Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If registration lowers gun crimes; why has the UK and Australia confiscated everybodys? The other countries listed are VERY restictive. How do you folks that are pro-registration plan to NOT confiscate our guns? Or is that really youre plan? Seems the Brady org bunch think the 30-30 is a sniper round. Just where does it end. You dont like the .50cal stuff, but the 30-30? Not that youd be extreme.
What exactly is the Second Amendment and what rights does it give its citizens?
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Many people who study the constitution say that the 2nd amendment was solely intended to establish the National Guard and the citizen's collective right to keep and bear arms.
Now if you think of this law in the context in the times in which it was written, we had just gone through a war and we joined 13 colonies into 1 country. Many of these colonies were concerned at the time the Constitution was drafted that we were essentially giving all our power to another tyrant and that the colony was losing its rights to protect itself and have some say in governing its own people. Thus the 2nd amendment was drafted to ensure each colony had the fundimental right to keep and bear arms (in that time period that often meant "armies") and to form a militia.
Many argue that the Second Amendment in itself does not provide for the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms.
Now this is what I think: I agree that the Second Amendment does not provide enough evidence as written to provide individual's right to own firearms. But I DO think without question that the citizens should have the right to bear arms.
So I would suggest that another amendment be added to the Constitution specifically protecting the right of law abiding citizens to "keep and bear arms" and that licensure for ownership and carrying handguns should be dealt with at the federal level and a nationwide license to carry should be issued to those who apply and qualify for one. Which would include a background check, identity verification and a reasonable fee to cover the government's cost to complete the neccessary checks and services. It should not expire or be revoked/suspended unless the licensee has committed a crime, refused to pay child support or taxes or has given authorities reason to believe he/she poses a danger to another..such as a domestic abuse situation or bitter divorce.
The benefits would be that a citizen who owns firearms could go state to state without worry of additional fees and laws of his new state, it would be a uniform process for every American, they would not have to renew the license and they would also have an amendment that is written without a doubt to protect their rights.
I'm surely going to have to duck into a hole with my flame suit on for this one... but what is your take? Should there be an amendment? Would uniform regulation at the federal level help or hurt the rights of individuals?
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. sounds pretty straight forward to me wheres the mystery?
Many of the states constitutions state clearly the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.(RI.) In Mass. home of ted kenndy, pt1,art17"the people have a right to keep and to bear amrs for defense". Especially against drunk drivers! sorry LORD, cheap shot. Vermont ;people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state. And I like the one in Maine artl 1 "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned"!! Well that says that fairly well. These are rights of the PEOPLE, not the goverments rights.
If registration lowers gun crimes; why has the UK and Australia confiscated everybodys? The other countries listed are VERY restictive. How do you folks that are pro-registration plan to NOT confiscate our guns? Or is that really youre plan? Seems the Brady org bunch think the 30-30 is a sniper round. Just where does it end. You dont like the .50cal stuff, but the 30-30? Not that youd be extreme.
Your question forces an assumption that I'm not prepared to accept: that registration inevitably leads to confiscation. It's like asking someone "If you want to make people register to vote, how are you going to make sure the voters aren't arrested when they cast their ballot?"
Australia and the UK adopted more restrictive gun laws. That's their prerogative, and it's no indication whatsoever that what happens there happens in the US. As I've said in earlier posts, for every country you list that has confiscated guns after registration, I can show you another country that still allows them after registration.
So my response to you is that people are allowed to own firearms under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. Registration doesn't change that. You still have the right to own a gun; the registration is a means to ensure you exercise that right responsibly. And by responsibly I mean not declaring war on your fellow citizens, not shooting at police as dmxx proposes, and not relinquishing control of your gun to another party who may not be of the character required to own a firearm.
Funfaler - registering individual guns is a joke IMO. NYS makes you do that. In order to purchase a handgun you must get info from the store, bring it to the pistol clerk and get approved then bring the paper back to the gun store to pick up your gun. And last I knew you had to pay for this and redo your license to reflect the changes. Talk about a waste of resources.
Winnie, the laws don't require you to register private sales. A person could buy a gun legally, fully registered, then sell it on to someone who then gives it to some drugged up street punk. There would be no record of the private transaction, so that punk does whatever he does with a gun still registered to the first owner.
It's the legal guns that jump the fence into the illegal market that aren't tracked, and should be.
I will grant that there are exceptions to "absolute" confiscation, but all of the countries that you list have extreme laws for possession, use, storage, transportation of the firearms. And in some of them, the firearm is actually the property of the state, in the care of the individual. These systems are far from "private" ownership as understood by Americans.
I don't have visibility into the property status of the guns in any country but Finland, so I can't comment authoritatively. But I can say categorically that it's not true for Finland. The gun is personal property in every way that it is for Americans.
And as for extreme laws of possession & transportation, in Finland at least you can keep the guns in your home. They must be securely locked in a gun safe. You can't open carry in populated areas and you can't keep your weapon loaded when transporting it in a car. I'm not seeing where this is extreme.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. sounds pretty straight forward to me wheres the mystery?
Because in the 18th century, "arms" was often used to describe a militia, "the people" is used collectively as in "all the people of that state". People argue that this amendment can be read in a manner that guarantees the state's abilities to raise their own National Guard.
It gives references of court decisions and papers written regarding the amendment. Take out of it what you will. But consider that if this amendment overwhelmingly, clearly established these rights to individuals the NRA would be out of business.
Yes. And they do already. Unless you know of someone other than taxpayers and corporate lobbyists who are funding our election process.
Then I assume that the gun owners are aready paying for the registration program that is going on now, so no need for a surcharge.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just where does it end. You dont like the .50cal stuff, but the 30-30? Not that youd be extreme.
but what is your take? Should there be an amendment? Would uniform regulation at the federal level help or hurt the rights of individuals?
State rights
Well that says that fairly well. These are rights of the PEOPLE, not the goverments rights.
