|
One thing I don't understand is why the thought of any regulation on guns at all is seen as an attack on gun rights. For example, those on one side argue for mandatory waiting periods, while those on the other argue that doing so infringes on their constitutional rights. Yet the first amendment grants the right to peaceably assemble in protest, but most local governments require permits to be filed and approved before the protest is allowed. I know this isn't a perfect comparison, but I hope you get my point. Another common statement is that "[insert proposed gun legislation] won't stop all violent crime so we shouldn't do it." That is certainly true; even removing from existence all guns wouldn't stop violent crime. But why not make it just a little bit harder for a lone wolf/domestic terrorist/international terrorist/etc. to get a gun? Is the need for immediacy in a gun purchase so great that any background check is too much of a burden? The Senate voted down a measure yesterday to require anyone on the terrorist watchlist or no-fly list to be prevented from purchasing a weapon. Why is that a bad thing? The first amendment has caveats associated with it (you can't say whatever you want, you can't use religion to do whatever you want, the press can't write whatever they want), why not put some caveats on the second amendment that would make it maybe just a little bit more difficult for bad people to get guns?
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:42 |
|
|
Geniasis posted:Are the are restrictions on the 1st amendment also like the patriot act? Because that seems like a bit of a leap to me. I get his point on the Patriot Act and it's definitely a slippery slope. I actually hadn't thought of gun control that way before, but I see where it comes from. My point is that rights aren't always "all or nothing, any infringement is wrong" because certain rights do have those caveats or restrictions. Gun ownership seems to be "any single restriction whatsoever is a massive infringement on my rights." Would, say, waiting three days be an unspeakable infringement? A Wizard of Goatse, I hear you on the no-fly-list thing. What would you say if the same legislation that made those on the list restricted from owning a firearm also include more transparency on the list. It would be something like "you are on this list for X reason. To get off this list, do Y." That way people would know why they are on it (i.e. my name is close to someone else's name and I can prove I'm not them) but also be given recourse on getting off of it. I think the total lack of transparency on those lists is a huge violation. One point that I tend to agree with is a lot of mass shootings are caused by unstable people (i.e. Adam Lanza, James Holmes). To help prevent those, mental health screening or other methods could be used to limit the occurrence of that, no?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
antiga posted:Part of this is that they're not trying to convince the NRA types. The politicians message is designed to rally their own supporters and convince the undecided portion of the public that their opposition is inherently evil or otherwise bad. It very well could already be law, I'm honestly not sure, just kind of throwing things out. I'm trying to see where there could be common ground to tackle this issue that seems to be more prevalent in the U.S. than other places. Switzerland, for example, is second to the U.S. in terms of guns per 100 people, yet they are nowhere close to us in terms of mass shootings.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Additional question, spurred on by the budget negotiations. What is the counterargument to CDC funding into gun-related deaths? I know funding has been stripped for a long time, and a tit-for-tat trade has been proposed that would lift the ban in exchange in for removing the ban on US oil exports. The NRA is upset about this possibility, and I read that the guy who originally added the language banning funding for studies has regretted it ever since.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
What would stop S&W or one of the other firearm manufacturers from developing a more cost-friendly bazooka for personal use? From what LC and others have said, there are technically no restrictions on the purchase, other than some red tape and the high cost. So theoretically, any company can make them and sell them to the general public under the same regulations that currently exist for firearms, right? Would this not scare the ever loving poo poo out of people?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 17:08
|
|