what if we treated guns like cars

[TSO]

you are free to own one, you just got to register it, undergo and pass training if you want to operate one, and have it on record if you transfer ownership to anybody else

is that such a terrible thing?

That's only true if you want to use it. If guns were like cars there would be "killing licenses", not owning ones.

 

[spin]

What does training in order to operate one mean though?

And also, why would we give away what we already have now?

 

[Fawlty]

Not really the only opening is the interpretation is through the supreme court and their view on laws written to allow the government to restrict it.

And they just said the people have the right to own guns and a federal court included so called assault weapons.

So first they have to have the support to pass a law requiring registration and then that law would have to be upheld by the court.

Yeah they somehow interpreted that personal self defense was the real intent of the 2nd, which was pretty cheeky of them. I expect in another 50 years they will get that right.

 

[oldshadow]

Yeah they somehow interpreted that personal self defense was the real intent of the 2nd, which was pretty cheeky of them. I expect in another 50 years they will get that right.

That's not what the decision said and we fight to keep what we have and work to get back what we have lost.

You are not from the U.S. are you?

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

are you one of them sovereign citizens?

serious question

The appeal of personal liberty has more appeal than just one fringe movement.

I'm simply a person who wants human liberty and property rights to be objectively applied.

 

[Renard]

Think about what you wrote.

The 2nd Amendment was written to allow the people to defend themselves against their enemies, foreign and domestic, and you think it's a good idea to let the government pick and choose who can actually own one, and know where they all are?

Really?

The 2nd amendment mentions a well regulated militia. Funny how gun nuts pretend like that part doesn't exist. That means you give people the proper training and discipline to handle a weapon.

 

[Fawlty]

That's not what the decision said and we fight to keep what we have and work to get back what we have lost.

You are not from the U.S. are you?

Did the supreme court not say that self defense was the big deal in the 2nd? I'm pretty confident they did, but I don't mind being wrong. I read it the way it was obviously intended, the way honest people read it, that we may need to raise an army, so we cannot take guns from the population. So I don't mind strict laws.

 

[RetiredSlave]

Fuck it, take the guns and go back to blades. Im sure the EMTs will be
real happy about having to clean up severed extremities along with the rest of the gore in the new world you propose. A gun registry serves the sole purpose of keeping
tabs on who has them, so they can be easily taken at leisure. Nothing at all to do with safety, nor
will it make anything safer. For you
at least.

 

[Fawlty]

"A well-regulated food supply, being necessary to the feeding of a population, the right of the people to keep and grow food, shall not be infringed."

It's pretty easy to interpret this as allowing for regulation- even strict regulation- but still keep the basic right.

 

[oldshadow]

The 2nd amendment mentions a well regulated militia. Funny how gun nuts pretend like that part doesn't exist. That means you give people the proper training and discipline to handle a weapon.

The 2nd is in two parts but yes the state and the feds should be giving free weapons training to all citizens. That's what well regulated means. And militia does not mean the guard it means all citizens.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

The childish tenor of your response to my factual explanation says it all, really. Typical of your posts.

This is common sense.

You don't allow a bipolar schizophrenic to own a gun.

But in your Warped mind that would fine.

 

[SMEAC]

Once again the kong is literally showing how stupid he is.

Damn dictionary people fucked up his head

 

[Gutter Chris]

The 2nd amendment mentions a well regulated militia. Funny how gun nuts pretend like that part doesn't exist. That means you give people the proper training and discipline to handle a weapon.

Your off about what it says there friend. It says the people should have access to guns in case they need to form a militia

 

[Fawlty]

We can all agree that commas are a bitch. Clumsy ass sentences.

 

[oldshadow]

Did the supreme court not say that self defense was the big deal in the 2nd? I'm pretty confident they did, but I don't mind being wrong. I read it the way it was obviously intended, the way honest people read it, that we may need to raise an army, so we cannot take guns from the population. So I don't mind strict laws.

They upheld that a person has the right to use a gun in self-defense. So being in a militia was not require to be able to own a gun. Owning a gun was protected period


But I see what you are saying.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Yeah they somehow interpreted that personal self defense was the real intent of the 2nd,

The only reason to bear an arm (other than hunting and recreation) is the defense of one's self, family, property, and if necessary, one's community. The entire substance of the 2nd Amendment is defense.

which was pretty cheeky of them.

"Cheeky"? Is this a Guy Richie movie? Are you from jolly ol' England friend?

I expect in another 50 years they will get that right.

People on your side of the argument said the same thing 50 years ago. If anything, the cause of liberty is getting stronger, millions of Americans are purchasing weapons every month.

Even if your projection was correct. In 50 years time, I'll be able to have enough arms, ammunition, and reloading supplies to last at least 4 more generations (6 generations if they can find primers).

American culture will never submit itself to complete control.

 

[oldshadow]

Your off about what it says there friend. It says the people should have access to guns in case they need to form a militia

This^.

 

[Greoric]

I agree not everyone should own a gun, but we are all given that right by the Constitution.

Same as not everyone should have kids, but you can't sterilize certain members of the population.

Your rights extend even further than this my man. We don't have them by virtue of what a group of white guys wrote on paper more than a couple centuries ago. They're inalienable, which means even if the government decided to try and strip them; you still have them. In that respect, it's irrelevant what the constitution says, they just codified your preexisting rights into law.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

This is common sense.

You don't allow a bipolar schizophrenic to own a gun.

But in your Warped mind that would fine.

Would you take guns away from someone who suffered from ADD, or OCD? These are also forms of mental illness. This is why due process is so important. It prevents regulators from painting with too broad a brush.

 

[Fawlty]

They upheld that a person has the right to use a gun in self-defense. So being in a militia was not require to be able to own a gun. Owning a gun was protected period


But I see what you are saying.

Your earlier question, I am from the US and I own guns, and live in a strongly pro-2nd state. The 2nd is really hard to interpret without a militia being an important thing. But I also don't know if we should change the amendment. It does seem reasonable to keep the basic right, but the grounds for not infringing don't apply now. Maybe it's best to leave it as a point of debate so we don't go too far one way or another.