>>>>>I assume you know that when that amendment was drawn up, the drafters had no idea that it
>>>>>would be interpreted to mean that every Tom, Dick and Harry would have a gun.
>>>
>>>When the constitution was drawn up, every Tom, Dick and Harry DID have a gun.
>>>
>>Well, probably not, but I take your point.

>
>Probably not?? The average person depended on their firearm for hunting as well as defense. Not
>sure how that's an arguable point.
>
Not everyone lived in rural areas at that time. There were actual cities even then where [probably] most people did not walk around with a gun.
>
>>
>>>>>Are you implying that everybody in the U.S. who owns arms of some sort is part of a
>>>>>well regulated militia, and not just some idiot with a gun?
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>So then, all those who aren't, should have to give up their guns because they aren't living within the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Ok, I think that's fair.
>
>That's a strange interpretation of the second amendment.
>
>My take:
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
>A milita is needed to ensure freedom
>
>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
>People can have their guns.
>
>There is nothing in the amendment that says guns are only for the militia.
>

If allowing the citizenry to bear arms according to the 2nd amendment is not for the explicit purpose of having a well regulated militia, then why bother to mention the 'well regulated militia' at all. Why wouldn't they have written the 2nd amendement to simply say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If the ownership of guns is not resulting in a well regulated militia, then I contend that it is not fulfilling the purposes of the 2nd amendment and should probably be abandoned, or (worse) updated to remove that phrase.


>>>>>We're not simply talking about some minor inconveniences. The big deal is that here in the US
>>>>>the second amendment to our constitution says
>>>>>
>>>>>"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
>>>>>people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
>>>>>
>>>>>Requiring me to register my gun, or I can't have it, is infringing on my right to have it.
>>>>
>>>>I assume you know that when that amendment was drawn up, the drafters had no idea that it would be interpreted to mean that every Tom, Dick and Harry would have a gun. Are you implying that everybody in the U.S. who owns arms of some sort is part of a well regulated militia, and not just some idiot with a gun?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Now this might seem trivial to some, but when happens when the amendment is overlooked, and guns
>>>>>are taken away from the citizens?? Then to we also take away my first amendment right to freedom
>>>>>of speech? Where does it stop?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Law-abiding citizen in this context is the person who follows the law and registers their gun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Law-breaking citizen in this context is the person who declines to register their gun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, you actually used the word 'criminals', so I assumed you meant actual criminals, and not just people who don't register their guns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And "hinderence on a law-abiding citizen"??? Life is full of hinderences, and as long as they have a legitimate purpose, mostly we live with them. We register all sorts of things: cars, children, property, etc. I find it a hinderence to have to register my car. How about you? What's the big deal about registering a gun?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Well, I'm all for tracking guns for the purpose of knowing tracking them to criminals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The problem is that some would argue that it violates the 2nd amendment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And, crimanals are surely not going to register their guns, so all you've done is put another
>>>>>>>>>hinderence on a law-abiding citizen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I keep hearing this about how all it does is penalise the law-abiding citizen. I'll say this one more time. In every case ever recorded, the first time a criminal breaks the law, whether it's a school massacre or a robbery, he/she was a 'law-abiding' citizen the day before.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>We have a national registry in Canada - It doesn't work. It's just a big waste of tax money. All it did was make every gun own a criminal in the eyes of the law. The government has since abandoned registry of long guns.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I think there should be a national registry AND a national firearms license.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Right now in the US a 16 year old kid can get a driver's permit and get behind the wheel of a
>>>>>>>>>>>dangerous vehicle.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>A potential gun owner should be required to attend training before being awarded a license.
>>>>>>>>>>>Then each time he/she buys a gun, it's entered into the database.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Not only is the person tracked, but trained. This would reduce the accidental deaths by guns and
>>>>>>>>>>>help track firearms.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Tracy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Interesting links....and really supporting what is common sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>By the way, does anyone recall the Islamic looting that took place in Europe right after the 9/11 attacks? Makes you wonder if all those guys would have done so, had they known that their victims would have been able to defend themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm open to discussion on specifics of making sure that background checks for gun owners are as full-proof as possible. But the notions being promoted by some here are just way off base.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Kevin