Arming public reduces crime

Yes: I most certainly would object. This proposal is in clear violation of the Second Amendment.

 

I do not carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
__________________________________
The world is a dangerouse place to live. Not because of people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.​

 

Why would registering an Arm (in a hypothetical militia gun registry) that could qualify for an exemption from State gun control laws be a clear violation of the Second Amendment if it clearly adheres to a literal interpretation?

 

My issue with gun registration and gun owner registration is that, first, people will always push to have this information released. (Illinois tried to do this recently). Secondly, it is no business of the government in the first place, and is a waste of federal resources. And finally, what other god given and constitutionally-protected right requires registration and certification? What happens when the government asks for ID when you want to go to a political process, or when the government can declare anyone insane and thereby strip them of their right to due process? Big government is not the answer.

 

Your original question was "Would you object to a State militia gun registry for persons who may wish to acquire and posses a form of private property which may include Arms?" I answered a resounding "No" to that question for the reasons stated below.

How is "registering" a right compatible with freedom? If you had to register every time you stated a negative comment regarding the president of the United States, would this not be a violation of the 1st Amendment? Besides, what would be the purpose of such a registry, besides wasting taxpayer dollars and substantially growing the power of government to the point where the government has a formal registry of every gun owner. I do not want to live in such an Orwellian nightmare.

 

It would only be a militia gun registry which could be a requirement in any event, if a person becomes weapons qualified on the gun of their choice and they choose to keep and bear it, with the full faith and credit of public acts; so, from that perspective, I am not sure why anyone would have a problem with being exempted from State gun control laws in favor of federal gun control as enumerated in our federal Constitution.

 

Registering a gun with a militia gun registry would mean that such a weapon has been qualified for and duly recorded as a public act and should qualify that person for an exemption from State gun control in favor of federal gun control as enumerated in our federal Constitution.

 

Let's be honest. MOST gun deaths in this country are a result of GANG violence by GANG members, in GANG areas, using NON-LEGAL guns. The honest legal people rarely use their guns for murder. Stop with all you lies.

 

In my opinion, the judicatures of the United States could "legislate" a form of "morality", from the bench, simply for the sake of secular and civil morals, by providing the option of mustering with a well regulated militia as an alternative form of sentencing and form of community service that could be more useful to the State, for any person who keeps and bears Arms.

 

Arming the public increases fun.

 

This made me laugh! Cheers

 

The Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution claims that an armed populace can be of benefit to a free State.

 

Therefore, disarming the public would benefit the antithesis of a free State; e.g. a tyranny.

 

Who is trying to disarm the public? Gun control is not the same as gun prohibition. Gun control is a States' right; gun prohibition is not.

 

It's the same out song and dance using the same old straw man constructed to argue against the extremes and avoid a logical discussion about the merits of gun control. They feel that by arguing against a gun prohibition, that they can avoid discussing rational gun control. It's all very predictable, really.

 

His statement would have been accurate if he had said law abiding citizens do not commit murder. = )

 

I believe the Second Amendment simply codifies the pre-existing right of self-defense, the being the right to keep and bear arms. I do agree that an armed populace could of course benefit a free state.

 

Even this would have been deceptive because it automatically omits (perhaps intentionally so) all those who were previously law-abiding prior to their crime. An important demographic when one truly attempts to be consistent in a debate concerning the "law-abiding" and crimes with guns.

 

You find the truth funny? Why?

 

Come on Daniel. We all know how the slippery slope works. We have gun control now. And yet you don't see it as working. You want more.

 

"The honest legal people rarely use their guns for murder"? I'm still smiling at the absurdity of it.

If you wanted to go for serious comment you'd have to try and dismiss the link between legal and illegal markets (which provides a key explanation over how personal gun preferences lead to negative spillovers in terms of an increase in crime rates)

 

It doesn't matter what other people do. For me it was carry a weapon or risk becoming a victim again.

 

You may be mistaking me for someone else. I subscribe to the federal doctrine as established by our Founding Fathers.

In my opinion, the only problem we have is that gun lovers simply do not want to lover their republic as much as they love their guns.

 

I said it would be accurate I didn't say it would be helpful to the debate. =D

Although there are studies that suggest that a high percentage of gun related crimes are committed by those who have prior criminal records. One I believe was one of Cook's studies if someone wants to assist in tracking it down. I would think this is an important piece of information to consider in this debate.

 

The slippery slope has no logical application to gun control. Refer here.