Scandinavia and the World

Comments #9396459:


Air-tight defence 14 8, 7:46am

You miss the meaning of "regulated", as it was used in the 18th century.
A decent paraphrase of the 2nd amendment today, would be. [as we need a militia, (by the definition you cited earlier) that is in good working order, no one gets to touch the right of the populous to possess and carry weapons.] It had nothing to do with the government managing the militia directly, but rather with the militia running like a well oiled machine. In this case, it's not the throttles that are regulating the engine, but rather the distributor and points, timing belt, and cam shaft, at least on older style engines.
But regardless, regulation by the modern definition becomes restriction very quickly, when the regulating agencies so desire.

To revisit voting, which you've touched on. Setting up mandatory training in order to purchase a gun, while fine in theory, opens the door to the same abuses that were perpetuated on "undesirable" voters. Imagine a "gun test" that requires you to have completed, not 10 hours of marksmanship and 4 hours of instruction, followed by a 20-question test, (to make sure you actually listened to all the things you do not do,), but rather one which requires you complete 36 hours of classroom instruction, at going college rates, (that's about a 2 hour semester course,) and a similar test that's 20 pages long, with 95% the minimum passing grade? That's the problem. I'd love it if every gun dealer made it a standing policy that no one gets to buy a gun until they demonstrate they know how to hold it properly, hold it responsibly, and put bullets in the general vicinity of the target downrange, (most gun dealers I'm familiar with do have indoor ranges,) but a law requiring that would be leveraged to disarm most people in very little time.
It SHOULD go over about as well as requiring all prospective voters to show a high school diploma, or equivalent, be able to read at a 6th grade level, and have passed a basic high school civics course...which isn't allowed because the laws that were passed like that, which make sense on the surface, were used to disenfranchise blacks, rather than verify they knew how to read, about the voting process itself, and the mechanics of the government.

P.S. Where did you get that 46% number? I have three things to say about it.
One. I was wrong about all FFL purchases going through the FBI. I found a map on an FBI page that shows which states use them exclusively, which use them for some purchases, and which ones keep it all in-house, (state government.)
Incidentally, CA is on the list of states that keeps all checks in-house, oddly enough. As is CT, IL, and NJ, but not NY, yet also TN and UT. Make of that what you will.
Two. At least a decade ago, the instant check amounted to the dealer reading off your name and DOB to an operator, agreeing with a bunch of things, thanking the operator, hanging up, returning your drivers license, and asking how you want to pay. As it is this transparent, I'm wondering how many people never realized they had been through the check. It was certainly easier than filling out the form that promises you're not a straw purchaser. Just sit back, listen to one side of a conversation for a few minutes, and you're done.

P.S. Can you provide a Youtube link to a commercial selling .22s and aimed at kids? I'd love to see one, as I never have.

P.P.S. it would be a vanishingly small portion of your 46%, but if you already have certain certifications, such as a CCL, you don't have to get an additional background check at the dealer. This is especially true if you purchased a gun first, then got the CCL with it, though not necessarily so, if you borrowed your friends firearm, so you could get the cert first, then the gun (at least here, there are 3 levels, and being certified to carry a semi-automatic clears you for both a revolver and a derringer, so even if you Intend to carry a revolver, you're well advised to get certified on the automatic, anyway).