Quote:
Originally posted by ctembreull
You would be astonished to realize how many times I have disagreed with the Supreme Court. It may have something to do with the fact that it's highly conservatively tilted, but then, that's not always been the case.
|
So conservative that they overturned sodomy laws? By the way, the clarification of the second amendment was done in 1939 I believe, I have absolutely no idea of the make-up of the Supreme Court back then.
Quote:
Originally posted by ctembreull
We could argue that point back and forth all day long. To keep it short, I strongly disagree on the principle, if not the organizational status, of the National Guard. That said, then we should turn to the regulation clause, indicating that the militia - taken in your argument to mean any American citizen who owns a gun and is capable of defending his country - should be closely regulated.
|
I would interpret "well regulated" as meaning that those able-bodied Americans able to defend their country should be trained in the usage of said firearm and how to defend themselves with it. This is the case somewhat in Minnesota, where you have to acquire a "purchase permit" in order to buy a handgun. Getting a "purchase permit" requires that you take a firearm safety course, much like the course that you take to get a firearm safety certificate (which is required for any hunting license). I'm not entirely sure what the purchase permit course entails, as my firearm carry permit also serves as a purchase permit so I had no need for a separate purchase permit.
Aaaanyhow, I am very in favor of educating people on how to use a firearm, and teaching children how incredibly scary and bad that guns are to dissuade them from playing russian roulette with daddy's revolver. I would oppose any sort of national gun registration, as it is really a first step to disarmament. Ask Germany.
Quote:
Originally posted by ctembreull
This dovetails nicely into your next point:
Mostly because registration efforts have, to this point, been spotty and insufficient. I'm personally quite interested in the ballistic profiling of weapons. I also think there's a way out there somewhere to trace back any bullet fired to a specific gun, or at least to a small subset of guns which would at least aid in the solving of gun crimes. Registration is not a magic bullet, but it sure as hell can't hurt.
|
Criminals do not register their guns. As for "well, it sure as hell can't hurt", wasting time on something which hasn't worked in the past is indeed harmful. It's energy, time, resources that could have been used eficiently elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally posted by ctembreull
In some cases; any home lacking another means to keep children from getting to a gun kept in that home should require them.
|
In my home, I learned how dangerous that guns were at a very young age (5 or 6) and knew to stay the hell away from them if I happened to see one laying around. I learned this because I had parents who did their job and cared more for their childrens' safety than the cost of gas. The secret is proper parenting, not mandatory trigger locks. Wouldn't a careless parent neglect to put a trigger-lock on their gun anyhow? How would putting one more law on the books at all prevent gun accidents in the home?
Quote:
Originally posted by ctembreull
As far as assault weapon, I personally define this as any weapon capable of carrying more than twelve rounds at any time, firing in full-automatic mode (already illegal), any weapon capable of firing a round heavier than .45 caliber, or any military-grade ammunition (e.g. jacketed rounds, teflon rounds, tracer, etc.). Mind, there are weapons that defy categorization, those need to be dealt with individually. But this usually works for me as a good basic definition.
|
Are law-abiding citizens less capable of using a firearm with a 13 round clip than a 12 round clip? I have fired a full auto before (a pre-ban Uzi) and it really isn't difficult to handle. I still have the silhouette target and iirc there were a lot of holes in the kill-zone.
Quote:
Originally posted by ctembreull
I don't think guns should be eliminated (though sometimes I think they never, ever should have been permitted outside of the military). But I do think that they should be more tightly controlled, ...
|
Even if you thought that guns should be eliminated, it simply is not possible. All that a full-out disarmament would do is take guns from law-abiding citizens and provide a slew of easy victims for the already-armed criminals.
Quote:
Originally posted by ctembreull
...and that commission of gun crimes should carry the stiffest penalties possible under our legal system.
|
I absolutely agree with you here. Using a gun in the commission of a crime should cause the punishment to be much more severe. Robbing a bank with a paper bag is not nearly as much of a threat to life as robbing a bank with a gun.