1-4 are great, but the anti-gun lobby has shown absolutely no interest in these. Neither has the media or our President or our representatives in either party. 5-6 are obvious infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.
If they don't want to take away peoples' guns, why do they ban guns in cities like D.C. and Chicago? That's not an odd freak here/there wanting to ban guns. So when the Supreme Court rightly ruled those bans unconstitutional, the people behind the bans just give up? I. don't. think. so.
Just a thought, but if I wanted to sell to a felon a gun that I had registered as owning, couldn't I just sell it for cash and then claim it was stolen? I don't see how a law prohibiting unregistered sale would actually prevent illegitimate sales.
The Supreme Court has ruled that regulations and restrictions were allowed. Presumably, a ban on private citizens owning rocket launchers and fully automatic machine guns are acceptable. Congress also has the power to set manufacturing standards on pretty much any product sold across state line. My wife's car has a wireless ignition key. She just sits in the car and presses a button to turn it on. Couldn't guns be built with a wireless safety? The legal owner of the gun could have a small radio key that he wears on a key chain or embedded in a watch. When he holds the gun, the safety can be switched off. If anyone else picks up the gun without the radio key, the safety can't be unlocked. This means that toddlers can't find the gun in their daddy's nightstand and accidentally shoot someone thinking it's a toy. If the gun is stolen, it's just a useless lump of metal. But, if you have a friend in town who wants to borrow a gun to go hunting, no problem. You just loan them the radio key. Yes, I'm sure criminals could hack the lock system. But, why bother, when they could just find one of the older guns without the radio locks? If your gun had the lock, they probably wouldn't take the time to steal it. No, I don't think this would do much to deter mass shootings. Most take place with legally purchased guns. But accidental deaths are a statistically more significant problem than mass shootings. And, yes, I know that most accidents are ones the legal owners inflict on themselves. But, just because all the safety systems on cars don't stop people from driving off cliffs is no reason to repeal the requirements that we all wear seat belts. The goal here is to mitigate, not eliminate.
You would be required to report the theft. Also that's one time, but if it kept happening the pice could runs sting on you. The restrictions I suggested would not immediately curb gun sales to felons, but over time it would stem the flow. Yes, a criminal could go steal a gun, but all felons aren't good at theft and many wouldn't want to get guns that way knowing that by definition the gun owners you plan to rob have guns. Over time, we could make sure guns stay in the right hands
To me, it's the first clause that makes all the difference: "A well regulated Militia..." That clause modifies everything that comes after it, both legally as well as grammatically. If the 2nd Amendment only said, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," then the no gun-control crowd should win, hands down. But that is not what it says. The Framers chose every word in that document with the utmost forethought. The first clause is there for a reason. Unfettered access to guns is not what it promises. It promises guns within the framework of regulation, and a militia. And to take the other side to its logical conclusion, if the 2nd Amendment does allow unfettered access to arms, can we all then own hand grenades? Bombs? Nuclear bombs? Why not, if that is your interpretation?
There is no magic eraser to erase the words "shall not be infringed." That doesn't mean, "may be infringed under certain circumstances."
Well it really makes no difference does it? Since the militia is of the people when they decide to be a militia, they must have to arms to arm the militia.
In order to raise a militia, those who would be "well regulated" members of the militia must have ready access to arms - their own arms. An unarmed militia ain't worth spit. Thus, the bill of rights guarantees individuals the right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
Actually, there is. It's called a constitutional amendment, and at some point if 'certain people' are too rigid about common sense, minor infringements, then we'll be amending the amendment. It's a ways off yet, but I predict I'll live to see it. barfo
Spot on again sir. Ha! can you see that getting super majority of States to sign on? Heck it can't even get a simple majority to participate if you give them the money.
Finally a take the guns man that at least knows the way that would be acceptable even though still resented. Of course it does defy logic that there are enough who would give away their right to defend themselves and their family, that is a God given right you know. This statement is as valid today as it was 237 years ago. "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men," The first 10 amendment pretty much reflect the government envisioned as stated. I don't see those changing much in your life time or as long as this nation exists. Trying to change this fact may well hasten that end though. Perhaps even shorten some lfe times.
If the felons aren't good at theft, why wouldn't they just buy guns from felons that are good at theft? Here's a quiz. Do you think it would more likely that a felon would buy a registered gun, at a markup from the brand new price you just paid, or that they would pay some tweeker $100 for a stolen gun? Go Blazers
Here's another quiz for those who support more gun control. Why did the last two mass shootings happen in cities with some of the most strict gun control laws in the nation? Bonus question....why do you think registration will be more effective than the bans in those cities? Go Blazers
To be fair, if I lived in DC and really wanted a gun, I'd drive 20 minutes to VA or MD and buy one. The strict gun laws in DC can't be blamed or really considered. To be fair.
Which goes to the point that the gun regulations in DC don't work. Why shouldn't that be considered? Go Blazers
The idea would be to have those regulations everywhere, so there'd be no getting around them. Otherwise, the regulations are absurd, but that's why congress has such low approval ratings (pass absurd things barfo likes). More like you go for the mile and take an inch if you can get it. Over a few decades, the inches add up to the mile. Like the war on poverty, how it's grown over the years, and how no fewer people are poor now as then.
