A Large Part of the Soution to the American Gun Laws

1. 91

   Diana Grantposted 11 years ago

   It would be too difficult to change the Constitutional "Right to Bear Arms".  But the law could be changed so that people would still maintain the right to bear arms, but only in their homes.  There would be an exception for certain specified people, such as farmers or people who need to use guns, and they would need to obtain a licence for shooting on a specific day or days, and also be obliged to re-register each and every one of their guns. 
   
   There would  be a harsh mandatory sentence of, say, five to ten years imprisonment  for carrying a gun in the street.  This would put legal pressure on parents to check whether  their children are walking around with guns, especially if they are obliged to pay for their children's keep in prison, as some states used to insist.  It would encourage parents to be more concerned about and responsible for their children's actions, especially if they were likely to lose their home if they had difficulty paying.
   
   This solution would still maintain the right to bear arms in accordance with the constitution, but with just a small addendum of the words "in their own home".  It would cure about 75% of the gun  problem, and this qualified right should satisfy the Rifle Association, as they would still be selling as many guns, and it should also satisfy the Gun Lobby and those in favour of upholding the Constitution in its present form.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So you believe the only need for protection is while you are in your home?  You've never gone downtown for dinner at night where I live.  Also, if the intent is to protect yourself against tyranny, that does not just occur at home either.  Your proposed limitations completely neuter the right to bear arms, which I suspect is your intent.

      replyreport
   2. 57

      Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Do you believe that a murderer would obtain this license?
      
      This is far from a "small adendum."  Would it be a "small adendum" if Congress passed a law saying that you could only have freedom of speech in your own home?

      replyreport
2. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago

   The problems I see with that:
   
   1 - It ignores the actual reasoning for the 2A, which is to allow citizens to protect themselves personally, and as a group.
   
   2 - It wouldn't actually make a difference. Criminals carry guns illegally all the time, why would making them more illegal stop 75% of gun crime?

   replyreport
3. 59

   Superkevposted 11 years ago

   So you want to leave people unarmed and helpless everywhere except in their homes.
   
   And who would finance and run this enormous bureaucratic nightmare making sure that people only shoot on 'specific days'? The money has to come from someplace. And we as a nation are broke already.
   
   Your ideas, while going against the 2nd amendments purpose anyhow, would never work in even most Utopian world. 
   
   If gun control works, why did Chicago lead the nation in murders last year?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Too many people assigned to have their guns away from home on the same days?

      replyreport