Look any reasonable person should recognize that the “defense against government” reason is outdated and no longer valid. Basically, gun rights exist now because people like to blow up shit. Ok, look I can understand that. Shooting stuff is great, and is American as the right to own a 600HP muscle car to rape the earth. However, guns should just not belong where people live, since data overwhelmingly shows that they cause deaths to increase.
So, my proposal is to build a big island, or maybe reserve like in Hunger Games, where people can own and use any kind of weapon. Rifles, missiles, whatever. If Zuckerberg wants to build a giant mecha, no one will stop him. Maybe put an elephant and giraffe there as well, that people can shoot with a grenade launcher. It will be like Disneyland for the demographic that owns camoflage clothing as casual attire.
If not for the entertainment value and potential ticket revenue, we must do this for the children. Won’t anyone think of the children?
I highly doubt gun toters will happily move to another state just to keep their gun. More likely they’ll fight to keep their gun altogether where they live now. Also state gun regulation is a cute idea, but the 14th amendment extended the bill of rights to state governments through the incorporation doctrine. Two scotus cases affirmed that states MUST uphold those in the constitution. This should make it impossible for any state to issue laws to take guns away. Not going to happen
I could get behind BS’s plan. If other states want to allow weapons I am ok with that, I would just prefer them not around me. People tend to shoot up what is around them so it being legal in Texas doesnt bother me too much. Seems like a reasonable comprimise, obviously neither side would love it, but I think both would accept it.
The problem then becomes how exactly does it work because both sides can agree on it and pass it into law, but the second that happens people who want those guns in a state like NY start with the lawsuits so I think we end up back where we began. In an ideal world states would be able to enact laws that may place limits on individuals and others may disagree and pass different laws, people would move to states that allow things they care. In reality people just sue because they dont want to have to move to get what they want.
Edit: damn you itera beating me to the moving point
Yes that’s right. States can’t do jack against the 2nd amendment. McDonald vs Chicago 2010 US Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment has been incorporated through the 14th amendment due process clause and is FULLY enforceable against the states.
But that is from 2010. What if Hillary is elected and appoints a transgender Hispanic lesbian judge? The Supreme Court will then have 5 liberal members and can interpret the constitution in different ways.
Well to be fair, Hillary in real life probably hates poor people, liberals and minorities (one black guy in particular). She will probably go moderate with something like choosing judges.
As for the map. I personally don’t care that much whether I’m shot up by an ISIS sympathiser (not actually an operative, just a guy that likes ISIS and a couple of islamic groups that ISIS hates), or by a drug person fighting a gang member nearby. Or when I go tutor a kid in school. I’m still just as dead. This is why I think gun control is a relevant issue after the Orlando events.
The terror issue is also a relevant concern, but it’s less of a driver of this specific incident. My sense is that the guy was likely to go shoot off a bunch of people in a club whether ISIS was there or not. However, he thought that saying “Hail ISIS” before going out would make his death more dramatic (which it did), and given that his family was fairly devout muslim, it fits his perceived need to fight against his latent homosexuality with some cleansing action. However, if we hail nuked Syria and Iraq and all those places and ISIS was no more, it’s likely that similarly disturbed people would say “Hail ISIS” before shooting up a place, the same way skinheads might scream “Heil Hitler” before doing the same.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be tracking ISIS sympathizers and watching what they are doing. And it’s not a bad thing to use this moment to remember that just because ISIS is far away doesn’t mean they are incapable of orchestrating things like this if they want to. But I do think the availability of guns is still pretty relevant, not just from a terror point of view (why build homemade bombs, when you can just pick up some guns and ammo across the street legally), but from the point of view of gang violence and kids who feel it’s a good way to make the school yearbook, etc… It’s not a somersault to say that gun control is a relevant discussion after something like this happens.
I do think the 2nd ammendment is designed to check federal power, but STL’s argument that says how the heck are a few automatic rifiles going to check the power of the US military, unless you can build your own nuke and/or similar systems. There is also the case of defending your home from intruders and things like that, but a plain old shotgun or pistol should be enough for that. Anyway, this debate goes on and on.
I think the Islamic terror angle is moot. Given that the US is actively trying to destroy and degrade terrorist capability worldwide, that side of the problem is already being addressed and so I see a debate of “Is Islam more responsible or guns?” to be a distraction.
but the data proves that you personally don’t need more gun control to avoid this. don’t be a gang member (80% of gun related homicide) and don’t commit suicide (60% of gun related deaths) and your chances fall below driving a car. Also, the ‘mass murder’ moniker is very misleading. If I recall correctly it counts deaths of >1 person in a single incident as mass murder (including the perpetrator) so it includes murder/suicides (for example between jilted lovers).
Blatant straw man argument being used to push an agenda. There is no epidemic, it’s a completely false narrative.
So don’t be gay is the lesson to take from the shooting? Or don’t associate with gays?
I live in a neighborhood where drug dealers operate. I am not a drug dealer. So far there have been no turf wars. And the only person that got shot on the doorstep to my building was someone who obviously deserved it because he got into an argument with someone who probably had a gun.
then you’re one of the roughly 2,000 people per year who could fall victim to this EPIDEMIC. Let’s enact sweeping federal laws to protect 2,000 people too stupid to move out of an area with drug activity. Move dummy.
Even if most gun violence is from gangs, or if gun violence occurs at a persistent and not spiking frequency, most people would still be safer if there were fewer guns. Thus, I do not see how bringing up that statistic changes anything qualitatively.
So by this logic, the EPIDEMIC of terrorism has claimed fewer than 100 lives in the US this year, yet requires an urgent step-up in prevention, while the EPIDEMIC of drug violence hurts 2000 people per year and is comical?
Oh really? That must be why you can’t carry or own a gun in NYC under any circumstance.
Or why I can buy a ton of guns in PA that I can’t legally buy in MA, CA or a host of other states. Why can’t I buy high capacity magazines in eight states and DC? Maybe you should inform the supreme court. Seven states already have existing bans in effect on assault weapons.
The precident has already been set. Beyond that, most gun nuts I know that I’ve run this by would surrunder their guns under state law. Most of those that wouldn’t live in states that would never pass such a law.
I’m glad I was able to eductate you today on this topic.
the costs of more gun control FAR outweigh the benefits. Sorry but saving an extra 2,000 (many of whom are idots like bchad) aren’t worth the enormous social cost. You’re talking about adding a roughly 0.000001% margin of safety in exchange for removing everyone’s ability to defend themselves from violence. Now apologize for being so stupid.
is this directed at me? when did i say anything about the urgent need to address homeland terrorism? I merely stated why it’s happening and I can pretty much guaranty it will increase. i’m not calling for large scale removal of freedoms to combat the terrorism theat. in fact I argue for more freedom at home and less intervention overseas.