Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

The second amendment clearly states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.The government doing anything to prevent a citizen(except say a convicted felon) or someone who is actually mentally ill from obtaining a gun is unconstitutional. There are background checks now for gun stores, private sellers should have their own discretion but can't knowingly sell to a felon or wackjob.This weekends tragedy in Boston shows no matter how many rights we give up(Patriot Act) bad things can and will happen, it is called life and the price of living in a FREE Republic, not a nanny police state, even though we are much closer because of our emotional reaction to 9/11 The Feds simply want a way to track who has what and they have no right to do so.

There's a contradiction in terms if I've ever seen one. Its the job of every government to protect their citizens yet in this nation our government isn't allowed to do so because of way some people define the 2nd Amendment. As for the background checks in gun stores that to my understanding has been per individual states but hasn't existed at a national level, private sellers already use their own discretion as to whom they will or will not sell a firearm to. And could you elaborate how exactly a private seller can't knowingly sell to a felon or a mentally ill person without knowing if the person they are selling to is or isn't a felon or mentally ill? As for what happened in Boston, while it was horrific and tragic no amount of bills, rules, laws, or acts can 100% prevent bad things from happening, that's a fact.

While it would be pretty much impossible to confiscate guns en masse, they could pass a law saying everyone must turn firearms in and after time period if caught with one, harsh penalities, many would regrettably turn them in, others would retain in, some would find themselves in horrible legal situations, some would go waco and ruby ridge and we would have government abusing it's power yet again.Why you people do not understand that the one thing that keeps the government in line, especially when we have more maniacal leaders like NHO in office is the fact there so much of the population is heavily armed, they know they could never achieve what they want via force.They have tried for many years the slow but sure approach and it is why they use propaganda and emotion to try get people to give up their rights.

To be correct they could try to pass said law only to have it voted down anyways as the current political climate would make it nearly impossible to do so. On the other hand to make a similar law where people volunteer to turn in their firearms at their discretion and not force them to turn in their firearms would gain much more acceptance. I cite two passages from the gun laws in Finland " Possessing a firearm without a license is a punishable offence. Unlicensed firearms may be confiscated by the police without punishment under a gun amnesty law, provided this happens under the individual's own initiative. Firearms surrendered in this manner are auctioned to the public or destroyed. It is also possible for the owner to get a license for the gun.", "Due to changes to the legislation, unregistered firearms may now be handed over to the police without punishment for illegal possession of a firearm, provided that the owner of the firearm does so of his own initiative. The firearm is then stored while the owner applies for a permit. If he chooses not to, it will be auctioned, or destroyed if it is deemed dangerous to use due to its condition. Historically valuable weapons are sometimes handed over to museums. Unlicensed weapons may be turned over to the police, without fear of prosecution. This practice is called "mercy year", as it originally started as a one-year experiment, which was very successful. Thousands of unregistered firearms and several tons of explosives and ammunition are collected each year. Many, if not most of these items are old "souvenirs" dating back to World War II or even the Finnish Civil War." As to the last half of this particular quote I cite from the Wiki article on the 2nd Amendment "In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

Aside from the clear violation of the second amendment, the spirit of the second is also violated by checks, etc as the founders intended for the citizens to always have a manner to defend themselves against tyranny.They lived under it and knew the nature of man, and the men who make up governments as history had shown and has since.This is one reason they did not say muskets etc, they knew firearms would advance, as technology does, they knew though that opponents of liberty seeking power do not, they have always been there, and always will.

Care to elaborate on what "checks, etc" that the Founding Fathers put in place that violates the 2nd Amendment? And while the Founding Fathers didn't any specific type of firearm into the language of the 2nd Amendment there are some who use that fact as a lame excuse to try and say that they (The Founding Fathers) put that there to protect all firearms. Even though I have extreme doubts that the Founding Fathers could of foreseen the types of weapons that mankind uses to kill itself with today. Mankind inventing better ways to kill itself since the Stone Age.