here are how other countries do it succesfully. background checks involve talking to family members, neighbors, coworkers, etc to gain a full and complete understanding of the individual and not just a computer check for a criminal record. licensing requires more instruction and the instructor caries a professional responsibility with no economic conflict so the instructor can become the last line of defense if they have a student who may not be emotionally or mentally stable. practically every EU country that I looked at requires both criminal and mental health screeening How gun control works in America, compared with 4 other rich countries - Vox Canada Canada requires a license to own a gun and ammunition, and buyers to pass safety course tests. Licenses must be renewed every five years. Licensing requires fairly stringent background checks. An "applicant for a firearm license in Canada must pass background checks, which consider criminal, mental, addiction and domestic violence records," according to the Library of Congress's review of Canada's laws. The background checks also consider whether an applicant has been treated for a mental illness, if the person was associated with violence, threats, or attempted violence, and whether the person has a history of any behavior "that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person." On top of traditional background checks, each license applicant needs to submit third-party character references. Switzerland Private gun ownership generally requires a license, for which an applicant "must be at least 18 years of age, may not have been placed under guardianship, may not give cause for suspicion that he would endanger himself or others with the weapon, and may not have a criminal record with a conviction for a violent crime or of several convictions for nonviolent crimes," according to the Library of Congress's review of Swiss gun laws. The license is valid for six to nine months, and it's usually valid only for one weapon. But rifles and semiautomatic long arms used by recreational hunters are exempt from licensing requirements.
So ignore the second half of the 2nd amendment about the right belonging to the people and not infringing on it and turn the right into a privilege that can easily be manipulated for political reasons, not having to do with an individual's qualifications? The 3% of the country that won our freedom was largely not a trained force. They were a bunch of farmers who showed up with their guns as they were and fell in line, and they were equipped with appropriate weapons of the day that were equivalent to the regulars of the British army. The militia is the people able and willing to fight should the situation call for it due to foreign or domestic enemies. In a situation where the militia is actually needed, you need everyone who can show up to do so with the best weaponry they have.
why ignore the first part? it was there for a reason, to limit the arms ownership to people who qualified for the militia. gun ownership isa privilege, one that belongs to thsoe that are part of well regualted militia. the wording is very clear. the only cheap political infringement was negating those words. the FF did not intend for every Tom dick and susie to own a firearm. it is why those words are there and in today's day and age of advanced weaponry, do you think that citizens would stand any chance repelling a properly equipped invading force if our military had already been defeated? it would take a serious disconnect from reality to believe that anything more than a guerilla war inflicting random casualties would be possible if the enemy had already defeated our military.
Exactly they were either drunk tired or both when they wrote it and the SCOTUS has been making stupefying decisions since especially as of late
There is a difference between a localized fear of someone who you know is armed versus a general awareness that some people may be armed. And any response isn't to people who "might" harm me or my family, it is when the threat is imminent. In that moment, yes, there would absolutely be fear. I don't think there is a person on earth who would not have fear in the moment. But do I fear that moment happening? That is where the distinction lies. It is merely a risk to mitigate at this point due to the low likelihood of occurrence, and any thought I give it is pretty detached and unemotional. I shoot frequently and take classes occasionally that have more scenario and practical application but it is not so much fear as an acknowledgement of the reality that should the situation happen, I want to give myself the best chance of succeeding in a very stressful situation by having my fundamentals and and as much of my processing buttoned up ahead of time as I can. That is as far as I can control it, and I have no reason to hold on to any fear beyond that. So no, fear is not really the right word at all.
Nobody is ignoring the first part. Just reading it differently than you are. The only folks the founders intended to limit from the militia historically were slaves, women, children, the infirm, and the elderly. Everyone else was fair game, and even slaves weren't entirely prohibited. So yes, pretty much every Tom, Dick, and Harry who they regarded as a person of fighting age was allowed to keep and bear arms. And yeah, guerrilla warfare can be quite effective, or have Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. against poor rice and goat farmers not taught us anything? The conquering force generally has to not just win, but have something left to conquer that is worth more than the cost to conquer. There is no need for a militia to "win", just be a big enough pain in the ass that the enemy packs up their stuff and goes home.
Answer, to first sentence, yes. This isn't 1776, weren't edicts that came down from Mt. Sinai, and should be interpreted as if we are in 2023. Re: 2nd paragraph. That's a fantasy and no reason not to adopt what is working in countries that don't have our gun violence issues.
Just stop. This isn't a freaking COVID thread. I understand you didn't bring up COVID first, but you are definitely keeping the discussion alive.
Agree with most of this EXCEPT that part about guns not being the problem. They’re not the ONLY part of the equation but they are a part of the problem as far as easy access.
The militia mentioned in the Second Amendment is not an ad hoc militia. It was more or less the equivalent of the National Guard of today, a state military organization under the command of the state's governor. The militia is mentioned in two other places in the Constitution and it's clear that in those places the reference was a to a governmental military organization not an ad hoc group of armed citizens. In Article I, it provides Congress with the power to federalize the militia. In Article II, the Constitution designated the President as commander-in-chief of the militia after it is federalized. Doesn't sound to me like that is a reference to an ad hoc militia not under command of some government entity. FYI - Constitutional language followed by analysis and related legislation: Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: [The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . . The states as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.1 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.2 The act of February 28, 1795,3 which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.4 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war, but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.5 Article II Executive Branch Section 2 Powers Clause 1 Military, Administrative, and Clemency The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
I'm not trying to be a smart as, but I don't care what other countries issues our compared to ours. We have far more freedoms than most which I'm not willing to give up
Ignore if you want. Your issue is with those that responded to me. Asking me to ignore a direct response makes no sense. If you want it to stop. Tell those that bring it up to stop. Not me.
Fair enough on 3d printing but I'd be willing to take the chance that most would be shooters either wouldn't think of that, have the necessary equipment, or be smart enough to make a working weapon capable of killing a large number of people. Regarding your question, just my opinion, but it doesn't really bother me. I'm fine with the government monitoring for people trying to make bombs, buy illegal assault weapons, or searching for schematics to build an illegal weapon. If I were to google something like "how can I hire a hitman?" and someone in a windbreaker showed up at my door, my initial reaction would not be shock.
Painfully obvious that some random hoo hah's right to slaughter a bunch of other people supersedes all other considerations.
