I have a question…and maybe it should be it’s own thread…I dunno…But I read these things periodically about “gun control laws” and they all seem to focus predominantly on restricting sales of certain types of weapons and little else.
The problem with this is that it runs afoul of the constitution which clearly grants the right to keep and bear arms.
Why not - instead of constantly trying restrict the sale of weapons, simply require that those who purchase them demonstrate proficiency, safety, lack of criminal record etc.
Such would be entirely within the bounds of the second amendment guarantees since the right to keep and bear arms is tied to the need for a “Well regulated militia”.
The problem with that suggestion is that in the United States we are presumed innocent until proven guilty by due process of law.
If by law, the governement takes from citizen 1 a piece of property they are legally entitled to without first convicting them of a crime, the government has committed an immoral act and an act that is outside the laws restricting the government.
Secondly, there are laws restricting the purchase and ownership of machine guns already on the market. The proposed gun law would take off the market firearms that are not mechanically or functionally different than many other weapons. The proposed law would restrict weapons that are already difficult and expensive to acquire that are not functionally different than other less scary weapons.
I chose to use the word “scary” for a reason. The AR-15 type weapons and the AK type weapons that are purchased without special permits at a local gun store are just scary looking. They are not different in terms of the mechanical systems that cycle the weapon than any other semi-automatic rifle on the market.
The demonstration of proficiency would do nothing to prevent a crime from being committed because it would be the equivalent to taking a drivers test. People kill people and commit crimes with automobiles daily.
Furthermore licensing requirements, background checks, and other similar requirements would not prevent criminals from getting firearms. Criminals buy their weapons on the black market or they steal them. They are criminals and the laws don’t matter to them.
The phrase “well regulated militia” has a specific legal meaning. In all 50 states constitutions, the militia is defined as the collection of the body politic of men of legal age who are capable of carrying weapons in time of crisis. It is not the National Guard or a recognized and professional force. It is the last group of people to respond in the event of an invasion. Also, “well regulated” refers to the need that the militia be trained and drilled not controlled by the force of law.
The reason Americans need to have AR and AK type weapons is because we are free citizens and the government is a creature of our design and creation and we need to be able to control it should it become tyrannical. I know there are those of you who will be reading this and say I’m crazy or I’m saying there is a dooms day scenario on the horizon. But that’s also what they said just before the Nazi’s confiscated the guns of the Jews in 1938. They also started with background checks and “reasonable regulations.” The Chinese dictator Mao did the same thing and so did Joseph Stalin. More recently, the Mexican government banned all firearms in their country and they have the highest rate of violence in the world.
We have guns in the hope that we never need them and can enjoy them for sporting purposes but its better to have it and never need it than to need it and wish you had it.
By the way, go ahead and put me in that small percentage of people who disagree with the bishops on gun control too. I wish they realized if we didn’t have guns, religious persecutions would be coming much more quickly.
