ATF requires you to have a domicile?
- Thread starter Blueshell
- Start date
Hatchetman
New member
The atf is unconstitutional, the requirement to "provide" an address is unconstitutional..... there can be NO law that has ANYTHING to do with firearms. Anyone promoting otherwise is promoting infringement..
Blueshell
Banned
I understand the reason for the address to be "to complete a trace request". Well, the government doesn't need to be warrantless tracing, that's a privacy violation.
If I got an afidavit of residency stating that I'm using someone else's phisical address, the ATF would accept thst even though I don't actually live there. The whole system is messed up. I say toss the whole thing.
The 2nd Amendment is not limited to firearms. So, would you say the same thing regarding nuclear weapons?
Blueshell
Banned
Since when are nukes militia weapons?
And since when can you buy a nuke if you give your address?
Blueshell
Banned
Since always.
Ok, let's go with that.... So what would the purpose of the militia be? The 2nd Amendment begins with a statement of fact, "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state...". Do not the governments and organizations, including our own Federal government, which may threaten the security of the free state possess nuclear arms? So how can this "militia" that you claim the 2nd Amendment is limited to maintain the security of the free state if the militia is not armed to the same level - or greater?
Or are you now going to claim, like SR9 likes to, that "well regulated" means the government gets to "regulate" the keeping and bearing of arms?
Or are you now going to claim, like SR9 likes to, that "well regulated" means the government gets to "regulate" the keeping and bearing of arms?
Blueshell
Banned
So you don't even know how militia is used.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
Think police, a posse, neighborhood watch, disaster response, riot control, national guard.
Not every weapon a state may need is a militia weapon. The amendment never says that militia are the only thing that secures a state, just that militia are necessary to have.
And there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that limits it to "militia" arms or arms for the "militia" either. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment, as originally written, applies to Nuclear Arms today just as much as it applies to a black powder musket.
Blueshell
Banned
Yes there is, the prefatory clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,". The prefatory clause indicates the kind of weapons protected; militia weapons, arms the avarage person could be reasonably expected to bring with them when called up. Examples include not just firearms but all manor of melee weapons and non-lethal chemical weapons.
The state has always been free to restrict or ban any and all non-militia weapons, like nukes.
The opperative clause "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" indicates that said arms do not have to be soly for militia use.
The Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announces a (not the only) purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause.
How can the citizen exercise their right and duty to throw off a government that has become tyrannical if they are not armed to the same level, or greater, than that government? Was the "army" that overthrew the British government in America by force a "regular" (as in active duty) army recognized by the British government? No. It was a militia called up by the Continental Congress under the leadership of George Washington. The 2nd Amendment was written by men who had just witnessed the violent overthrow of a government to ensure that the citizens would retain not only the right, but the ability to do it again, should the need arise. Just like the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights - the 2nd Amendment was written to protect the citizen from their own government.
Blueshell
Banned
I did not claim the prefatory clause limits the operative clause.
First: You don't nuke land you intend to occupy. Radiation will make your kids come out funny. Even if nukes were a protected weapon, you still wouldn't use them to throw off a government.
Second: having bigger weapons doesn't mean you have a better chance of winning. Civil war is not won or lost through an arms race. No POTUS is going to order an air strike on the Furgeson rioters, for example, not because an air strike wouldn't work but because that air base would be immediately flooded by millions of pissed off civilians and overran.
To win a war you need blood and gold, and to get blood and gold you need an infectious idea.
I believe that when the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment they intended to guarantee the citizens' right to keep and bear arms to the same level as the government for the express purpose of fulfilling the rights and duties that were previously expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The 2nd Amendment, just like the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights, was written to protect the citizen from their own government.
At some point in history it simply became to dangerous to the citizens of the country, and even to all mankind on the earth, to allow the individual person to be armed to the same level as the governments which possess the firepower to eradicate the entire human race. When the required majority of the citizens agreed that to be true, then the proper action would have been to repeal the 2nd Amendment and replace it with another amendment more carefully worded to protect the citizens' right to self protection.
The American people, however, allowed the government to take the easy way out and pass unconstitutional laws infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms as stated in the 2nd Amendment. "We the people" allowed our government through government regulation to remove our ability to overthrow it - a right stated in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. And, along with that, we are also allowing the government to regulate our very right to self protection against the common criminal.
Blueshell
Banned
How big is your state that you need an ICBM to hit an invader within your border?
In fact, how many States even have ICBMs under state, not Federal, launch authority?
Blueshell
Banned
In China, teens and young adults used broom handles, rope and duct tape. Their main weapons were ideas, not impliments.
You can't take down a government by sending a militia after it. That's not how it works. Militia plays a vital part but it's not the only part.
None of your arguments, Blueshell, disproves that the founding fathers intended for the American citizen to retain both the right and the ability to overthrow the newly formed Federal government. A right and duty stated in the Declaration of Independence which the 2nd Amendment was written to protect. Neither the meaning nor the intention of the 2nd Amendment has changed. It became too dangerous for the 2nd Amendment to be honored as it was intended and written. "We the people" did not take the action that was built into the Constitution itself to properly deal with that situation. Instead we allowed the government to bypass the Constitution and pass unconstitutional laws to deal with the situation.
Blueshell
Banned
Because I argue no such thing. Of course we're supposed to be able to throw off a tyrannical government, and that's why we have the 2nd amendment.
We're supposed to be able to throw off a tyrannical government and the 2nd does not protect nukes. Both of those things are true at the same time.
New Threads
-
Recent TX Appeals Court declaration that ATF arm brace rule is unconstitutional
- Started by lw07
- Replies: 1
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.