Ah, you’re simply an anarchist. That explains a lot. ;^) Right now we have de facto registration of firearms. Do you think that background check paperwork when you buy a gun is shredded and forgotten? I want a system that satisfies the need some see to restrict ownership without having a requisite record of who owns the darned things (and, for the record, I carry all the time, even to church, and have made sure my wife and kids know how to handle and use weapons).
Look, you can raise as many objections as you want to any restriction on owning firearms. I am simply trying to address a fact: there are GOING to be restrictions on gun ownership in this country whether we like it or not. The question is, how do we handle it in such a way that it is least onerous and intrusive?
>Ah, you’re simply an anarchist. That explains a lot. ;^)
How is advocating that the government be bound by laws itself the position of an anarchist?
Either words mean specific things or they do not; if they do not the the law [which is transmitted via words] is meaningless, because the words themselves cannot convey meaning.
Only if words can have specific meanings can the [written/spoken] law have meaning itself; and if this is the case then how can the law stand if the law is divided against itself? — Unless, perhaps, there are some laws which have greater precedence [read ‘authority’] than others.
We now get to the point of Constitutional law, which says that there are specifically delineated authorities under which a government may make a law and any overstepping of that law is invalid.
Something like New Mexico’s State Constitution forbidding laws which abridge rights based upon religion:
Art 2, Sec. 11. [Freedom of religion.]
Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.
IOW, this is a law that is meant to prohibit the State itself from making a law which makes the right to vote (among other rights) contingent on the religious beliefs of that particular Citizen.
Does this mean that a state law prohibiting Baptists or Catholics from demonstrating against abortions on University Campuses would be legal? Even though the protest is a civil right and it would be “molesting or denying” that right? {Please justify and give full reasoning for an affirmative answer.}
>Right now we have de facto registration of firearms.
Indeed there is.
>Do you think that background check paperwork when you buy a gun is shredded and forgotten?
Considering that the government requires, by law, the owner to keep the records forever (and turn them in if he should go out of business) no,I do not.
>I want a system that satisfies the need some see to restrict ownership without having a requisite record of who owns the darned things (and, for the record, I carry all the time, even to church, and have made sure my wife and kids know how to handle and use weapons).
I want neither. The determination of whether or not I am qualified is NOT the state’s business at all.
>Look, you can raise as many objections as you want to any restriction on owning firearms. I am simply trying to address a fact: there are GOING to be restrictions on gun ownership in this country whether we like it or not.
Rather you simply will rollover and acquiesce to the assertions and assumptions of authority of the state.
Either the law is binding or it is not; you who say that it is not by ignoring the supremacy of a Constitution to laws made under that Constitution are the true Anarchist here.
>The question is, how do we handle it in such a way that it is least onerous and intrusive?
By utterly denying the state powers over which it has been denied.