter thought: do you honestly think that in this day and age, that a gun will protect you from the Government, should it decide to set its sights upon you?

Now, I personally think there needs to be a balance between the Gun Owners rights, and the Right of the Government to protect it's people from themselves. I think our system strikes that balance, in that to own a gun, you must have a PAL (a license to own a gun, which you cannot acquire without taking a proper training and handling course). Once you own a PAL, you may own as many unrestricted firearms as you desire. They aren't registered, which means if you wished to stockpile against whatever may occur, then you can do so. If someone comes to confiscate your guns, as long as you have a 'sacrificial' gun, then they would be none the wiser to what you have.

 

When the Constitution was drafted guns were simply a part of everyday life for many (if not by most) Americans. In some areas, Indians and wildlife was a threat, guns were used to provide food by hunting, used for self defense, used to form small militias and even vigilante groups. At the time our Constitution was drafted, there was no doubt or worries that our right to keep and bear guns would continue forever. When the Constitution was finally drafted and presented to the people, their concern was not about their right to keep and bear their guns for self defense, hunting, etc. Their concern was that this new government might ABUSE the power that it was being given.... and the people then insisted upon limits to that authority. And because of that, our Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution.

Somehow, over many generations - the actual history and setting (context) of the amendment has been eroded if not lost.

My point is that you can "require" all the training you want to. It's not going to keep people from finding other ways to get their hands on a gun.

Yes.

Thanks but no thanks.

 

Of course, the militia was also the military of the time. There was no professional US army at the time that was written.

And it would be nice to go back to that..

 

One more reason not to live in Chicago or even visit.

It's a dying town anyways

 

Not to undermine your point but the Marine Corps Birthday was Nov, 1775 and Indiana's Constitution wasn't passed until 1851.

If I didn't point that out, someone else probably would have.

 

Ah so your talking about the natural right being codified by said Constitution. The issue I would have with this is the context of time. Life and gun usage was very much different back then, as well we don't really know the intent by those who wrote it, other then the words they chose.

Isn't the application of constitutional law about the interpretation of the words used, rather then assumptions on what wasn't said?

I agree, so wouldn't the text of the amendment be the guiding point of todays laws?

My point wasn't to keep guns out of peoples hands, it was to make sure those who do buy them legally actually understand how to use and care for their gun in a safe and responsible manner.

Too many stories I see about accidental shootings caused by simple things like improper storage, or unsafe handling.

...Alright. You must have some kind of scope and caliber to be able to sight and stop a drone from dropping it's payload on you. Or better yet, what kind of bullet stops someone from poisoning your water supply, or planting incriminating evidence on your computer or in your house without your knowledge?

It's 2014 man, guns aren't nearly the most dangerous things a Govt can unleash upon you if it saw fit.

Hey, difference of opinion is the fuel for an intellectual existence, so cheers to you.

 

Guns and the rights of Americans to own them absolutely pre-dates the U.S. Constitution. Our 2nd President John Adams used to take a gun to his grade school every day and shoot it on his walk home. Now we have Liberals / Democrats / Progressives attempting to take away our ability to own, keep, and bear arms. In the state of California you cannot open or conceal carry anymore.

 

If you know your history and if you read the documents that accompanied the drafting of the Constitution, you can. There are many quotes from the framers, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist papers, etc.

Yeah... Judges and lawmakers are supposed to be more informed than they actually are though. Unfortunately.

We don't live in a complete vacuum though, so we have a lot more than just to wording of the amendments and AGAIN, we are talking about rights that actually PRE-DATE the constitution, besides.

There are trained police officers who still have accidents with guns. I'm not opposed to safety education, but we have to be real about the fact that accidents will still happen.

You didn't ask me about that. You asked me if I could protect myself with a gun and I can. As a former Marine, I know better than most about our government's capabilities. I can still defend myself with a gun - at least until a bullet with my name on it actually finds me.

I never said they were.

Skawl!