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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
by Charlotte Gerber21 months ago
Should U.S. citizens continue to be able to have guns (assuming they carry a permit)? Hillary Clinton doesn't think so. There are several sides to this argument. One consideration should be that certain...
by Nicola Thompson5 years ago
Do you think our 2nd Amendment should be reconsidered?With the recent tragic shooting on the East Coast, coupled with the shooting at the opening of the newest Batman, as well as the lesser heard of shooting in...
by leeberttea7 years ago
... to carry regardless of state or local laws?I think the Supreme Court will rule today that Americans, all Americans have the constitutional right to carry guns and states and cities can not limit that right! This is...
by Cindy Vine6 years ago
Should guns be restricted to military, police and security guards?
by Marian L5 years ago
Why do Americans think their right to bear arms is more important than people's lives?
by SEXYLADYDEE5 years ago
Do you support a universal ban on military & assault "like" weapons for non military individuals?Do you believe that only the military needs assault "type" guns? And that "non military"...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.