What is your view on ghost guns?
I don't see any reason to outlaw them. But if the government requires people who build them to stamp them with serial numbers so they can be traced, that sounds okay.
2nd amendment violation? What does this have to do with forming militias?
I agree that requiring a serial number does not violate the Second Amendment.
But the Second Amendment is about a lot more than just forming militias. There's also something there about keeping and bearing arms.
Should be noted that the word “gun” doesn’t exist in the 2nd amendment. The amendment is about forming militias.
The term "arms" is there. Guns are arms.
I am not sure if I understand why it is so hard for people to get a background check
When the background check system was created, the Democrats were concerned that if ordinary people could call in a background check it would be a massive invasion of privacy because people would start calling in background checks on anyone they were interested in, so they limited the background check system to licensed gun dealers.
Ghost guns feel like bearer bonds to me: Purely designed for criminals.
Not at all. Some people like to build their own stuff and they are good at it.
They want to make their own gun, so they don't have to go through governmental tape.
Not necessarily. They may just enjoy making stuff themselves.
There are people who load their own ammo as well.
These are essentially bearer bonds of the gun world. I fully support the 2nd amendment (ability to form militias) and the right own guns. I just ask you go through a regulatory process.
I've no objection to fair regulation.
I have read over the 2nd amendment over 100 times. Firearms and guns do not exist in the 2nd amendment.
That is incorrect. They count as arms.
The amendment is not specifically about guns.
True, but they are among the arms that are covered.
It clearly states that people have the right to form militias and those militias to be armed.
That is incorrect. It doesn't talk of the right of militias or militiamen to be armed.
It talks of the right of the people to be armed.
The amendment does not say about individual right, but about collective.
This term "collective right" is a nonsense term that no one can even define. Saying that a right is "collective" doesn't appear to mean anything at all.
More over, it doesn’t say the government cannot regulate the sale of guns or ammo.
It says that the government cannot violate people's right to have those guns and ammo.
Why do you skip over the beginning?
The first part of the Second Amendment is not really relevant to the subject of the thread.
The first part of the amendment talks about militias being necessary to secure. That's relevant because, it allows the second part of the amendment to allow people to be armed for those militias.
That is incorrect. The second part of the Second Amendment does not need any help from the first half.
The second half of the Second Amendment protects people's right to be armed just fine all by itself.
Is people singular or plural?
The answer is plural. Person is singular.
No where does it say "individuals have the right to keep and bare Arms". It says PEOPLE.
Individuals are people.
What comes before "the people" is the value of militias. I guess, you can argue, "Well, it was poorly written".
It was written just fine.
That's why it was more intended as a plural than a singular.
Well, it does protect everyone's rights, and not just the rights of a single person.
But I do agree, the 2nd amendment does grant individuals the ability to purchase firearms.
Actually it protects a preexisting right. It does not grant anything.
abcnews.go.com
www.nbcnews.com
