Originally Posted by
MadMojoMonkey
What?
No.
...
What?
We all have to pass various tests and pay a fee to obtain a driver's license.
I don't see that as an infringement of rights. Do you?
For me, the balance is equality and the presumption of innocence. If anyone has the right to own XXX, then everyone has the right to own XXX, provided they meet the same criteria as the first party.
Any public regulatory entity that wants to work out the particulars can have a go at it. I have physics to do.
I'm not at all in favor of one group of people (a governing body) deciding that some people can own all the guns (people literally controlled by said government) while other people cannot own all the guns (the constituents of the governing body).
I.e. it's fucked up that Congress says only the military can have all the guns, but the citizens at large cannot. Congress controls the military, they do not control the citizens.
That's fucked up, and a recipe for slaughter. Sure, we have "good enough" leaders today, but what happens when our leaders are not "good enough?"
Whatever laws and regulations should apply to everyone equally, regardless of their job.
***
The whole point of the 2nd Amendment has been long diluted to nonsense. Citing the 2nd Amendment as anything to do with modern gun laws is misguided, IMO.
The right to a well armed militia was intended to say, "Look, it was right of us to revolt against the King, and we don't trust that the government we're forming wont need to be revolted against in some unseen future." However, as many have aptly pointed out, the notion that anyone owning legal weapons could stand any prayer in hell against the US military is nonsense.
Ergo, the 2nd Amendment is already a sham, and let's not bring it up in a sensible conversation about the current state of gun control, IMO.