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.
I think we should have to get a license similar to a DL and have to reapply/re-certify every 5-10 years.
I think all gun owners should have to go through a training and safety course and be issued a license then they can buy whatever guns they would like, similar to a car, and that those weapons will be registered to the owner.
I think, like licenses, it should be done on a state by state basis though, again similar to DLs so that the unique circumstances on particular states can be taken under consideration prior to the establishment of rules, regulations, and procedures to obtain and maintain a gun license.
So you are OK with the government having the authority to decide who cn have a gun and who can't?
Virtually every govt that has had that power, has abused it, some hugely. To the point that they disarmed their law-abiding citizens and left them unable to defend themselves, while criminals kept their guns (or stole others) and preyed upon the law-abiding ones.
That's your idea of a good thing?
Even our own govt is moving in that direction to some extent, now. And since they are already violating the Constitution by doing so, it is unlikely that changing our laws will bring them back into line.
Keep in mind that the people who wrote the Constitution, and particularly the 2nd amendment, thought that the U.S. populace would be better off, even with a few crazy cat ladies and noncitizens having guns, than with a government with the power to restrict or take away their personal weapons. That's why they wrote the 2nd with no exceptions. And a lot of states agreed, and ratified it. Not to make society perfect, but to make it as safe as they could, considering it's made up of imperfect humans.
I said this twice: "The Constitution, when written, did not dip into the internal governance of the states until after the Civil War."
And you still fail to understand, because you keep bringing up post Civil War cases.
The reason I keep bringing it up, is because people want to use the 10th amendment to nullify the 2nd amendment. I keep saying the 10 directly says, it cannot be involved in the 2nd. The powers not outlined.. The 2nd amendment is very well outlined, maintaining all liberties to the people. Not for the legislative branch to fill in the blanks. The blanks are our liberty, that they took.
I understand why the extreme right fights for the second amendment rights the way they do, but as a person who himself owns several firearms including an AR-15, I would support a law requiring a safety course with live fire training to own a firearm. Too many people around me don't follow the 4 safety rules.
I would like to see the restriction on suppressors removed, however, for safety reasons.. hearing protection and all.
That is the exact meaning of well regulated. If you are needed, you must know how to at least operate and not be scared of a firearm.
Who knew?
But you have to admit waiting 5 days ain't no biggie.
If I have to wait because another person says so, is it really my right?
The privilege of citizens 21 years and older, who are non-felons and mentally sane, may keep, but not bear the small arms the federal government allows and this may be altered at any time.
I think we should have to get a license similar to a DL and have to reapply/re-certify every 5-10 years.
I think all gun owners should have to go through a training and safety course and be issued a license then they can buy whatever guns they would like, similar to a car, and that those weapons will be registered to the owner.
I think, like licenses, it should be done on a state by state basis though, again similar to DLs so that the unique circumstances on particular states can be taken under consideration prior to the establishment of rules, regulations, and procedures to obtain and maintain a gun license.
Ok, by that same standard, I think before being allowed to vote, or speak freely as in publish words in a book, magazine, newspaper, etc., one ought to have to take competency tests to ensure they at the very least have a firm grasp on current events and know something about politics.
If we have to prove we know, to the government's satisfaction, that we have at least a basic knowledge of firearms and meet arbitrary standards before being able to exercise our Second Amendment rights, then the same should be true for other rights as well.
You can't make the claim that restricting one right is constitutional but restricting others in a similar fashion would be unconstitutional.
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.
