eagle_eye222001 Posted July 17, 2012 Author Share Posted July 17, 2012 A poll tax was designed by the local governments back in the day to limit voting. The government charging someone for the ability to defend one's self is designed to discourage and limit one from exercising their second amendment's rights. So maybe it can be argued you should have to register, but again, you shouldn't have to pay for the right[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1342551337' post='2456433'] Because it doesn't follow at all. You register to vote. And the fact that arming yourself is dangerous and it should have restrictions upon it. That way it's not like a 16 year old is going into any old store to buy a rifle. I'm a fan of the 2nd amendment, but this is ridiculously slanted and hating on democrats, which is dumb. [/quote]. My argument has nothing to do with age. Maybe you can argue that you have to register, but do you have to pay to register to vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 There are no human rights. There are just legal rights and those are really just the rights that the powerful are willing to enforce through violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) [quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1342559367' post='2456500'] A poll tax was designed by the local governments back in the day to limit voting.[/QUOTE] It wasn't just local governments. [QUOTE] The government charging someone for the ability to defend one's self is designed to discourage and limit one from exercising their second amendment's rights. [/QUOTE] The right to defend yourself and the Second Amendment are two different matters. The Second Amendment says absolutely nothing about any individual have the right to defend themselves. It speaks solely about the inability of the federal government to revoke the right of individuals to bear arms. It doesn't say what they have a right to do with those arms (like use them to defend their individual life and property) and it has never been taken to mean that the government can't tax arms or registration. You also have a right to purchase food. That doesn't mean that the government can't tax food or has a constitutional obligation to ensure that you have the means to obtain food. [QUOTE] So maybe it can be argued you should have to register, but again, you shouldn't have to pay for the right. [/QUOTE] You don't have to pay for the right. You have the right to own a gun even if you never actually own one. [QUOTE] My argument has nothing to do with age. [/QUOTE] Your argument has nothing to do with a lot of things. Edited July 17, 2012 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle_eye222001 Posted July 17, 2012 Author Share Posted July 17, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1342559959' post='2456504'] It wasn't just local governments. The right to defend yourself and the Second Amendment are two different matters. The Second Amendment says absolutely nothing about any individual have the right to defend themselves. It speaks solely about the inability of the federal government to revoke the right of individuals to bear arms. It doesn't say what they have a right to do with those arms (like use them to defend their individual life and property) and it has never been taken to mean that the government can't tax arms or registration. You also have a right to purchase food. That doesn't mean that the government can't tax food or has a constitutional obligation to ensure that you have the means to obtain food. You don't have to pay for the right. You have the right to own a gun even if you never actually own one. Your argument has nothing to do with a lot of things. [/quote] Local governments = state governments and such that did it. Right to defend your life is under the roof of the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Your right. I don't have to defend my life with it. I can just own a gun for various personal reasons. Taxing arms and registration infringes my right because it places obstacles before it. Then it is no longer a right, but more of a reward or purchased item. I have a right to purchase food? Where is that listed in the Bill of Rights? Pretty sure I do pay for the right when I exercise my right. Or all those D.C. residents and nearly the whole country are lying about what they are paying to register their firearm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 [quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1342560991' post='2456510'] Local governments = state governments and such that did it.[/QUOTE] That's interesting. So the often used phrase of "state and local government" is a redundancy in your mind. [QUOTE] Right to defend your life is under the roof of the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [/QUOTE] Where? The constitution says absolutely nothing about the second Amendment having anything to do with an individuals right of self-defense. The only defense related rational indicated in the language of the amendment is that of national, collective defense. But please feel free to just continue making poo up. [QUOTE] Your right. I don't have to defend my life with it. I can just own a gun for various personal reasons. [/QUOTE] Yep. [QUOTE]Taxing arms and registration infringes my right because it places obstacles before it. Then it is no longer a right, but more of a reward or purchased item. [/QUOTE] Ok. Then taxing food is unconstitutional. So is taxing liquor. [QUOTE] I have a right to purchase food? Where is that listed in the Bill of Rights? [/QUOTE] Ninth Amendment. [QUOTE] Pretty sure I do pay for the right when I exercise my right. Or all those D.C. residents and nearly the whole country are lying about what they are paying to register their firearm. [/quote] Not sure what the floopy you're talking about here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle_eye222001 Posted July 17, 2012 Author Share Posted July 17, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1342561370' post='2456513'] That's interesting. So the often used phrase of "state and local government" is a redundancy in your mind.[/quote] Not completely. I was a bit loose with terms. I'm waiting for your point on why my slight lack of precision mattered in the argument. If you would be so kind to as to explain why it matters, I would be interested in hearing it. [quote]Where? The constitution says absolutely nothing about the second Amendment having anything to do with an individuals right of self-defense. The only defense related rational indicated in the language of the amendment is that of national, collective defense. But please feel free to just continue making poo up. [/quote] You have quite a desire to wash the underpinning reason why someone would want a gun from the 2nd amendment. Again, please explain why my slight lack of precision mattered? I thank you for pointing out these slight inaccuracies, however I do not understand as to how this affects my original argument. Please note that "various reasons to own a gun" is a broad term that encompasses one's right to defend themselves. [quote]Ok. Then taxing food is unconstitutional. So is taxing liquor. Ninth Amendment. [/quote] I am not arguing that taxing food is unconstitutional. I merely pointed out that the 2nd amendment explicitly states the right to own and bear arms. The Bill of Rights says nothing about food. Such a use of the ninth amendment by far helps my case than yours. [quote]Not sure what the floopy you're talking about here. [/quote] Wait around, I'm sure someone else will be kind enough to explain it more perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Despite the poor wording, I don't think Eagle Dude means that firearm registration is identical with a poll tax, but that they are similar in that both unnecessarily place on monetary penalty on something that is a right of American citizens (the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms respectively). But I think the bleedin' hearts on here already knew that. You may agree or disagree, but it's not a completely stupid question. But we must never post anything that might upset Democrats. They're fragile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) [quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1342562575' post='2456516'] Not completely. I was a bit loose with terms. I'm waiting for your point on why my slight lack of precision mattered in the argument. If you would be so kind to as to explain why it matters, I would be interested in hearing it. [/QUOTE] I never said it did. I simply corrected a factual error in your definition of a poll tax. [QUOTE] You have quite a desire to wash the underpinning reason why someone would want a gun from the 2nd amendment. [/QUOTE] You're right. I'm sorry for acting like the wording of the constitution matters. From now on I shouldn't be such a Johnsonville brat about these things. I should really just swallow whatever the essence of cow claim you make without mentioning the utterly insignificant fact that your claims have no support in the actual text of the constitution. The Constitution says nothing about why an individual should be permitted to own a gun (beyond the fact that gun ownership is pursuant to the goal of having a well regulated militia for national defense). It simply says that you have a right to do so. [QUOTE] Again, please explain why my slight lack of precision mattered? I thank you for pointing out these slight inaccuracies, however I do not understand as to how this affects my original argument. Please note that "various reasons to own a gun" is a broad term that encompasses one's right to defend themselves.[/QUOTE] It's not a 'slight lack of precision' it's a fundamental flaw with the crux of your 'argument'. And now you are starting the process, as usual, of weaseling away from your ridiculousness argument. So I guess this is where I would be wise to just end my interaction with you and from this point on I will experience only greater and greater frustration as you hee and haw away from any sort of intellectual integrity or consistency. Unfortunately I lack the wisdom the just ignore you and have a few more frustrating interactions to look forward to. [QUOTE]I am not arguing that taxing food is unconstitutional. I merely pointed out that the 2nd amendment explicitly states the right to own and bear arms. The Bill of Rights says nothing about food.[/QUOTE] No. I'm pointing out the the 2nd Amendment explicitly states the right to bear arms. You're trying to stretch that right into something else with your the essence of cow argument about a secret implication of the right to individual self-defense and poll-taxes. [QUOTE] Such a use of the ninth amendment by far helps my case than yours. [/QUOTE] It would if you were arguing that the 9th Amendment gives the individual a right to self-defense. I certainly wouldn't argue with that. Unfortunately you decided to instead pull some argument out of your ass about a non-existent constitutional right to defend yourself with a gun that magically exists somewhere in the language of the second Amendment which appears nowhere in the text but which you can see thanks to your Rush Limbaugh Dittoer superpowers. [QUOTE] Wait around, I'm sure someone else will be kind enough to explain it more perhaps. [/quote] I guess I should just take the initiative myself and buy a the essence of cow to English dictionary. [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1342563669' post='2456521'] But we must never post anything that might upset Democrats. They're fragile. [/quote] You must have really been picked on a lot as a kid. And FYI I don't think that a single democrat has posted on this thread. Edited July 17, 2012 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 [quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1342551337' post='2456433'] And the fact that arming yourself is dangerous and it should have restrictions upon it. That way it's not like a 16 year old is going into any old store to buy a rifle. [/quote] As for dangerous, a lot more damage can be done from the voting booth than from bullets. . . . [quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1342558798' post='2456496'] It's as much of an idea of classical liberalism as the idea that voting is a human right. In fact, rights did not even belong to Man until after the Enlightenment..... [/quote] Yeah, I say take away everybody's rights and give 'em to me! beaver dam Enlightenment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1342563888' post='2456523'] It would if you were arguing that the 9th Amendment gives the individual a right to self-defense. I certainly wouldn't argue with that. Unfortunately you decided to instead pull some argument out of your ass about a non-existent constitutional right to defend yourself with a gun that magically exists somewhere in the language of the second Amendment which appears nowhere in the text but which you can see thanks to your Rush Limbaugh Dittoer superpowers. [/quote] Yeah, what a maroon! Obviously, the right of citizens to "keep and bear arms" in the second amendment had absolutely nothing to do with using said arms to defend oneself, but only to keep them in display cases, and carry them around as fashion accessories, because they look razzle dazzle and all. Only a rightwing glue sniffer like Rush Limbaugh could be so stupid as to think it had anything to do with self-defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1342563669' post='2456521'] You may agree or disagree, but it's not a completely stupid question. [/quote] You're question is not a stupid question. He didn't ask your question. He went a few steps further and added a few clauses to the second Amendment that only he can see, apparently. He could just admit that his original series of claims were the essence of cow and cut them back significantly and go with your much more plausible question. But I doubt he will do that. I assume that he'll keep on trucking with his original cluster floopy of a claim about the second Amendment and a poll tax on the right of self-defense and blah blah blah. If he ever gets tired of that and turns this thread into the more narrow, but also more serious, question that you raise then I think that it would be an interesting thread. I'm not sure how I would come down on it. I think the court, even at it's more conservative, has been pretty clear that mere registration is Constitutional. And that has been pretty consistent. And I don't think that there is any argument that a nominal processing fee/tax is constitutional. But if the fee is such that it is intended to be a deterrence to gun ownership then I think that is probably unconstitutional. I doubt there is much case law to go on though since there really hasn't been much high end discussion on exactly what the Second Amendment says. Scalia wrote a pretty brilliant opinion on it but that was just a general smackdown of the idea that the Amendment only permitted individuals in a state militia to own a firearm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1342564613' post='2456529'] Yeah, what a maroon! Obviously, the right of citizens to "keep and bear arms" in the second amendment had absolutely nothing to do with using said arms to defend oneself, but only to keep them in display cases, and carry them around as fashion accessories, because they look razzle dazzle and all. Only a rightwing glue sniffer like Rush Limbaugh could be so stupid as to think it had anything to do with self-defense. [/quote] I'm sorry. I have read this three times but I can't find the part where you actually show me where the second Amendment says anything about individual self-defense. Again, you'll have to forgive me, I don't enjoy your right wing superpowers to magically know what the framers meant to say but forgot to add to the constitution. Edited July 17, 2012 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 [quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1342559367' post='2456500'] A poll tax was designed by the local governments back in the day to limit voting. The government charging someone for the ability to defend one's self is designed to discourage and limit one from exercising their second amendment's rights. So maybe it can be argued you should have to register, but again, you shouldn't have to pay for the right. My argument has nothing to do with age. Maybe you can argue that you have to register, but do you have to pay to register to vote? [/quote] [quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1342560991' post='2456510'] Local governments = state governments and such that did it. Right to defend your life is under the roof of the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Your right. I don't have to defend my life with it. I can just own a gun for various personal reasons. Taxing arms and registration infringes my right because it places obstacles before it. Then it is no longer a right, but more of a reward or purchased item. I have a right to purchase food? Where is that listed in the Bill of Rights? Pretty sure I do pay for the right when I exercise my right. Or all those D.C. residents and nearly the whole country are lying about what they are paying to register their firearm. [/quote] I live in the People's Republic of Rahm Emanuel, so I can see where you are coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1342563669' post='2456521'] Despite the poor wording, I don't think Eagle Dude means that firearm registration is identical with a poll tax, but that they are similar in that both unnecessarily place on monetary penalty on something that is a right of American citizens (the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms respectively). But I think the bleedin' hearts on here already knew that. You may agree or disagree, but it's not a completely stupid question. But we must never post anything that might upset Democrats. They're fragile. [/quote] All American citizens have a legal right to regarding firearms is to be free of Federal interference with ownership of weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1342563899' post='2456524'] beaver dam Enlightenment. [/quote] One of the few things you've posted on phatmass that I agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts