Isn't that the point of background checks. Licensing would only create a public record of gun owners. It would be like a big kick-me sign for gun thieves. It would also make it easier for the government to confiscate firearms at a later date.
Also, it shouldn't be my responsibility to prove I'm "okay." Rather, the burden should be on the government to prove I'm a danger before infringing on my rights.
You didn't read the whole post did you? Like I said there are ways to get guns WITHOUT background checks, I would stop that. Licensing would also be for the additional special privileges I listed. Did you not notice the additional stuff that would be granted to such people?
I said gun theft and using stolen guns would be a federal crime. Government is not allowed to confiscate firearms. When you take the 9th, 14th, and 5th amendment into consideration, they can't do a damn thing to you.
Yea, like I said you get a license to prove you can handle it, that is your responsibility. That would eliminate the need for wait times, running checks during the sale, limits, etc. So you prove yourself, then you can can do whatever you want. The idea is that certain people who can't handle it don't get those rights, and responsible adults don't have to deal with any BS.
A) The National Guard is nothing like a colonial militia.
B) The 2nd Amendment never says you have to be a member of a militia to keep and bear arms. In fact, militias were formed as-needed and often disbanded in peacetime.
C) The only reason militias are even mension is that colonial militiamen provided their own weapons. Hence you couldn't have a militia without private gun ownership.
A) Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
B) It kind of does actually. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Again, irrelevant in light of the 9th amendment though.
C) Only reason? That is definitive of militias and the reason they made the amendment. Not that you need that to have guns. Because of the 9th amendment the government can't just say you don't have a right to X, Y and Z because it's not specifically mentioned. People typically always had guns, therefore they can't take that away.
If the government proposes to limit personal freedoms (especially a constitutionally protected right), then the burden is on the government to justify such actions.
Yea, of course, amendments 5, 9, and 14. That's not what I was talking about though. I was saying that changing the gun laws have no effect on crime. Those arguments are made from all sides of the debate, but they are all wrong.