Federal registration of guns
Federal licensing of gun owners
Instant background checks for dealer transfers
Instant background checks for private transfers
5-day waiting periods for handgun purchases
5-day waiting period for all gun purchases
Ban guns from felons and those adjudicated ‘mentally infirm’
Ban ‘assault weapons’
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
Ignoring the 4th amendment will solve a LOT more crime than gun licensing and registration, given that the number of crimes committed with a gun is very low compared to the number of total (even just violent) crimes.
So, any argument you make for ignoring the 2nd 'because it will help solve crimes' applies just that much more for ignoring the 4th amendment.
Why is it again that you do not advocate we ignore the 4th amendment in order to solve crimes?
No, they are not. You are -required- to do these things, if you want to exercise your right, and these things are not an inherent component to the exercise of that right. That means they are an infringement.License and Registration are something you volunteer into and are transparent processes.
That in no way creates a sound agument for infringing the right to arms.If you took away every law that "infringed" on our rights there would be little left.
Then amend it, rather than simply ignoring it.The constitution is not some perfect creation...
Regardless, boith are banned because both cause sufficient level of 'harm' to warrant them being banned.Regardless, I don't believe libel and slander can be placed on the same level as murder.
Last edited by Goobieman; 12-18-08 at 12:55 PM.
Parade/protest permits aren't required because of the content, or even the potential content, of the parade -- and expressedly CANNOT be denied because of those things -- but because they use public property and, often, public resources.
Given that, the right in question here isnt the right to free speech or to assemble, but the right to do those things on public property.
And so, none of that relates to simple posession of a firearm.
Last edited by Goobieman; 12-18-08 at 01:32 PM.
I'm just curious as to whether this would be an infringement. One can posses firearms in the home, and should be allowed to do so without any hindrance whatsoever, but I feel that local govenrments (not the federal govenrment) should also be allowed to have conceal carry permits and open carry permits with checks and such.
Again, I think it should be a state thing though, and it relates to the State militia portion of the ammendemnt.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
You MIGHT be able to convince me that a permit to USE a firearm on public property (in the same vein as parade permits) might not be a violation of the 2nd as it addresses the right to use public property rather the right to own/use a gun.
Certainly.Again, I think it should be a state thing though, and it relates to the State militia portion of the ammendemnt.
Thinking of it though, if there were no permits necessary for possesion on public property, then there couldn't really be a requirement for a permit regarding certain uses of the weapon on public grounds (specifically defensive purposes).
But someone hunting pigeons in Central Park should probably need a permit of some sort.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Posession and use are different things; the use, rather than the posession, of the firearm is always the issue when regarding guns, as the use of the gun is what causes harm to others.Thinking of it though, if there were no permits necessary for possesion on public property, then there couldn't really be a requirement for a permit regarding certain uses of the weapon on public grounds (specifically defensive purposes).
Simple posession harms, and can harm, no one.
ProbablyBut someone hunting pigeons in Central Park should probably need a permit of some sort.