The US 2nd Amendment.....

[edteach]

If anyone is foolish enough to try to argue what the second amendment means. Learn what the founders thought of guns.
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

[mhosea]

but this is no longer my place. It never really felt like it was to be honest, I have always thought of myself as peripheral.

There might be a little too much introspection there for your own good. You're OK. I'm not participating as much anymore, myself, hence my non-immediate response. I'd suggest feeling free to pop in and out on a whim. Read what catches your eye, respond to something if you are inclined.

The ironic thing is that this thread inspired me to get back into recreational shooting and to educate myself about 2nd Amendment issues in general. Perhaps what is even more ironic is that the OP's suggestion, which seemed ridiculous and naive (to me) at the outset, may effectively be on its way to coming true, except by the far easier path of keeping the amendment as is and loading the SCOTUS with new justices who will, at their first opportunity, gut its meaning, rendering it toothless in the modern world.

[duckmcf]

If anyone is foolish enough to try to argue what the second amendment means. Learn what the founders thought of guns.
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."

Other than being pro-gun, the other thing that those quotes have in common is that the vast majority of them are over 200 years old. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong or irrelevant.

The thing is though that none of us here and now can know what those good people of 200+ years ago would think of the 21st century context of their words. I find it hard to imagine that they'd be OK with freely available semi-automatic center fire armor-lite rifles that are capable of mass murder by an individual on a scale that they just couldn't have anticipated in their time. Especially given the fact that you've more or less had 200+ years of tyranny free government.

Cheers
Noel

[duckmcf]

The ironic thing is that this thread inspired me to get back into recreational shooting and to educate myself about 2nd Amendment issues in general. Perhaps what is even more ironic is that the OP's suggestion, which seemed ridiculous and naive (to me) at the outset, may effectively be on its way to coming true, except by the far easier path of keeping the amendment as is and loading the SCOTUS with new justices who will, at their first opportunity, gut its meaning, rendering it toothless in the modern world.

Yes, re-reading my original post from all those months ago I agree that it was more than a little naive. I really should've understood how the process for amending your constitution works (or doesn't work depending on your point of view) before spouting off. Sorry about that.


You make a good point about the SCOTUS, but I don't think that it'll come to pass this cycle. My (uninformed) view from thousands of miles away is that Trump will win the election. His persuasion techniques are weapons grade (if you'll pardon the pun) which I don't think Hillary will be able to counter. "Crooked Hillary", is a killer blow.

Anyway, another ploy that the left could take is via the insurance industry. Like the fights against the tobacco industry from decades past, sooner or later a case may get up against the arms manufacturers that could make the continued production of armor-lite weapons not financially viable.

Cheers
Noel

[dneal]

Anyway, another ploy that the left could take is via the insurance industry. Like the fights against the tobacco industry from decades past, sooner or later a case may get up against the arms manufacturers that could make the continued production of armor-lite weapons not financially viable.

Cheers
Noel

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

[mhosea]

My (uninformed) view from thousands of miles away is that Trump will win the election. His persuasion techniques are weapons grade (if you'll pardon the pun) which I don't Hillary will be able to counter.

You know, from where I sit, I just can't tell. Trump has momentum, but for him there's the risk of a glass ceiling as he mines the veins of his support from the electorate. Not everybody is susceptible to his techniques. Personally, I'm repulsed, though as a resident of Massachusetts I laughed out loud when I heard that he had called Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas". Even though I can't support him politically, I can applaud his full-scale assault on political correctness. Political correctness is a cancer, and it has to end. He is, in fact, the only person I know of who is able to say whatever the hell he thinks. My problem is that "think" often seems like an o'er strong description.

[SIR]

I find it hard to imagine that they'd be OK with freely available semi-automatic center fire armor-lite rifles that are capable of mass murder by an individual on a scale that they just couldn't have anticipated in their time.

Maybe, but you can be sure there are many other aspects of modern America, and the acts of the American government between then and now, that they'd be less than comfortable with.

[duckmcf]

Anyway, another ploy that the left could take is via the insurance industry. Like the fights against the tobacco industry from decades past, sooner or later a case may get up against the arms manufacturers that could make the continued production of armor-lite weapons not financially viable.

Cheers
Noel

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

Thanks for the link. I knew that the manufacturers had some level of protection in law but I didn't know the details.

Interestingly this act isn't stopping various interest groups from trying it on in the courts. Nor is it off the 2016 presidential political agenda:

"Hillary Clinton stated that she would repeal the law if elected, saying: "They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability. They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn't, and they won't be sued. There will be no consequences."Shortly after Clinton made this claim, fact checker Politifact rated the statement false, noting that other businesses and entities in America have similar or greater levels of protection against liability, and that firearms dealers and manufacturers are still susceptible to lawsuits and liability."

This is such a multi-dimensional issue and it really is fascinating for an outsider to try and understand.

Cheers,
Noel

[Dreck]

It's not that so much. It is more that I feel I have come to the end of a road. My time here has been interesting - apart from any of it that involved Isaacson - but this is no longer my place. It never really felt like it was to be honest, I have always thought of myself as peripheral. Indeed geographically I am, but also in nearly every other sphere of human measure too. Just not a good fit. There's nothing sad nor dramatic in this, only a realisation and a quiet acceptance of where my head has been for some time now. And instead of making a silly new thread announcement, this here, right now, seems like the ideal point to wish everyone the best in their future endeavours. Adieu.

Here we go again...

[Dreck]

Could someone who has a more than passing acquaintance with the US Constitution please explain to me what the word "regulated" means in respect of the 2nd Amendment?

No idea, but could "regulated" be interpreted to mean regulation or registration?
Perhaps analogous to the licencing, registration and insurance that is required to operate a motor car?

In the context of the original language (which is also made clearer when reading correspondence between the Founders), "well-regulated" meant well trained and well disciplined. It had absolutely nothing to do with registration or permission. The idea was that private citizens would get out and train/drill, and be as, or nearly as proficient with their arms as any soldier.

[Dragonmaster Lou]

In the context of the original language (which is also made clearer when reading correspondence between the Founders), "well-regulated" meant well trained and well disciplined. It had absolutely nothing to do with registration or permission. The idea was that private citizens would get out and train/drill, and be as, or nearly as proficient with their arms as any soldier.

Given that it seems how at least a significant proportion of gun owners are neither well-trained nor well-disciplined, I wonder if some sort of training requirement would pass Constitutional muster (and yeah, I've stated this before as well). I mean, I'm all for law-abiding, responsible folks owning guns, but I think an absolute free-for-all in gun purchasing is a bad idea. I've generally used car operation/ownership as the model of how far I think gun ownership/regulation should be managed. In some ways, it could simplify things. For example, let's take background checks. Right now, where applicable, background checks are pretty much done at the point of sale (if I understand correctly), i.e., at a gun shop. However, having a gun license akin to a driver's license would mean that you've already been pre-screened and therefore just showing said license would suffice. Also, much like certain crimes, bad behaviors, or health issues can result in your driver's license being revoked, the same could be said for a gun license.

Now, I know people will come back and say that "driving a car isn't a Constitutional right like gun ownership," and I get that. This is mostly a case of a "food for thought" proposition, as well as a question as to whether something like this could be considered Constitutional or not given the original language of the amendment.

[edteach]

We need Muslim control and Mexican control not gun control. You can not have porous boarders and expect to not have crime. Limp liberals will let in criminals but then take away our rights because of their stupid action. Islam is not a religion of peace. This is a simple fact. They do not assimilate into western culture.

[Dragonmaster Lou]

Last I checked, Dylann Roof was neither a Muslim nor a Mexican.

[edteach]

Last I checked, Dylann Roof was neither a Muslim nor a Mexican.

And that proves what? That all crazies are not Muslim or Mexican? First off I never said they were, and second you can not have a secure country without a secure boarder. Third its like saying that someone survived a car accident by not having his seat belt on, so frigging what. The fact is Islam is not a religion of peace they want to change or kill us and Mexicans coming across the boarder illegally has dire consequences. If you don't understand that I can not help you.

[Dragonmaster Lou]

Last I checked, Dylann Roof was neither a Muslim nor a Mexican.

And that proves what? That all crazies are not Muslim or Mexican? First off I never said they were, and second you can not have a secure country without a secure boarder. Third its like saying that someone survived a car accident by not having his seat belt on, so frigging what. The fact is Islam is not a religion of peace they want to change or kill us and Mexicans coming across the boarder illegally has dire consequences. If you don't understand that I can not help you.

And you're pretty much making the claim that all Muslims are crazies and all Mexicans are criminals. Islam is as much a religion of peace as Christianity or any other monotheistic religion (just look at the Spanish Inquisition to see how non-peaceful Christianity can be. If you want a more modern example, there was a Christian pastor in California who said that the Orlando shooter should've shot more people at the nightclub). There are those who pervert it in the name of violence, but also some of the nicest, non-violent people I've met have been Muslims. Heck, just look at all the adoration for Muhammad Ali over the past couple weeks or so with his passing. Do many want to convert non-Muslims? Sure, but nearly every religion wants to convert others to their religion. I mean, how many Christian missionaries are there in the world?

Also, why is it people are only clamoring for securing the border with Mexico? Why not Canada as well? Oh yeah, is it because most of the people coming in from Canada aren't brown-skinned? Never mind that there are some really porous portions along the Canadian border that an international trouble-maker could easily slip through.

[edteach]

Last I checked, Dylann Roof was neither a Muslim nor a Mexican.

And that proves what? That all crazies are not Muslim or Mexican? First off I never said they were, and second you can not have a secure country without a secure boarder. Third its like saying that someone survived a car accident by not having his seat belt on, so frigging what. The fact is Islam is not a religion of peace they want to change or kill us and Mexicans coming across the boarder illegally has dire consequences. If you don't understand that I can not help you.

And you're pretty much making the claim that all Muslims are crazies and all Mexicans are criminals. Islam is as much a religion of peace as Christianity or any other monotheistic religion (just look at the Spanish Inquisition to see how non-peaceful Christianity can be. If you want a more modern example, there was a Christian pastor in California who said that the Orlando shooter should've shot more people at the nightclub). There are those who pervert it in the name of violence, but also some of the nicest, non-violent people I've met have been Muslims. Heck, just look at all the adoration for Muhammad Ali over the past couple weeks or so with his passing. Do many want to convert non-Muslims? Sure, but nearly every religion wants to convert others to their religion. I mean, how many Christian missionaries are there in the world?

Also, why is it people are only clamoring for securing the border with Mexico? Why not Canada as well? Oh yeah, is it because most of the people coming in from Canada aren't brown-skinned? Never mind that there are some really porous portions along the Canadian border that an international trouble-maker could easily slip through.

As an Atheist I can live next to and do all types of Christians and not worry about getting blown up, heads cut off or getting shot because I don't buy into some biblical explanation of life. Your deluded if you think Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is blowing up and or shooting people from California to France and beyond. In the Middle east they throw homos off buildings for being homo. They treat women as slaves and burn people alive, cut off heads and drown people like the sadistic asshats they are. So if you want to apologize for them go ahead but don't ask me to buy your crazy crap. Second the boarder with Mexico is a problem due to the fact that Mexico is almost third world status. They will come here and work illegally at very cut rate wages. We do not have the drug, crime or immigrant problem with Canada and to even try to equate the two shows a lack of understanding of the situation. Glad handing Islam as the liberal idiots of the world seem to love to do only feeds the bears.

[Dragonmaster Lou]

As an Atheist I can live next to and do all types of Christians and not worry about getting blown up, heads cut off or getting shot because I don't buy into some biblical explanation of life. Your deluded if you think Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is blowing up and or shooting people from California to France and beyond. In the Middle east they throw homos off buildings for being homo. They treat women as slaves and burn people alive, cut off heads and drown people like the sadistic asshats they are. So if you want to apologize for them go ahead but don't ask me to buy your crazy crap. Second the boarder with Mexico is a problem due to the fact that Mexico is almost third world status. They will come here and work illegally at very cut rate wages. We do not have the drug, crime or immigrant problem with Canada and to even try to equate the two shows a lack of understanding of the situation. Glad handing Islam as the liberal idiots of the world seem to love to do only feeds the bears.

Maybe you should try living next door to the Lord's Resistance Army, or perhaps the Anti-balaka, or perhaps the National Liberation Front of Tripura. Perhaps you should read about the Karantina massacre or the Tel al-Zaatar massacre. Oh, and let's not get into the various abortion clinic bombings carried out by Christian groups in the United States. Oh, and a large proportion of American white-supremacist movements claim to be at least in part motivated by Christian beliefs. Oh, and some Christian groups, even in the United States, consider you to be even worse than a Muslim, simply for being an atheist.

I have met a fair number of Muslims in my life, and all of them are peaceful people who want nothing to do with any violent terrorists and extremists and denounce their actions. Some of them I consider to be good friends as well. Heck, I have a second cousin who married a Muslim man and now lives with him in the UK, so I even have have some Muslims in my extended family.

Now as far as the Mexican border, I concede that you do have a point that many of the people coming over are coming over illegally, and the borders should probably be secured better than they currently are. However, the numbers of illegal immigrants in the country have already been on the decline since 2007, with Mexicans specifically down 6.4% since 2009. Given these numbers, the "problem" of an insecure border seems to be severely overblown. Sure, some more security would probably be a good thing, but it's not like we've been invaded and taken over by them anyway. Plus, if we're worried about criminals sneaking in, Canada is just as bad as Mexico. In fact, if I was an international trouble-maker trying to find a way to sneak into the USA to cause problems, I'd try to go in through Canada and not Mexico as that border gets far less scrutiny.

[edteach]

As an Atheist I can live next to and do all types of Christians and not worry about getting blown up, heads cut off or getting shot because I don't buy into some biblical explanation of life. Your deluded if you think Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is blowing up and or shooting people from California to France and beyond. In the Middle east they throw homos off buildings for being homo. They treat women as slaves and burn people alive, cut off heads and drown people like the sadistic asshats they are. So if you want to apologize for them go ahead but don't ask me to buy your crazy crap. Second the boarder with Mexico is a problem due to the fact that Mexico is almost third world status. They will come here and work illegally at very cut rate wages. We do not have the drug, crime or immigrant problem with Canada and to even try to equate the two shows a lack of understanding of the situation. Glad handing Islam as the liberal idiots of the world seem to love to do only feeds the bears.

Maybe you should try living next door to the Lord's Resistance Army, or perhaps the Anti-balaka, or perhaps the National Liberation Front of Tripura. Perhaps you should read about the Karantina massacre or the Tel al-Zaatar massacre. Oh, and let's not get into the various abortion clinic bombings carried out by Christian groups in the United States. Oh, and a large proportion of American white-supremacist movements claim to be at least in part motivated by Christian beliefs. Oh, and some Christian groups, even in the United States, consider you to be even worse than a Muslim, simply for being an atheist.

I have met a fair number of Muslims in my life, and all of them are peaceful people who want nothing to do with any violent terrorists and extremists and denounce their actions. Some of them I consider to be good friends as well. Heck, I have a second cousin who married a Muslim man and now lives with him in the UK, so I even have have some Muslims in my extended family.

Now as far as the Mexican border, I concede that you do have a point that many of the people coming over are coming over illegally, and the borders should probably be secured better than they currently are. However, the numbers of illegal immigrants in the country have already been on the decline since 2007, with Mexicans specifically down 6.4% since 2009. Given these numbers, the "problem" of an insecure border seems to be severely overblown. Sure, some more security would probably be a good thing, but it's not like we've been invaded and taken over by them anyway. Plus, if we're worried about criminals sneaking in, Canada is just as bad as Mexico. In fact, if I was an international trouble-maker trying to find a way to sneak into the USA to cause problems, I'd try to go in through Canada and not Mexico as that border gets far less scrutiny.

If you refuse to understand and want to apologize for Islam this is my last attempt of getting it though to you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

You tend to blame all Christians for the acts of a very few, but want to give Islam a pass that has some 25 percent that is hell bent on destroying us. Sorry but it does not add up.

[edteach]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aACpy7fLjFo

[Dreck]

In the context of the original language (which is also made clearer when reading correspondence between the Founders), "well-regulated" meant well trained and well disciplined. It had absolutely nothing to do with registration or permission. The idea was that private citizens would get out and train/drill, and be as, or nearly as proficient with their arms as any soldier.

Given that it seems how at least a significant proportion of gun owners are neither well-trained nor well-disciplined, I wonder if some sort of training requirement would pass Constitutional muster (and yeah, I've stated this before as well).

What data are you using to back up that assertion? There are tens of thousands of gun owners in America. I personally know of less than a hundred; all but a couple are both well disciplined and well trained.

I mean, I'm all for law-abiding, responsible folks owning guns, but I think an absolute free-for-all in gun purchasing is a bad idea. I've generally used car operation/ownership as the model of how far I think gun ownership/regulation should be managed. In some ways, it could simplify things. For example, let's take background checks. Right now, where applicable, background checks are pretty much done at the point of sale (if I understand correctly), i.e., at a gun shop. However, having a gun license akin to a driver's license would mean that you've already been pre-screened and therefore just showing said license would suffice. Also, much like certain crimes, bad behaviors, or health issues can result in your driver's license being revoked, the same could be said for a gun license.

Instead of just simply saying, "It ain't about what you think. The Founding Fathers had long considered their decision and knew what they were doing," I will tell you that a Concealed Carry permit amounts to what you are describing. In Indiana, at least, one must be fingerprinted (on file with the various alphabet-soup governmental agencies), pass a federal background check, be convicted of no felonies or violent crimes, and pay for the privilege. It costs a lot more than a driver's license. By your reasoning, showing your CC permit should get you same-day expedited service when buying additional guns. It's not that way. Every time you go to purchase another firearm, there is a follow-up check and a copy of the form 4473 goes into that person's electronic file. The government has a fairly decent record of every firearm purchase made through a gun show or shop.
Even if my driver's license were revoked, I could still go buy a car. No matter how many felonies, trips to jail for "certain crimes, bad behaviors, or health issues," a person can put down money and buy a car. One violent crime or one felony, one notation from a physician, and a person's right to own a gun is stripped away forever.