[QUOTE]
**
Gaudere said
If I recall correctly the amendment is written "..keep and bear arms." So even if bear arms usually refers to wearing a gun in military service it seems to me that they also had the right to keep the guns while they weren't wearing them for the military.
Marc
I know the last setence was a run on…
Umm… Yes there is. If a gun is stolen and used in a crime, registration can almost always trace it. Serial numbers are registered so that lost or stolen guns can be found/traced/etc. That helps in reducing sales to criminals and helps prosecute offenders and keep baddies off your streets. But the fact is, it can’t hurt to register. Most Americans survive without guns… You can wait 5 days for yours. End of story. But get out of that damn neighborhood!
Infamus
That depends what you mean by hurt. If you buy a gun, say an old WW1 rifle with a bayonet attached because you want to hang it above your mantlepiece, and register it, and then 10 years later a law is passed banning “assault rifles” which include guns with bayonets attached, does it hurt when the police show up at your door to confiscate your lawfully purchased antique?
The preceeding incident actually happened to a friend of mine.
PeeQueue
Gimme a break… I repeat: No one needs an automatic weapon. For our own safety, bub.
Now, you asked a good question. Why would someone buy a Ferrari when my Mazda Protege works perfectly. Anytime I’m asked this, I answer:
BECAUSE THEY’RE STUPID!
I know… Harsh, but with a touch of truth. Bubba can enjoy his pistols. He don’t need no automatic weapons. Case closed.
And yes, we have laws and they’re just not enforced. True. But if we had no automatic weapons at all, the body count would surely go down. Can’t be bad.
But wait, then those militia guys couldn’t shoot bottles with automatics on the weekends. Damn! There goes that idea!
Why the hell do we NEED these guns around? For personal preferences? My personal preference is Macintosh. My personal preference is classic cars. But these aren’t responsible for countless young lives each year! And if they were, I would gladly give them up to save more lives. What is the issue? Why defend these weapons?
Infamus
But why should they? The fact that waiting periods don’t seriously harm most people doesn’t automatically justify their existence. The notion that they are of any use in reducing gun violence has been thouroughly debunked.
Lots of claims … little evidence.
It does? I suppose you have amble evidence for this right?
Can you please provide proof of your allegation that an automatic weapon is a poor choice for personal defense?
Proof please.
“countless” … inflammatory rhetoric. Proof please.
By the way, this is an amusing contradiction.
On one hand, automatic weapons are not needed to personal defense.
On the other hand, they are very effective at stopping/killing people.
So, are automatic weapons effective or not?
[QUOTE]
Not necessarily–though, as I think I might have mentioned, I do believe that there does exist a right to own firearms (read my other posts). The word “keep” is usually military in context, as well. As an example, see Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (the Articles’ equivalent of the Second Amendment):
“Keep” ain’t so unambiguous after all…
You're right it isn't. But let's put it in another way. The Constitution in one places says that every *state* shall keep a well regulated and disciplined militia. Then in the 2nd Amendment it says that "...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms..."
I think the Constitution is fairly clear on when it means individuals and when it means the government. It is obious that the use of the word people in the 2nd Amendment refers to individuals.
I think they included this because of the history of private gun ownership in England. They used to ban guns to certain groups that they didn't like, such as catholics. The founders were also people who took up arms against their government and many of them had legitimate fears about an all powerful centralized government. As such I'm fairly confident they went out of their way to make sure that individuals could remain armed.
Marc
Fair enough; we’ve got differing interpretations.
Though actually, the Constitution doesn’t say elsewhere that every state shall keep a well-regulated and disciplined militia. What it says is that the Congress shall have the power to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress (I.8.16)”, which is a different thing altogether.
Also, I do think that my interpretation is more supported historically. But you seem like a level-headed guy, so I’ll agree to disagree. 
The Second Amendment refers only to the right to “keep and bear arms”. It does not say what kind.
As I already said, automatic weapons aren’t nearly as effective for mass murder as they appear. The clips on assault rifles typically run out in a couple of seconds, and the recoil generated while firing one of them makes it extremely difficult to hold the gun steady. End result: The average homicidal maniac could most likely achieve a higher body count with a hunting rifle from Wal-Mart than an assault rifle.
Here are a couple things that I feel obligated to clear up at this point.
In order to be acceptable, any infringement on personal liberty, however seemingly minor or narrow in scope, must be justified by showing that it prevents harm to others. It is not enough to simply say “You don’t need an assault rifle for hunting/self defense/target shooting.” or “5 days is not too long to wait for a gun”.
People who exercise their right to keep and bear arms in a safe, responsible manner do not harm society in any way, whether they have a .22 or an AK-47.
PQ: good point, dude 
Mealworm. when you buy a gun, since 1963 a record is kept of its original sale. Registration, on top of this would not help in prosecuting offenders or keeping “baddies of streets”. I served on the Grand Jury for a year, and we never saw any evidence like this. I have already debunked this, but I’ll repeat myself- for gun registration to help in finding criminals you would have to have a criminal throwing his legally purchased gun away at the scene of the crime. Happens maybe once a year, and you read about it in “worlds stupidest criminals”. Criminals usu don’t buy their gun thru legal channels. Criminals rarely dispose of the gun at the crime scene-- that’s what the east river is for. AND the Supreme Court has ruled that Criminals do NOT have to register THEIR guns. Now, we have “instant background checks”- works great in keeping guns out of the hands of Felons-- and guess what…backed by the NRA.
So, back up your info with a cite- show us how more registration would reduce crime. Waiting periods don’t reduce crime either.
Oh, and quit babbling about “automatic weapons”- they have been strictly controled by the BATF since the 20’s. You cannot buy them thru regular channels, and only a few (comparatively) exist. I assume you mean SEMI-automatic weapons that LOOK military (aka “assault weapons”). No more dangerous than a shotgun or a hunting rifle, they just LOOK meaner. I don’t see any use to them, but since they are used in such a small % of crimes (2%), that any further control CANNOT reduce crime significantly.
I do feel that some laws against “Saturday Nite Specials” (the preferred criminal gun) are reasomable and fair.
[hijack]
I don’t think this is correct anymore. At one time, cheap .22s ($40 to $60) were the preferred gun, but this is becoming less and less the case. Criminals are using less revolvers and more clip fed pistols that range in value from $100 to $200 (still pretty cheap all in all). This is according to the “Survery of Felons and Their Guns”. I think I saw an FBI report on that too somewhere, I’ll see if I can find it (I need a better filing system then just stacks of paper).
[/hijack]
In the opinion of gun owners on this board, which, if any, of the following do you feel to be violative of the Second Amendment? Why?
Q: Mandatory registration of firearms?
A: I would only have a problem with it if it were done so as to make firearms essentially unobtainable.
Q: Mandatory licensing of firearm owners?
A: Licenses are mandatory for hunting; users must pass a safe hunter course with written and practical factors. Also, individual vehicle drivers are licensed and tested although everyone theoretically has the right to use public roads. I would only have a problem with it if it were done in such a way as to be essentially prohibitive, like making the potential licensee pay horrendous fees, go through a zillion hours of training, etc.
Q: Five day waiting period?
Sure, no problem. I’m not in a steaming hurry to get a gun. I can plan a week ahead.
Q: Two week waiting period?
A: See above.
And while you’re at it, I don’t need to buy them retail by the dozen. If I were a dealer, that’d be one thing, but I can see no need for me as an individual to get a big old sack full of pistols all at once. Even two per month is a lot. The damn things are expensive!
Q: Prohibition on ownership of automatic weapons?
A: I don’t need one and can’t think of a good use for one, but with the proper saftey checks and screening, I don’t have a problem with morons who want to burn their money that way. Until 1986, it used to be that with a bunch of background checks and a hefty fee, one could get permission to buy and use full-auto weapons. But there were even then almost no places that would let you use one. Most gun ranges will kick your ass out in a New York minute if your gun (or especially your behavior) even looks like it MIGHT be a hair out of line. Safety is a HUGE issue when you’re talking about responsible gun use!
IMHO, anyone with such a gun ought to be required to have the best “gun lock” of all: A welded steel safe. Note that you can buy these through gun shops, magazines, shows, etc.
Q: Prohibition on ownership of grenade launchers?
A: Same as above with the addition of yes to prohibition on the launchable grenades. The only ones that should be obtainable by non-police/non-military users should be the “blue” ones (inert, non-fragmentation, non-smoke, non-incendary). It’d be an expensive potato launcher (you all do know about “spud guns”, don’t you?).
Q: Prohibition on firearm ownership by felons?
A: Hell yes! How about an effective prohibition on felonies while you’re at it?
General statement:
How about this? My position on guns is just like my position on abortion: Everyone should have the right to choose to have them, although they may or may not choose to do so.
Other comment:
The ATF needs to have a real good, long, hard look at manufacturers like Lorcin and Raven (in LA).
JCHeckler wrote:
We require people who want to drive vehicles on public roads to be licensed, and we require vehicles driven on public roads to be licensed (so that we can be sure the vehicle’s taxes are paid up). We do not, however, require a license just to buy a car or to have a car on your own property. (In California, if you register your car to drive it on public roads but later decide you are not going to drive it on public roads, you can pay a one-time $5 fee for a “certificate of planned nonoperation” and never be bothered about the whole “license” thing again.)
What if you’re a gun collector? Or if you’re shopping around to find just the “right” gun for the next target shooting competition? Or you want to give a gun training course to a group?
And sure, you might not need more than one gun a month, but do you need to rent video tapes? Do you need to have fancy furniture? Do you need to eat pizza? No. And you’d be rightly miffed if such things were outlawed. You shouldn’t have to justify your desire for something based on “need”.