Agreed. And feel free to do so in your country home.
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.
IANAL, nor 2A case law buff...but given the Troubles of 7 February 1991 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_mortar_attack ) - and much other mischief that they'd be "just the thing" for - I suspect that U.S. law enforcement could be very interested in private owners of mortars.
That's partly why they set it up that way in the first place - ATF gets to review all those applications, and while they cannot reject them except for specific enumerated reasons, they can certainly investigate and/or notify other agencies.
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.
Do you have a source for this? My understanding of the second amendment comes from reading America’s Constitution: A Biography by Akhail Reed Amar. I’m trying to find reference to this meaning you cited, but coming up short. I also don’t find it in the article by him in The New Republic:
DC vs. Heller settled the meaning of the term in regards to Constitutional law. There's also a long history of "well-regulated" meaning well-equipped, in proper working order, etc. in English going back hundreds of years.
(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.
Gun registries only exist to support eventual confiscation via further erosion of 2A rights, such as red flag laws, assault weapons bans, and other restrictions on ownership.
So we can have separate state registries of: residents, voters, drivers, students, people on disability, people who are unemployed, among others, but gun owners would be too much?
Why should there be any need to determine who can concealed carry? It should be inalienable right afforded to anyone, but those currently at the moment incarcerated.
I assume “anybody” includes people with 0 hours of gun training, convicted felons, children, non-residents, non-citizens and those with serious mental illnesses?
> What is the purpose of a gun registry other than to enable confiscation?
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.
I'll definitely keep that line of argument in mind next time my rightist friends tell me I'm being paranoid for taking Justice Thomas at his word when he says he wants to roll back gay marriage and contraception.
How about this: the federal government already has sales info on FFL weapons via 4473, no?
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.
Since you obviously don't own guns and therefore have nothing to lose, just replace "guns" with "cars" in your statement and maybe you'll understand why that's ridiculous.
I own between five and ten firearms including an AR-15. I have, not including .22LR, about 3000 rounds on hand. (I don't shoot as much as I used to).
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.
Then you are overconfident in your ability to safely store them. Your guns can be found in the hands of criminals through no fault of your own. My mistake was assuming your ignorance rather than hubris.
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.
Reading your comment history, you have a very bad faith manner of making your points. You speak of hubris to me but 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.
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.
