Originally Posted by JLB

Why do they need to show a "legitimate reason" to exercise freedom?

Couldn't eveyone be a gun collector?

Originally Posted by JLB

But a great deal have not registered their existing guns.

Originally Posted by JLB

Until the government decides to take them away entirely.

Originally Posted by JLB

The first thing a totalitarian government does is register guns, so when they decide to take away the rest of your freedoms, they know right where to go first.

Originally Posted by Wildbore

They can excersise freedom without a legitmate reason. There is only a reasonable limitation on the freedom, not an abolishment of it.

Seemingly gun collectors would be subject to inspections, to confirm the validity of their claims.



If somone has not registered their handgun, they clearly didn't buy it from a legal source. Since 1934 all handguns acquired from a legal source like a gunshop are registered.

The existing guns which are not registered are overwelmingly shotguns and rifles because the shotgun and rifle registry only came in a few years ago. There are several reasons for this. People are lazy and it takes time for them to register. People don't agree with it and won't register no matter what. The government introduced an amnesty which lasts until May 2008 where you can keep your guns unregistered. And the Conservative government introduced legislation to scrap the shotgun and rifle registry, which means gun-owners are just going to wait to see if they can get a majority government and abolish the registry.



That is a possibility. Its also a possibility without a registry. Either way, the Canadian gun movement is well informed about the nonsense pulled in Britain and Australia and is not going to roll over like those two countries did in giving up its handguns.



Luckily Canada is a Parliamentary democracy where such an event is impossible.

Originally Posted by Hunter

What is a criminal? Is there a lifetime limitation contained inside the Second Amendment?

If we don't want killers walking the street with guns, they should remain locked up. But once you've served you time for whatever crime was committed, your guns should be handed back the day you walk free.

Don't like the idea of known drug users walking around armed - STOP ELECTING KNOWN DRUG USERS TO THE TOP JOB IN AMERICA AND GIVING HIM NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!

Keep in mind Martha Stewart is a lifetime prohibited person

Originally Posted by JLB

I agree to an extent. I believe that non-violent criminals should have their full rights restored, but violent felons forfeit their rights.

Originally Posted by Wildbore

They can excersise freedom without a legitmate reason. There is only a reasonable limitation on the freedom, not an abolishment of it.

Originally Posted by fifthofnovember

The problem with denying people their 2nd Amendment RIGHT based on a criminal record is this: When dissent is a felony, dissenters will be unable to change what they dissent against by either the vote or by force. This short circuits the entire point of the 2nd Amendment. sedition acts have been passed before, so this is not an unreasonable fear.

Originally Posted by C-D-P

And I agree with this to an extent. Depending on the conviction.

The reason I say this is a number of repeat offenders go big after their first second and third offense.

I am all about owning. But in my most humble opinion, once you break the law, you forfeit your rights. To which extent is a whole different debate.


AKC. Please elaborate.

Originally Posted by Hunter

Excuse me but I don't remember the Second Amendment containing a limitation clause, just a qualification. Did I miss something on the end of "Shall not be infringed"?

Sorry CDP, liberty is an all or nothing game. You either have it or you don't. You want to limit rights based on past wrongs and Sarah Brady just wants limits.

When limits, even ones we like to call "common sense", start getting attached to rights you begin suffering from democracy - or tyranny of the majority as I like to call it

Originally Posted by C-D-P

You need to read the rest of the constitution then.