to present that weapon to the autorities every three months , would requiere a back ground check , a spycological test and if he or she was not approved to have one was given this second law : http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AptumkUSszWf8dUHeH7WD4Hsy6IX?qid=20061101214250AAERp0p if was found in possession of one ???
2006-11-01 17:10:17 · 12 answers · asked by game over loves evanescence 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
milie i am referring especifically to a bullets weapon .
2006-11-01 17:33:17 · update #1
I think that all guns should be pre-fired by the athorities to get the rifle striation patterns so that the gun used in a crime could be identified.
2006-11-01 17:15:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Time has come to start making more laws requiring the government to comply to the demands of the people not the other way around. Even morso big businesses are stripping citizens of their rights everywhere you look because they are not subject to the constitution and bill of rights. Don't you think we should work on making this a free country again so people won't be so miserable and want to do all this crime?
2006-11-02 01:22:15 · answer #2 · answered by furshluginer 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The question would arise "what is a weapon?"
A steak knife from my kitchen drawer can be a weapon. A car not to mention a plane (ie 9/11) can be a weapon. A rock can be a weapon.
Once you start defining the boundaries, there will be things made to get around those boundaries.
2006-11-02 01:27:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
In fact I so disagree with this law that I would expect a violent uprising if it was upheld by the Supreme Court (but It would not be)
When are people going to understand that when you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.
2006-11-02 01:38:19 · answer #4 · answered by MP US Army 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. The criminals that this type of system is designed to keep tabs on would not comply. This would just be one more gun law that only honest people abide by, and criminals break.
2006-11-02 02:53:55 · answer #5 · answered by Migra 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh Boy!
You going to pay for all these jails, pay all these people to check these guns and all the tests you want done....Not counting changing the constitution....
Be just a tad bit realistic hu??
ppff
2006-11-02 01:18:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to 'keep and bear arms.' If it had, there would have been explicit wording such as -----"the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
2006-11-02 01:15:03 · answer #7 · answered by the_buccaru 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would for the criminals,,,, but not for people who have not done anything wrong.
2006-11-02 01:13:39 · answer #8 · answered by avery 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To much work.
2006-11-02 01:12:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes
2006-11-02 01:11:41 · answer #10 · answered by deadman 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋