stanc Wrote:The Second Amendment does not say, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be subject to whatever requirements and restrictions are deemed appropriate by the government."..
You forgot well regulated, what does that apply for Stan??
stanc Wrote:I cannot fathom how you think requiring government approval to buy and carry arms is not infringing. What you advocate would turn an unalienable right into a government-granted (and revokable) privilege.
Stan, committing a felony is giving up such rights, "but like I stated before" this should have no consequence according to you.
stanc Wrote:And having read what I typed, it dawns on me that the right to keep and bear arms ceased being a right, and became a privilege the moment that background checks were required in order to buy firearms.
Dong a criminal back ground check ceases a right from being a right?? Some logic you have there Stan.
stanc Wrote:Believing a falsehood does not make it true..
So why do you keep believing in falsehoods??
stanc Wrote:State militias were required to be "well regulated" (i.e., properly organized, disciplined, and trained), but citizens were not required to meet militia training standards -- or indeed any standards -- in order to buy, keep and bear arms..
Did you really just say that lol. Properly organized, disciplined, and trained??? So if you are not properly organized, disciplined, and trained then what???? Oh that's right, you don't believe the whole people are the militia, but just the national guard. If a person commits a felony then those rights are no longer applicable, or should we dispense with prisons,criminal records and all punishments?? Your logic, not mine.
stanc Wrote:Except we wouldn't have one or the other. We would have both.
Yes, in California you do..
stanc Wrote:Then you're leaving open a source for nut jobs to get the guns they want to do mass shootings.
Sorry Stan, but only .08% of firearms used in crimes came from private sales.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf Not a problem.
stanc Wrote:LOL. It already is de facto gun registration. About 25 years ago a gun I had owned was used to kill someone. One day a homicide detective showed up at my apartment to question me about it, obviously having used the recorded info to locate me..
California, not Montana! By the way, who did you sell your firearm too??
stanc Wrote:And yet you advocate an idea that would create a registry of every law-abiding gun owner in the country...
If a person has served in government in any capacity they are on a registry. If a person drives, owns a home, votes etc they are on a registry. Is not owning property a right, voting, having a job, getting married, etc etc??? Guess what Stan, you are put on a registry of some form with all these activities that are rights.
