It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security

page: 11
16
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

with fraudulent papers, i imagine.




posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus




with fraudulent papers, i imagine.
Not in California anyway.

Governor Brown signed AB 60 into law in 2013, directing the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to issue an original driver’s license to any California resident who is eligible for a driver’s license, regardless of immigration status. An applicant who does not have proof of lawful presence can receive an AB 60 license. An AB 60 license will have a visible distinguishing feature and cannot be used for certain federal purposes, such as to enter restricted areas of federal facilities. AB 60 driver’s licenses are available since January 2nd, 2015.

driveca.org...



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Where is the regulated part? That sounds like maintaining the possibility of forcing young men into military service. BTW, do you think that excludes women from your "militia?"

Well regulated would be where the government enacts laws that require registration for the purpose of armed conflicts. While Congress can reauthorize a draft the argument stands. If the government is going to classify its citizens in the event of needed military service, then its a well regulated militia.

Considering congress is responsible for drafting the law it currently does not apply to women. SCOTUS actually ruled in a challenge to this topic when they stated women can not be compelled to register for the draft because at the time of the ruling they were not allowed to be in combat units. Now that combat positions are being opened to women I see a change in the law / second appeal to SCOTUS on that topic.



originally posted by: Phage Yes, as well as giving the states the right to regulate that ownership.

Within certain legal boundaries established by law / scotus rulings. One of the main reasons the FEderal government is head deep in that argument is because of how guns are manufactured - IE supplies that cross state lines are subject to the commerce clause of the constitution. When a gun manufacturer is able to produce guns in one state without supplies coming from another state then things will change at the federal level.


The 2nd amendment is applied to the individuals and the ability to restrict that amendment requires very specific information in a very specific box.


originally posted by: Phage Cute. Did you make that up by yourself? I have different definitions of the words.


actually no I didn't.

It comes from the arguments / justifications made when the Colonies decide to rebel against British rule. Without guns the chances of that rebellion being successful would have been 0. Since our legal system is based initially on English common law (French Napoleonic code for Louisiana) we were in fact considered subjects of the crown.

An unarmed population are subjects.
An armed population are citizens.

If you want cute -
The sun never sets on the British Empire.... Because God doesn't trust the British in the dark.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You are missing one key component of the 14th amendment.

The US Congress is responsible for proscribing what is accepted as full faith and credit between the states under the 14th amendment.

The State and Federal government are spate sovereigns and both entities have their respective laws when it comes to guns, so both entities can charge an individual for the same crimes (but only under certain circumstances) without violating double jeopardy.

Scotus has ruled, as Phage suggested in his post, that the government can establish the means in which how people can obtain a gun. Its one of the reasons a lot of states were able to move from may issue to shall issue. The state gets a time period to ensure the individual in question can legally purchase and own a firearm. Absent any information that would disqualify, the state cannot prevent an individual from obtaining a firearm.

A person who is denied a firearm has legal remedies under the law to challenge the decision preventing them from obtaining a firearm. As with criminal charges and prosecution its incumbent on the state to make their case for the denial.

Cruel and unusual punishment does not apply since that amendment refers to individuals involved in criminal proceedings who have been charged with a crime. that covers pre trial detention and post trial convictions.

The 14th amendment did not apply all amendments to the states. The 7th amendment do this day has never been applied to the stats (jury trial for civil proceedings).



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well regulated would be where the government enacts laws that require registration for the purpose of armed conflicts.
So, you consider all registered 18 years olds to be part of a "well regulated militia?" I don't. How are they "regulated?" Send a card in they get back to important things like chasing women? How about felons? Are they exempt from that "regulated militia" which is the Selective Service?


Now that combat positions are being opened to women I see a change in the law / second appeal to SCOTUS on that topic.
Do you see a SCOTUS decision in the works which ties draft registration to gun regulation too? Because there isn't one now (felons).


When a gun manufacturer is able to produce guns in one state without supplies coming from another state then things will change at the federal level.
I don't see how that applies to states rights to regulate firearms.



It comes from the arguments / justifications made when the Colonies decide to rebel against British rule.
I have different definitions for the words.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
So, you consider all registered 18 years olds to be part of a "well regulated militia?" I don't. How are they "regulated?" Send a card in they get back to important things like chasing women? How about felons? Are they exempt from that "regulated militia" which is the Selective Service?

Yes its part of a well regulated militia. The definition of militia now days is the same as in the 1700's. A militia is defined as citizen soldiers / non professionals. A law exists that requires registration and is therefore well regulated.

Also an individual must update their locations with selective service up until the age of 25. The US also has contingencies allowing for individuals to be drafted beyond that age in addition to the IRR's.



originally posted by: Phage Do you see a SCOTUS decision in the works which ties draft registration to gun regulation too? Because there isn't one now (felons).


Certain disqualifiable events can prevent a person from joining the military in addition to obtaining a firearm. My point however is the argument people make about well regulated militia while ignoring the selective service laws. Failure to register can result in 5 years in prison, making it a felony.




originally posted by: Phage I don't see how that applies to states rights to regulate firearms.
Without sources crossing state boundaries the federal government can lose enforcement abilities based on how federal law is written. The Commerce clause is the basis for federal action in areas that would normally be construed as a solely state issue.

The Federal government / DOT requires the drinking age to be 21 years old. States are not required to comply with that federal requirement / law. In the case they don't, the Feds don't have to supply highway funding to said state.

There is a separate government agency that exists solely for the selective service system. This includes protocols for registration of available age males, draft procedures, etc. That would be well regulated. As I stated before now that women are allowed in combat roles Congress can amend the law to allow for the drafting of females.


All of which is a moot point considering SCOTUS says its an individual right.



originally posted by: Phage
I have different definitions for the words.


Whats your definition then?
edit on 19-7-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I don't consider drug dealers,gangs,the state, and the federal government all being better armed the the average gun owner as 'well regulated'.

Further more i don't consider that state that I have to get permission to buy a gun from which is the largest arms dealer in the world has any right to dictate to me or any other gun owner what we can or can't own.

IF a felon has paid their debt to society then that debt has been paid. No one not even the state has the right to beat them over the head with it for the rest of their lives.

As to 18 years eh.

The are good enough to go fight wars for the state, and kill people in it's name.

There are no different definitions to 'shall not be infringed'

Or DENY or DISPARAGE.

The right to keep, and bear arms was not 'conditional'.

To state the obvious again the ACT of murder is illegal so the point of superfluous laws is WHAT ?
edit on 19-7-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes its part of a well regulated militia. The definition of militia now days is the same as in the 1700's. A militia is defined as citizen soldiers / non professionals. A law exists that requires registration and is therefore well regulated.
Registering for Selective Service does not make one a soldier. Professional or otherwise.


. My point however is the argument people make about well regulated militia while ignoring the selective service laws.
That would probably be because there is no connection.

Failure to register can result in 5 years in prison, making it a felony.
Actually, it is not the sentence which makes it a felony. But so what?



All of which is a moot point considering SCOTUS says its an individual right.
Yes. And it is not the only right which carries state regulation. You have an indidvidual right to marry. I don't think your state will let you marry your sister, but I could be wrong.



Whats your definition then?
A citizen is one who participates in one's governance. A subject is one who does not. Arms don't have much to do with that.









edit on 7/19/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

No, the 18th century definition of "well regulated" means "well trained". It has absolutely nothing to do with registering or licensing regulations. I suggest you look this up in a real 18th century dictionary.

Or go back in this thread and read my post which links to the primary source research on this definition.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage Registering for Selective Service does not make one a soldier. Professional or otherwise.


Correct and as I stated before the definition of a militia clearly establishes non professional / civilian soldiers. The 2nd states well regulated militia.




originally posted by: Phage
That would probably be because there is no connection.

except for that whole well regulated militia portion of the 2nd.




originally posted by: Phage Actually, it is not the sentence which makes it a felony. But so what?


Actually the punishment does in fact distinguish itself as either a felony or a misdemeanor. Anytime a sentence results in more than one year in a correctional facility is in fact a felony. The States and Federal government use the same standard for length of incarceration and whether its a felony or misdemeanor.



originally posted by: Phage
Yes. And it is not the only right which carries state regulation. You have an indidvidual right to marry. I don't think your state will let you marry your sister, but I could be wrong.

A state cannot restrict a Constitutional right nor pass a law that's in conflict with a state law or federal law. Scotus has ruled some restrictions can be placed by state governments so long as they don't violate a persons right. Background checks do not violate the ruling.



originally posted by: Phage A citizen is one who participates in one's governance. A subject is one who does not. Arms don't have much to do with that.


In the US the government gains its legitimacy and authority from the peoples consent. Secondly the US is not a democracy but a Constitutional Representative Republic. By extension the people who are elected represent the people. Prior to the formation of the US the colonies had issues because they were being taxed without representation. they had no say in their overall governance as absolute authority resided with the Crown.

The only way to safeguard against being a subject is to ensure the people have the means to keep the government in check, up to and including the ability to change that government should they lose the consent of the people by acting against their interests. It was a key point specifically listed in our Declaration of Independence.

Again going back to the individual right to bear arms and a well regulated militia.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Correct and as I stated before the definition of a militia clearly establishes non professional / civilian soldiers.
And registering for Selective Service does not make one a soldier, professional or otherwise.


A state cannot restrict a Constitutional right nor pass a law that's in conflict with a state law or federal law. Scotus has ruled some restrictions can be placed by state governments so long as they don't violate a persons right. Background checks do not violate the ruling.
Yes. That's what I said.



Secondly the US is not a democracy but a Constitutional Representative Republic.
I know. I did not say otherwise.



Again going back to the individual right to bear arms and a well regulated militia.
You have the right to bear arms. Your state has the right to regulate that.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

I never claimed it did. I stated SCOTUS allows the states to put in place procedures to acquire a firearm with the only ability to deny the ownership if it meets strict criteria. If it doesn't meet the criteria the government cannot deny the weapon without violating the 2nd amendment / scotus rulings.

As for well regulated I was arguing that the system the Feds have in place is in fact a key segment in a well regulated militia as it solely deals with civilians and not members of the armed forces.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
And registering for Selective Service does not make one a soldier, professional or otherwise.

Yup back to that whole pesky well regulated militia portion of the 2nd and the fact a militia is made up of civilians.


originally posted by: Phage

I know. I did not say otherwise.


This goes back to why the 2nd amendment was put in place. The ability of the citizens to protect itself from an unjust government. Prior to the revolution the people were subjects of the Crown. After independence they became citizens. In order to protect that status and prevent the government from pulling a King George the people got the gun.



originally posted by: Phage You have the right to bear arms. Your state has the right to regulate that.

Only to the extent of needing strict criteria in order to deny a firearm. Absent that they cant do anything else.


What Obama is pushing is already in place at the state level.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yup back to that whole pesky well regulated militia portion of the 2nd and the fact a militia is made up of civilians.
But you said:


Correct and as I stated before the definition of a militia clearly establishes non professional / civilian soldiers.
Registering for Selective Service does not make one a soldier, professional/civilian or otherwise.



What Obama is pushing is already in place at the state level.
Pretty much. Which makes it moot. But it is different in that it ties to the Social Security definition of incompetance. Probably won't amount to much, since the purvue is clearly the states'.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Registering for Selective Service does not make one a soldier, professional/civilian or otherwise.


It makes the individual subject to it and they are considered at all times to be available for military service in the event of a draft. This would apply to IRR's as well.

Since they are legally required to comply they are in fact a part of a well regulated militia.

its the same as how the US government can activate civilian airliner companies for required military service.



originally posted by: Phage Pretty much. Which makes it moot. But it is different in that it ties to the Social Security definition of incompetance. Probably won't amount to much, since the purvue is clearly the states'.


If it goes to court and is ruled constitutional then I want to see the court reconsider its ruling on states requiring drivers license / citizenship to vote. I want to see the courts overturn their ruling on requiring drug testing in order to receive government assistance.

Personally speaking I think the only reason we have not seen the government descending into complete 3rd Reich mode is because of the 2nd. They are trying to chip it away as much as they can.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 12:55 AM
link   
The government is a little to late passing laws against disable people who already own unregistered guns. Do you all believe they are just going to hand them over? And all the retired military disable folks are just gonna hand over their guns? No they will not, and rightly so. These jack asses in Washington are becoming more and more tyrannical every day. The politions are committing treason against you, your country, and your Constitution. Yet we just sit at our keyboards and complain and do little to nothing. I can say this with confidence that this tyrannical regime in Washington will NEVER get the guns out of the American people hands, NEVER! It is about time for American men to grow a pair and march to Washington guns in hand and throw these corrupt parasitic Nazi out. These politions need to be charged and put in prison for their crimes of tyranny against the Constitution and We The People. The Constitution does not say disable folks cannot have guns. It is our G-d given right and has been for two hundred years now. Folk don't you see that the crooks and thieves have taken over your grate country. If we give up our guns, then all the american military men who fought WWI , WWII , and every other war was for NOTHING or your freedoms. These politicians swore an Oath to protect the Constitution. Yet here they are stripping and chiseling at it every day to destroy it. The Constitution IS THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICA, without it we have no country. I am born and bred in this great country and it sicken me to what the globalist have done to this great Nation. Sorry folks I just had to get this off my chest.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Since they are legally required to comply they are in fact a part of a well regulated militia.
No. They are potential members of the military. So are 18 year old women. But felons are not, even though they are required to register.



its the same as how the US government can activate civilian airliner companies for required military service.
No, it is not the same.



If it goes to court and is ruled constitutional then I want to see the court reconsider its ruling on states requiring drivers license / citizenship to vote.
If what goes to court?



Personally speaking I think the only reason we have not seen the government descending into complete 3rd Reich mode is because of the 2nd.
Yeah well, paranioa strikes deep. I think there are two main reasons for it. As screwed up as our leaders are, I think that they actually are Americans. As apathetic as most Americans seem to be, I don't think some of them packing iron would carry much weight against the US military. But that raises another question. That "regulated militia" you're talking about. The ones that register for Selective Service. If they are called up, doesn't that make them part of the actual military?

edit on 7/20/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Yeah well, paranioa strikes deep. I think there are two main reasons for it. As screwed up as our leaders are, I think that they actually are Americans. As apathetic as most Americans seem to be, I don't think some of them packing iron would carry much weight against the US military. But that raises another question. That "regulated militia" you're talking about. The ones that register for Selective Service. If they are called up, doesn't that make them part of the actual military?


You are wrong the militia is "We The People" you need to read the Constitution. That was the reason we the American people have the right to bar arms to over throw a tyrannical government. There are over three hundred million guns in the American people's hands right now, and many are retired military men. Yes I believe Americans can hold their power if it comes to another 1776. You will have snipers everywhere.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

You are wrong the militia is "We The People" you need to read the Constitution.
According to Xcathdra it's those who have registered for the Selective Service who compose that "regulated militia."




Yes I believe Americans can hold their power if it comes to another 1776.
Ok. Fair enough. I don't. Not that I see another 1776 on the horizon.

edit on 7/20/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage According to Xcathdra it's those who have registered for the Selective Service who compose that "regulated militia."


I also stated a few times its a moot point since the 2nd amendment applies to the individual.

Any particular reason you failed to mention that in your reply?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join