For the rest, I would rather ADD to the Rights, not restrict or remove them. For some of you who favor heavily restricting the 2nd, the levels I am seeing here pretty much amount to a removal of the right with some of the requirements some people want just so someone can own a firearm. I might bend a little on the more reasonable ones, such as a background check for mental stability. If that is passed, there shouldn't be any further restrictions on someone buying and owning a gun. Maybe just a check up (at a low cost to do, nothing expensive) in a few years (5-10 years) to make sure the owner is still mentally competent.
I think the fundamental problem is that the main way to make the country safer, at least in my (and a few others in this thread) perspective, is to restrict ownership of firearms to make it more challenging for people like mass shooters to get their hands on them. Ephiral has already shown multiple times that the constitutional rights can be modified, amended, or reinterpreted to allow for greater restriction on firearms. I think the main disconnect is that you seem to think the 2nd amendment is infaliable and untouchable, while others are saying that while we shouldn't take any proposed changes lightly, it's important to keep the possibility of changing the rules in mind.
I have a problem with the first one. Not all firearms have serial numbers. Old ones have a good chance of not having a serial number. Adding one could very well destroy the value of the firearm (muskets, flintlocks or ones like those, before we started putting serial numbers on firearms for cataloging purposes), or are very worn because of the age of the gun. This ruling automatically makes those guns illegal, which will anger a LOT of collectors.
The second one I have no problem with as long as it is when the person discovers it is missing. Sometimes it might be some time before you discover the firearm is missing.
Older firearms like that are also less likely to be used in a mass shooting, or at least would be less deadly, so would you be agreeable to this if there were a grandfather clause for firearms manufactured before serial numbers were put on firearms, but otherwise remained the same? (i.e. nothing would be required to add a serial number to an existing gun that never had one or to take away guns that were made without one before the law was in place.) As for the second, I'm thinking it of more of a gun owner protection if, say, their gun was stolen then found at a crime scene, if they never reported it, it would look very suspicious.
Some firearms possibly, but all firearms have to be kept unloaded and in a secured location (assuming a gun safe that is always kept locked with the ammunition in a different place)? No. One reason people purchase a gun is for home protection. This means it should be relatively and easily accessible. People used to keep guns out in the open all the time, gun racks were a common thing yet the number of people who were shot accidentally wasn't large because people knew enough to leave the thing alone if it wasn't theirs. Children were taught to leave firearms alone and taught proper gun safety. My kids are taught proper gun safety.
I'm not sure if I would necessarily require the firearms and ammo to be locked up separately, but I don't really know much about firearm safety and security. As for how it "used to be", that's not an argument I'm willing to just accept without some evidence. It would take a lot for me to believe that not securing guns is acceptable after seeing how many shootings involve the shooter getting guns owned by people he knows that are kept unsecured.
The second, third and fourth parts, I am not in favor for. Licenses can be revoked or denied too easily. The 2nd is a Right that shouldn't be easily denied or restricted, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.
Just because it makes some people uncomfortable, yeah, that I can agree with. This doesn't make people uncomfortable however, this makes them dead
. I don't think we should be so lenient about something that allows such a high body count.
Accepted with some reservations.
Would those reservations be the same ones you voiced earlier, or something different?