Like the 1A, 2A isnt absolute, even conservatives say it isnt. You cant shoot guns for fun in a patio in NYC (but you should be allowed to own a mortar!). Not absolute but unconstitutionally stifled for decades.
You just have to pony up $200 for the mortar itself, and then $200 for each shell, to register them with ATF as destructive devices. Well, and find someone to willing to sell them for you. Or make your own.
Nevertheless, if you follow the procedure, it is legal, and rich collectors do it. Also applies to larger artillery pieces, tanks with working main gun etc.
A quick search found this list of examples: https://www.learnaboutguns.com/2019/08/11/the-meaning-of-wel...
(linking to that site rather than its source since the source is sending a bad SSL cert)
There are other writings by the Founding Fathers from the time of the ratification of the US Constitution reiterating the need of a right for people to own arms in case it's necessary to overthrow the government, specifically including the government they had just created.
social security is for determining who to pay and who not to pay.
> voters
voter registration is to determine who can and cannot vote
> drivers
driver registration is for determining who can and cannot drive
> students
is this even true?
> people on disability, people who are unemployed
again, for determining who to give money to (people are free not to file). those are voluntary
> but gun owners would be too much
to what end? it seems like the purpose of all of those other registries is to know who they should take away benefit of the program from.
Why does a driver and car need to go on a registry? You just said that was ok.
A right is a right!
The purpose is to ensure that the guns are in the possession of the registered owner, and not sold illegally; to ensure that the gun is being stored in a safe manner that will not lead to its theft or accidentally use; and so that the government can call upon lawful gun owners to defend their country in time of need.
There really has been no tradition of forced weapon confiscation in this country, and I think your insinuation to the contrary is born of paranoia.
Multiple elected officials have said they want to start such a tradition, e.g., Mark Warner (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-action-should-be-...), Beto O'Rourke, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker (https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/politics/beto-orourke-guns-de...). How is it paranoia to think they'll do exactly what they said they want to do?
So mandate that the last registered owner of a firearm is an accomplice to any crime committed with it, unless it was reported missing or stolen prior to the time of crime.
This would have the incentive effects of:
Parents keeping their nutso incel kids from their guns.
People would voluntarily get a notarized bill of sale for transfers, even private. They could not, but then they would be putting a high level of faith in the buyer and all future owners in perpetuity.
The notaries and bills of sale are now a de facto, decentralized but private source of record for transfers.
Unless there is something I don't understand about notaries.
You put no intellectual effort into rebutting, and made senseless and incorrect assumptions about me. I made a good faith attempt at making an incremental improvement in keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.
You just compared two objects. State your case or move on.
I'm not liable for a criminal taking my car and running over pedestrians even if I leave the door open and engines running in a public place.
No, someone would not be immediately thrown in an incarceration pit if someone stole their gun on a Saturday afternoon and killed someone on a Saturday night. Jesus, this is a HN thread. It's a whiteboard, not legislative text. Open your mind.
Ahh, the true sign of someone arguing in good faith.
> you have a very bad faith manner of making your points.
As opposed to your "stay calm and passive aggressive" nonsense.
> nothing in your tone suggests humility, decency or the willingness to debate with people as if they are partners in the community. You're looking for a fight. You aren't looking for solutions.
I'm not willing to debate your insane proposal. There's no humility here because I'm right. You're not going to change my mind because it's a stupid idea. I'm not looking for a fight, your idea is dumb. It has no corollary in any situation where something deadly is stolen (cars, prescription drugs, literally anything). To make an exception for the one thing that is constitutionally guaranteed is the most absurd way of going about such a thing. Not to mention the fact that it's completely _impractical_ politically, even if you could convince someone that it was a good idea.
I have the solution, stop proposing this bad idea.