Quote:
Originally posted by ctembreull
I actually know that one by heart. Yay me. Anyway, I believe the militia clause is in there for a reason. See, we do have a formalized militia in this country; it's called the National Guard. I really think that if someone wants to own a weapon, then they should serve a term in the National Guard or in the armed forces.
|
Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
From an earlier post of mine: "..the Supreme Court decided that "a well regulated militia" was essentially comprised of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.'' This would suggest that any argument that "well regulated militia means state police!" is false."
A "well regulated militia" is NOT the National Guard. The National Guard is officially a branch of the military.
Quote:
Originally posted by ctembreull
Now, I'm also in favor of strong registration and weapon tracking, trigger locks, and stiffer penalties for gun offenders, as well as criminalizing failure to keep a gun safely. But barring that, I say go ahead - anything short of an assault weapon, you can have it, given that you've served the purpose the Framers of the Constitution intended.
|
How does gun registration help prevent crimes? It doesn't. Many criminals simply file off the serial numbers from guns they repeatedly use in crime anyhow, and it's already illegal to do so.
Trigger locks are good. Forcing people to use them is bad.
As for criminalizing "failure to keep a gun safely", I don't think there is a need for this. Negligence laws already would cover this if someone was directly at fault for an accidental shooting.
Lastly, "assault weapon" is a seemingly arbitrary determination. Is a .22 cal that looks like an AK-47 an "assault rifle"? An "assault rifle" in the hands of a law abiding citizen will be just as safe as a BB gun.