Why should the Second Amendment be more regulated than the First Amendment or Fourth Amendment? Let's apply your argument to the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable and unlawful search and seizure. This is a HUGE impediment to the efforts of law enforcement to catch real criminals. So....how about this. In order to have the protection offered by the Fourth Amendment, a person must submit fingerprints, a background check, and take a basic law course, pay a fee, and obtain a permit for Fourth Amendment protection. That would make things so much easier, wouldn't it? Then all LEO has to do is ask someone for their Fourth Amendment Protection permit. No permit - guess what - LEO can now search at will, no warrant necessary, and any evidence of criminal activity can be used against the subject. Would that not make LEO's job so much easier? Would that not keep criminals from hiding their evidence securely behind the Fourth Amendment. Would that not be good for society as a whole?
Originally Posted by cluznar
So, why applies these foolish requirements to carrying a gun and not to the Fourth Amendment? Or lets make training, fingerprints, background check and permit required to post on the internet. That would weed out a lot of crap posted, wouldn't it?
Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.