The real meaning of the 2nd Amendment

I always get in trouble for this but I have got to say it again. The writers of the Constitution did not add the 2nd Amendment for individuals to own guns for their personal use; they added the 2nd Amendment to protect the new country from internal insurrection and/or foreign invasion.

Do you really think that a bunch of yahoos with shotguns, rifles and the odd handgun are going to stop a real military force from doing what ever it damn well pleases?

Unless you have the weaponry needed to take out tanks, armored personnel carriers, helicopters and low flying aircraft, and the organizational structure needed to coordinate the use of said weaponry, you might as well stay home and surrender.

Here is my humble opinion on how to keep unqualified and/or unstable people from owning firearms - require every person who wants to own weapons to serve an enlistment in the National Guard of the State that they live in for three years. A solution that would carry out the explicit intention of the writers of the Constitution while allowing for the implicit right of the individual to “keep and bear arms.”

Just what we need a more militarized society.

While you are, of course, welcome to your own opinion on each and every issue, Tony, the final arbiter under the law is still the Supreme Court. And as of their ruling on Heller, they have effectively negated the militia clause (properly in my opinion) and stated unequivocally that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

And as of their ruling on Heller, they have effectively negated the militia clause (properly in my opinion) and stated unequivocally that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

Fine, just don't come crying when some asshole grabs an AK47 and shoots a bunch of defenseless civilians in cold blood for no good reason...

Just the cost of that individual right.

So, should we add that you only get the right of free speech after you have attended government mandated training classes, or freedom to choose your own religion after you have gone to appropriate government approved multi-cultural sensitivity training? Or the right to petition without 'How to Talk to a Government Official' training?

In fact, let's just get rid of that quaint and archaic notion that the Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone, and limit it to those who have been certified by a new Cabinet level department, the U.S. Department of Correct Thinking. No certification, no rights.

After all, we cannot have The People running around thinking they have Constitutional rights without prior Government screening.

This is the kind of response that is bound to calm gun wackos down; tell them that they don't really have a right to keep and bear arms.

Seriously, though, your cramped parsing of the 2nd Amendment is wrong both grammatically and legally. As somebody pointed out years ago to me, if an amendment to the constitution read as follows:

"A well-educated Congress being necessary to the success of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

Would anybody read that as saying only members of Congress could read books? Of course not. It would be understood that Congress is drawn from the public, and one way to make sure that we have a well-educated Congress is to ensure that the public can read books. Same with the second amendment; the militia is drawn from the public and one way to make sure we have a well-regulated militia is to make sure that the public can shoot guns.

Why people keep pulling out this tired argument for gun control I don't get. It's been debunked in about everyway possible but still...........are there arguments to be made for gun control? Of course there are, and I'm saying that as a a person who really loves his guns. The thing of it is you need to show why beyond guns are bad. Like the assault weapon ban from the Clinton era. How did that make anyone safer, why should I give up a part of my rights?, for what benefit? There was none with the old ban it was just idiotic window dressing. That is wrong plain and simple. Why should people not be allowed to carry weapons? What State has had an absolute increase in gun violence to innocent people after allowing conceled carry? Any? So? Why ban a gun that has never been used in a crime? Because someday it might? Sorry that doesn't sound like a good reason to give up one of my rights.

I have a problem with how simplisitic people make this issue. If you sat down and read the briefs for each side in the Heller case, you can't simply discount either side of the argument.

As for the textual argument, I don't like Brainster's proposition because it confusingly invokes First Amendment rights. I think a better analogy would be:

"Restaurants being necessary to feed the public, the right of the people to keep and bear knives shall not be infringed."

In this example, I think it would be reasonable to restrict/regulate ownership and possession of knives for purposes other than food preparation.

Also, for the people who tout Heller, they should remember that it left undecided the constitutionality of most gun regulations. It could even be read to allow for Tony's National Guard proposal (which, btw, I don't like).

Basically the Hellar decision says first part states a reason but has no effect, for or against the second part, being the stated right to bear arms. The problem in the Heller case was there was no way to have a legal gun. Not that it could not be controlled, registered, limited, ect. But that there is required to be some way to legally own and posses a firearm and have the ability to use it for self defence. Hellar wasn't a blow against gun control, rather a blow to those that say gun control and really mean gun banning as in DC.

The true shortcoming of Heller was that it did nothing to address the flawed incorporation doctrine. It definitely made a clear point that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, but it only applies to Federal laws in the places where only they hold sway. The incorporation doctrine still leaves out the Second Amendment as one of the "fundamental" rights which *must* be incorporated by the states, so states can still outlaw any and all guns as far as the voters will let their legislators take it.

My personal take is true preservation of the Founding Fathers. Everyone has the right to carry the very best quality weapons from 1783. I believe the Kentucky long rifle was the height of weaponry at the time, so let it be the top available arm now.

I know that sounds too cute an answer, but does anyone out there think these guys envisioned AK-47s? We currently can't carry Stingers legally, aren't these "arms" by the same sliding scale definition that makes a flintlock equivalent with the M107 50 caliber Sniper Rifle?

Likewise, the right to carry concealed arms should be adjusted. Make them unconcealed. Anybody who wants to carry must wear a holster. Of course, I would require said holster needs to be high visibility pink so that I can see it a 200 yards. That should take care of the macho crowd compensate for other short-comings by packing.

If the 2nd amendment is to honored as originally written, let it be so.

Jazz that isn't a shortcoming of Hellar because Hellar was designed very narrowly on purpose. Yes it would be nice for everything to be spelled out and there be no more questions but it never happens and SCOTus most likely would of thrown out anything that was broader in scope as is their want. Hellar on it's face doesn't allow anything. Rather it states that there are limits to previously accepted "gun control" bans. Basically if there is someplace even under state jurisdiction which is impossible to own a gun then it is most likely unconstitutional. However like any other right if it's possible to show good reason why public safety is realistically improved it may have a chance. In this case it's hard to come up with a good reason for allowing law abiding, licensed, background checked, citizens (and in Hellars case a "special policeman") to have a handgun in their own home. Does anyone believe this will in any statistical significant way affect crime or gun violence in DC? Then what the hell is the point to depriving people of a right !! They may not need it but it is still there!!

And HemmD ......................................... why bother

HemmD - the Founding Fathers actually wanted no Standing Armies, expected the populace to be fully armed, and indeed many of them even brought their own cannons to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars.

The concept was an armed populace that could resist any Nationalist force imposing its will by force against the States and the People. The Fathers distrusted concentrated, centralized power, and designed (well, so they thought) a Constitution that would ensure State supremacy over the Federal Government.

So, if you want to be a TRUE originalist, "We The People" (your infamous party of the first part!) should be able to buy fully automatic weapons, grenades, missiles, tanks, combat aircraft, submarines, nuclear weapons, you name it. An extreme position, I know, but one that can be fully supported by Original Intent doctrine.

AR

You're exactly right. So, we already limit what is acceptable; i.e. no nuclear weapons in the hands of the populace. SO.... We've already accepted the principle of limitation. Sensible licensing and limiting of machine guns / automatic rifles follow with no broach of precedent.

Otherwise, those hand phasers of the future are going to be a real problem.

EEllis

I bother because no one realistically has seen the 2nd applied fully; yet the basis for today's arguments come from the idea that no one can remove this right protected in the 2nd. Even the NRA doesn't advocate the total right to bear all arms, no nukes, no M107 50 caliber Sniper Rifle, no full machine guns. Doesn't the argument then devolves to simply how far that limit should extend.

The problem with discussing Heller is the real world fact that some people are responsible, and some are not. Those who are crazy, drunk, or otherwise "unworthy" to the rights of the 2nd are currently lumped in with the Hellers of the world. Interpretation of the law is not a matter of negotiation, but as long as the NRA etc will not work to address the crazies, we lose the security of a responsible armed populace by those who want to make the unarmed safe.

HemmD - machine guns and automatic weapons are already banned, except in very particular and rare cases.

Perhaps you are talking about the heavy regulating and limiting of any firearm that does not need to be manually reset or re-loaded between shots, i.e., the vast majority of all hunting rifles, shotguns, pistols and hand guns? There are very few guns other than target rifles and pistols that would remain legal (or not 'limited') under that scenario.

But I think that IS what you want. Maybe I am wrong.

And not everyone HAS accepted the principal of limitation. Remember, I told you I am Jeffersonian.

HemmD Has no one ever told you you should masturbate in private? Really when I say whats the point it's because you start with the absurd and run on about things you attribute that ignore everything people have said. NRA is not against prohibiting "crazies" from having guns. Here's a question though do you want the Feds to know every thing about your mental health? Because that is what it would take. It doesn't take a gun nut to find that uncomfortable. "Unworthy" you said. Who decides that? How about the right to vote? Here's one, the right to reproduce, I don't know about you but some people with kids just shouldn't have them. The problem with Hellar is just that there is no problem. It will in no way affect the statistical crime in DC. It's a given that in the limited way it allows DC to proceed that there will not be an increase in real guns or violence. So why should it be a problem? Look at what I said and stop listening to the voices for a second. Sure you can limit rights but you need a reason besides "because". The truth is its been shown time and time again that reasonable licencing of firearms never raises gun violence. The reason so many are so anti gun control is that so many gun control advocates are liars. Any excuse, any reason, any lie as long as it stops someone from owning a gun. Since their cause is good anything done to further it is justified. It worked for a while and then people caught on.

I'm not the one twisting the position of the NRA. And by the way, ad hominid attacks make your argument much less persuasive.


"The reason so many are so anti gun control is that so many gun control advocates are liars. "

The NRA's attempt at "reasonable licensing" is making sure there's a giant loophole through gun shows. If the NRA spent 10% of their time, money, and lobbying effort to make sure a reasonable solution was enacted, maybe their call for holy rights without responsibility would sound less like the snow job they're shoveling. The problem is real, and you wish to say there is no problem. Fine, hope your always carrying, as the number of crazies in the last week alone certainly demonstrate you may well need protection at work, at school, or in your church.
If you're a gun owner, and responsible, I for one am not against your ownership; I believe is your right. But innocent people regularly die not because of your guns, but because more money is spent in blocking legislation than in solving the problem.

Acting as if this is only a constitutional question is willfully blinding yourself to the terrible social effects that are occurring. The safest way to guarantee you keeping your guns is working toward a solution that keeps the crazies and the guns separated.

HemmD, have you ever stopped to look at the number of crimes committed using .50 cal sniper rifles? ....or the fraction of murders involving SEMI-auto black rifles?

The AR-15 is the most popular centerfire rifle sold in the US. It's used extensively in competition shooting, and is becoming a very popular hunting platform.

Handguns are much more widely used in crime than any type of rifle.

So where do you start with your gun-controlling inclinations? If you want to revoke the 2nd, you're going to have an uphill struggle

Great example of gun control lies. There is no gunshow loophole. If you are selling as a dealer you must follow the same rules no matter where you are. There are no loopholes. Now as far as private citizens I'd say so what? Look in the classifieds and you'll find plenty of listings for guns. the govt doesn't regulate sales between private citizens period. Gunshows or no. Prime example of lies.

As far as .50 cal rifles being used in crimes I checked a little over a year ago I could only find 4 and no one had ever been shot with one. Twice there wasn't even ammo they were just part of illegal gun cashes. One was in the cab of the guy who armored a bulldozer and started knocking down half of a town. He didn't shoot anyone with it and it really seems like the least of the problems in that case.

My example s valid becuase as you fail to point out, unliscensed sales do not require the 3 day waiting priod. A sting operation completed by the a law enforcement sting that targeted gun shows and swap meets in Arizona resulted in the seizure of 1,500 illegal guns. Gun sales are where the sale of guns destined for the Mexican cartels are currently getting their arms through drug financing. This is a part of your grand scheme to protect your rights? Private sales don't fall under the law, why do you think that is the case, the government forgot? No, the NR insisted on the LOOPHOLE.

As to the .50 cal; do your search for AK47s, you shouldn't have to look beyond this last week's news to find an example. And you know this.

And of course, you choose to ignore my point: Why aren't you just as committed to working to solve the problems associated with yur right to bear arms? Is there some reason you see no linkage between your rights under the 2nd Amendment and the 1000s of deaths that occur from the easy access to guns? Do not rights not come with associated responsibilities?

I'm still waiting to read why you have such a problem with private ownership the .50 cal......again, why not target hanguns if you're really interested in restricting an entire class of firearms that account for the vast majority of gun deaths?

Black rifles, those SEMI-auto AK knock offs and AR-15's etc, are used just a fraction of crimes involving any type of rifle......and rifles of all types get used in just about 3% of all gun related crimes.

Sound policy rarely comes from emotionally-based, knee jerk reactions.


As for the Mexican cartels, do you really believe they're getting their FULLY-automatic machine guns, hand grenades, RPG's, and other military equipment from gun shows in the United States? Have you ever been to a gun show? I suppose they acquired their fleet of drug-smuggling submarines by shopping at US marinas and boat dealers too.

HemmD - you need to stop relying on disgraced anti-gun talking points.

It has already been shown, and admitted to by the LA Times, hardly a bastion of right-wing thought, that the vast majority of guns being funneled into Mexico are NOT coming from US guns shows. They are rimarily Asian black-market guns and weapons abandoned by the huge desertion rate within the Mexican military.

Now, the US borders ARE being used as a smuggling point, but the lack of border control being the problem is very different that claiming they are using our gun law's weakness to buy guns. That just isn't the case.

Anyone who possesses reasonable reading comprehension cannot mistake the intention of the 2nd Amendment. Unless, of course, they are rabid gun lovers. Many men think of guns as an extension of their masculinity. Losing the right to own and shoot guns is like depriving them through castration. This applies also to Supreme Court justices. This cultural and biological attraction to guns is sickening in the light of the facts. Guns in the household are many times more likely to be used to kill someone who lives in that household than an intruder. Guns are tools for carrying out impulsive killing and ideally suited for committing crimes and suicide. They are a disgrace to our society. To those cynical gun lovers, I say to you, at least be honest and stop misreading the Constitution, that is, if your reading comprehension is good enough. Owning and keeping arms in the home is not mentioned at all in the 2nd Amendment. If you think that is what it guarantees, you are stupid or dishonest or fanatical, or any combination of these. Keep in mind, testosterone monkeys: "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword."

So, guns aren't crossing our southern border? I stand corrected.
As I can't get anyone else to reply, what are you willing to do to responsibly protect your 2nd Amendment right and help prevent 30000 deaths a year?

I'll await your ideas.

And by the way. The ATF is making stuff up as an anti-gun talking point?

EL PASO, Texas — Nearly all illegal guns seized in Mexico come from the United States, the head of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said Monday.

ATF acting director Michael Sullivan said investigators have traced 90 to 95 percent of the weapons found in Mexico to the U.S. Generally, only law-enforcement officers or military personnel can legally possess guns in Mexico.

Sullivan, speaking at the fifth annual Border Security Conference at the University of Texas at El Paso, said the weapons are being traced as part of an effort by the U.S. and Mexico to stop the illegal flow of guns south.

"In Mexico, investigators have provided some tremendous leads ... to weapons trafficking organizations," Sullivan said.

One bust came in May, when the owner of a Phoenix gun shop was arrested on charges that he knowingly sold hundreds of weapons to "straw purchasers" who funneled the weapons to violent drug cartels in Mexico.

It goes on from there, but where do you get your pro gun distortions?

Panza

Here's your answer.

I'm not "targeting" any guns. I'm criticizing the selective blindness of those who feel that their right to own a gun is not accompanied by an equal responsibility to address the problems with the system that allows 30,000 deaths a year. And you know it.

"Black rifles, those SEMI-auto AK knock offs and AR-15's etc, are used just a fraction of crimes involving any type of rifle"

Tell that to the families of the three police officers who were gunned down by an idiot this last week. The report states that he fired over 100 shots. What animal do you hunt that requires 100 shots to kill? What army are you expecting to enter your house that requires such firepower?

So tell me, what are you willing to do to respond to this problem? If nothing, then crazy's will continue to attack the 2nd Amendment. I'm looking for a solution to a real world problem, aren't you?

HemmD - please don't regress into one of those leftist assholes that purposely mis-state opinions and comments because they disagree with an underlying premise. So far, you have resisted the urge, but now are starting to.

I CLEARLY said that guns ARE crossing the borders, but it is a border control problem, not an 'arming through US gun shows' problem.

What would I do about gun deaths? Fully legalize the right to hidden carry. Almost every single place that it has been implemented, gun deaths go down. Seems criminal are a little more wary about pulling if they think you might be packing heat, too.

And even more likely to significantly reduce gun deaths is to fully liberalize recreational drugs, legalize them, treat them like alcohol and tobacco, and thereby eliminate the prohibition-like criminal economy that has developed around it. Prison population would plummet, as would gang-related activities, less people, especially inner-city youths, would get caught up in the circle of criminalization of their lives and the glorification of violence, etc. I think that alone would reduce gun deaths by 50% - 66% within a few years of implimentation.

"The ATF is making stuff up as an anti-gun talking point?" They are hardly a 'pro-gun' organization (except for their own).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/...

Key points:

"The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S."

AND

"So, if not from the U.S., where do they come from? There are a variety of sources:

-- The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.

-- Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.

- South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.

-- Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.

-- The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.

-- Guatemala. U.S. intelligence agencies say traffickers move immigrants, stolen cars, guns and drugs, including most of America's cocaine, along the porous Mexican-Guatemalan border. On March 27, La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town."

AND

"Ed Head, a firearms instructor in Arizona who spent 24 years with the U.S. Border Patrol, recently displayed an array of weapons considered "assault rifles" that are similar to those recovered in Mexico, but are unavailable for sale in the U.S.

"These kinds of guns -- the auto versions of these guns -- they are not coming from El Paso," he said. "They are coming from other sources. They are brought in from Guatemala. They are brought in from places like China. They are being diverted from the military. But you don't get these guns from the U.S."

Some guns, he said, "are legitimately shipped to the government of Mexico, by Colt, for example, in the United States. They are approved by the U.S. government for use by the Mexican military service. The guns end up in Mexico that way -- the fully auto versions -- they are not smuggled in across the river."

Many of the fully automatic weapons that have been seized in Mexico cannot be found in the U.S., but they are not uncommon in the Third World."

AR

If you wish to counter a "left wing" talking point, please remember that using the LA Times instead of the ATF may not be a primary source. And please, when I resort to name-calling, feel free to tell me that ad hominid attacks make me look like an idiot.

Is the 1500 illegal arms in one sting operation not enough to matter? What does that number need to be? If this 1500 is only sold in the US, is that OK?

As to your two suggestions, (the first anybody has provided to date)

Why not unconcealed? At least the bad guys know who to avoid (along with people like me)
The reported drop in gun deaths could also be attributed at least in part to the strenuous training and certification that goes along with licenses to carry concealed. Licenses, training, certification. Great idea.


We both know that legalizing all drugs may be a problem. How bout we start with marijuana. It certainly the gateway drug for smugglers to make enough cash to finance cocaine.

I'll add one:
How about 25 years mandatory for carrying an unlicensed gun?

One, I didn't call you anything. I said don't become a left-wing asshole, not that you are one.

Second, if you don't want me (or others) pissed off at you, don't claim I said the opposite of what I DID say, then try to imply I was an idiot for saying the words YOU put in my mouth.

I used 'recreation drugs'. Draw the line where you are comfortable, but the point I made is valid.

And I actually do not think gun permits or licenses should be required at all. Do you need government permission to exercise your First Amendment rights?

if 1 citizen was legally armed at any of the mass shootings, the sicko would have been stopped ,with less loss of life.
at columbine and vtech the police waited to set up a perimiter and swat before engaging the shooter. which adds up to more people being killed then should have.
in north carolina one officer ,alone entered the building engaged the active shooter AND STOPPED WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN A MASS KILLing.
every person in those buildings wishs they had a gun at that moment in life to protect them .
a sick person will use gasoline , explosives, or a knife to kill ,caine used a rock not an ak.
if we pull the teeth of the sheep dogs , does that protect the sheep from the wolve.NO.

the 2nd ammendment gives the individual the right to protect family and property with a fire arm.it also gives all americans the right to own firearms to protect our country from ENEMIES FORIEGN AND DOMESTIC.

and mexico should put security on their border like we do .not blame us.
also no one mentions the corruption in the mexican government which is rampant as a major part of that countries problem not our second amendment.
THE ARMED CITIZEN NEXT TO YOU COULD SAVE YOUR LIFE NOT THE COP THATS 10 MINUTES AWAY.
ONCE AGAIN KILLERS WILL ALWAYS KILL A GUN A KNIFE A ROCK .

We have open carry here in Ohio, no permit required. Hasn't been a problem. "Shall issue" CCW laws have at least proven to be unharmful, if not beneficial. I would like to see nationwide CCW permit reciprocity. I know Jim Webb strongly supports this.

I'm 100% with you on legalizing marijuana. That should generate a quite a bit of tax revenue, and free up a bunch of prison space. And you're exactly right about locking up folks who commit crimes using a firearm. Eliminate the parole nonsense for violent offenders.

Also, we know the NICS background check system blocks a couple hundred thousand felons from "legally" buying guns from licensed dealers. That's fine and dandy, but those felons, which are known to the government to be seeking firearms, are left free to acquire their guns through the black market. Just attempting to purchase a gun by a felon is a crime. Its time we start locking those up who do so....NOW!

I hope we're finding some common ground here.


I will not sit back, however, and watch some in goverment and the media deliberately conflate the types of guns banned by the ineffective '94 AWB, and machine guns used by military forces. (among other inaccuracies) This has been a ploy of the anti-gun lobby since the late 80's when they realized trying to institute a nationwide handgun ban was a non-starter. If you don't believe me just google "Josh Sugarman" and the Violence Policy Center.

Starting gun policy debates with dishonest rhetoric is unproductive at best. The result is usually bad policy, followed by Democrats getting booted out of office.

AR

I apologize for the polemic, it does neither of us any good.

Agreed on the drug thing. I suggested pot as it's prohibition has the best chance of change.

2nd point. Speech - It's controlled. You can't yell "fire" in a theater. No one goes crazy for that limitation.
Press - You can't libel. another limitation.
vote - can't if you don't register or are a felon.
There's three "freedoms" have limitations and nobody is too upset by that.

I hope you've seen where I've stated repeatedly that you have the right to own guns.

I'm just saying something needs to be done. 30,000 people a year is horribly wrong.
I wrote much of above in the other thread about guns, a problem for continuity.

It's time for a solutions based discussion, not a debate. Why is that idea incite such anger?
IMO

But, about 10% of the populace is batsh#t crazy. If everybody's armed, doesn't that mean every tenth person you meet is armed and nuts?
Do you shoot first and ask later? Come on, commonsense2, don't you know at least one person you wouldn't trust with a gun? I sure do. And no, you're not one of the people I would consider to be a problem.

You are energized, not nuts like those I'm talking about.

Panza

I agree with much of what you say. I was serious when I suggested 25 years for illegal gun possession. I think licensing, if the totally anti gun group is kept at bay, is a reasonable place to start. You're also right that BS talking points on both sides is a hindrance to progress.

You have to register to vote, is that an infringement on your right?
Licensing a gun should be an acceptable thing, IF people who break the law are held truly responsible.
Currently, if you buy a gun from a dealer, you have to register. If you buy from a private party, you don't.
Wouldn't you find it ridiculous if you had to license your car if bought from a dealer, but didn't have to if you bought it from your neighbor?

HemmD -

Thank you for the apology, it was quite civil of you.

I, too, apologize for stepping a little too close to the border of an ad hominum attack, and any rudeness in my responses.

Now, back to the discussion. I didn't say there were not limits to the First Amendment, I said you do not need prior approval to exercise those rights.

As to the violence, there are both other countries with high gun ownership levels without the gun violence we are seeing, and within our own history the levels of gun violence over the past 20 - 30 years are unprecedented. Some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation are in areas of the highest amount of gun violence.

IMHO the problem is societal in nature, not a direct function of the availability of guns. That is what we need to solve. Do that, and gun deaths will return to more 'acceptable' levels.

The 'anger' is that many of us who are gun ownership advocates feel is due to all the current attempts to use the current basic societal problems to accomplish a political goal of un-Constitutional limits on gun ownership, and are tired of being smeared all the time as a bunch of rednecks and cowboys wanting to get drunk, drive out in our pickups to the edge of town, and start a-shootin'.

BTW - I don't want to go down what 'acceptable' means - for some it is 'even one death is too many', which gets back to the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people', etc. Let's save THAT for another day's discussion.