THE most significant flaw in the militia-only interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is...

When the united state supreme court actually get around to reversing the Heller ruling, then you will have a point. But until such time that such an event happens, all of the statements of yourself about how nothing is permanent mean absolutely nothing whatsoever. A legal interpretation having the potential to one day be overturned does not mean that it can be ignored in the meantime. Heller is the law now, and Heller states outright that everything that has been said by yourself is wrong. In this matter, the law wins by default, and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it by yourself.

 

Require people to turn them in and pass harsh penalties for not. Most people will turn them in and those who don't are just the ones we want to remove from society.

 

Have the state take you to court then

 

If you want to speak publicly most places require a permit. Okay and it's not a license, it's still a requirement, just like we can easily require that only proven sane people get a permit to have a gun.

 

Thus, you admit your plan will do nothing to take guns from the criminals, just the law abiding.
Well done.

 

The law already provides for this, and has for almost 50 years - to lose your right to arms on mental health grounds, the state has to take you to court.
Thus, you want what we already have.

 

Only if on public property. Thus, this is not the basic exercise of the right. Feel free to try again.
Can the state constitutionally require a license to get an abortion? Go to church? Post on your blog? Walk down the street?
No? Explain then how it can require a license for the basic exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Good, let's make that law enforceable

 

It is enforceable, as it stands, and has been for 50 years.

 

Such has not worked out well at the state level where it has been implemented. Why should it be expected to work any better when it is expanded?

Is it even known by yourself just how many tens of millions of individual trials the states would have to provide to the accused before such could be performed on a large scale?

The permit is for the use of the public property itself, which is managed and under control of the state. This is done to ensure fairness for others who may wish to use the same property for their message or purpose, in order to balance everything.

How is it not in its current fashion?

 

I don't know of any cases where any state had a ban on guns.

It wouldn't be anything like that, If a law was passed saying you had to turn in your guns or face a long prison sentence most people would. Conservative lies notwithstanding most gun owners are not fanatics, and such a law would have to have majority support among the people or it would not be passed.

Potato potahtoe license or requirement, same thing. A legal "workaround" can always be found.

Because mentally ill people often live in households were guns are readily available, and we now have lots of misguided people giving guns to crazies, to protect their "rights"

 

Yet 85% of the owners of "assault weapons" in Connecticut and New York, even when facing felony charges, refused to register their banned firearms.

Rights can't be overidden by majority support.

 

Try Connecticut's ban on "assault rifles".

 

Thus, you admit your plan will do nothing to take guns from the criminals, just the law abiding.

Can the state constitutionally require a license to get an abortion? Go to church? Post on your blog? Walk down the street?
No? Explain then how it can require a license for the basic exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

 

The penalties weren't strong enough and no real enforcement was done. Heller says you have a right to have a gun but that right can be regulated

 

Why do you believe this means -any- regulation is constitutionally acceptable?

 

I don't

 

Guess why no real enforcement was done.

 

What are the limits on regulation?

 

I see.
What regulations do you believe are constitutionally unacceptable?

 

Any that can be justified as increasing public safety

 

You missed the question.
What regulations do you believe are constitutionally UNacceptable?

 

I don't know. I do know it's not 'any' as most gun advocates like to argue.

 

It's certainly not "Any that can be justified as increasing public safety"

 

You haven't heard or read someone suggest a regulation and thought "this violates the constitution"?