Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
I love me some single-issue voters. Nothing boosts Republican voting numbers like gun owners and pro-lifers. Seriously, where would the GOP be without them?
I've been in a lot of gun control debates recently and I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation of where the line is drawn in terms of legally arming oneself. The 2nd Amendment does not mention the word "gun" anywhere in it's text; it says the right to "arm" oneself. So does the 2nd Amendment protect my right to own a flamethrower? C-4? Weapons grade uranium? Gatling guns? Surface-to-Air missiles? "No, of course not, that's unreasonable" is usually the response, yet any suggestion to limit the types of guns that can be owned suddenly becomes this anti-American cluster hump.
I think gun owners should be treated the same as car owners. Your guns (cars) need to be registered in your state, you should be legally required to have gun (car) related insurance, and you should need to pass a practical test to receive a state issued gun (driver's) license.
|
And, like driver's licenses, a requirement to renew every few years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
You say firearms are not that important, lets see how you feel in two years.
|
People have felt we're on the brink of a revolution since...well...the Revolution. It says more about you than it does about the state of our country.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 10 : 28 : 14-----
Actually, I'm all for allowing people to purchase all sorts of firearms. That said, there's no reason why you can't wait 6 months for your purchase, be subjected to a background check (in any and all buying situations, none of this loophole bullshit), and be required to demonstrate a basic level of skill in order to obtain the proper license. We should have a legal process available to go before a judge in urgent matters of self-defense, such as abusive partners, in order to expedite the gun-purchasing process when necessary.