posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:10 AM
reply to post by AmosGraber
You have a decent point, but you're ignoring practical matters.
If you can't be a convicted felon, there needs to be yet another law in place to ensure that convicted felons do not receive guns. We have that law,
it's called the Brady bill which allows a three day waiting period for background checks to prevent just such things.
Your ability to maintain and use a firearm would also need a bureaucracy behind it to actually be able to test it, creating an entire group of laws
needed to support it.
Then there's another issue you're overlooking. In your 'one gun law' you're doing nothing to address the problem of people buying a gun when
they're in a fit of rage or when they're clinically psychotic. I don't think it would be proper for someone that hallucinates a dog telling him to
kill people to have a right to buy a gun. Or for a person to be able to immediately purchase a gun right after he finds out that his wife has been
sleeping with his brother.
An entirely different issue arises that you're not addressing as to how far this right should go. Can I own an M4? What about a Javelin (the
anti-tank weapon, not the old throwing spear)? What about a MAC-10? An M249?
And that's just the single person operated weapons. What about howitzers? Mortars? Anti-aircraft turrets?
And then the vehicles. Can I purchase my own Abrams? What about an Apache? How about an F-16?
And even further you have ICBMs. And let's not overlook the nuclear issue.
And the last issue that arises is quantity. Should I be allowed to own 4000 weapons to create my own mercenary army? I think we need yet another gun
law to address that issue.
Unless you want to have an absolute freedom of the right to bare arms you're going to need a structure of laws to reinforce a basic declaration of
the right to keep and bare weapons. An absolute right to keep arms creates all sorts of problems that most societies would love to avoid.