because not everyone else is going to hand theirs in, most notably the very people who shouldn’t have a gun under any circumstances. You think your average armed criminal is just going to drop their piece off in the bin at the police department 'cos some guy in D.C. signed a piece of paper?
Hey, tell you what- I’ll trade. I’ll hand in my guns in exchange for the right to sue the government (city, county, or state) if the police can’t respond in time to protect me.
Deal?
I see this claimed a lot, but nobody ever supports it past asserting it over and over. When concealed-carry laws were relaxed nationwide, we were supposed to experience a bloodbath of epic proportions.
Admittedly, I have not read the whole thread but I’m gonna drop my turd here anyway.
I would begin interpreting the second amendment to mean exactly what it says. The federal government is verboten from making any laws regarding preventing anyone from owning, keeping and carrying arms of any sort (yes, Jimmy, up to and including nuclear weapons).
Under this formulation, the States are free, under their sovereign power to make any restrictions they wish. If you wish the 2nd amendment to be incorporated and put the same restrictions on the states as the federal government and you are not happy with this wide open interpretation, you are free to work together to re-write the amendment to have it allow whatever reasonable restrictions people can agree to.
Sure, I really want federal make-work goons like the TSA invading our public spaces. :dubious: It’s quite bad enough that we have them in airports. Like terrorism, spree shooting is such an infinitesimally small risk that I don’t think any serious expenditure or inconvenience is justified. The vast majority of gun homicides do not fit the profile these measures would (ostensibly) protect against.
I guess I (and many others) don’t see armed self-defense as a pretension of “police authority” or a “cowboy” mentality. It just means that if someone’s trying to kill you, you’ve got a right to stop them, which, if you ask me, just makes sense. And protecting you against harm is not one of the duties of the police anyway, so I’m not sure where “police authority” comes into it.
Well, it certainly made it easy to dismiss you and your opinion. 
I’m certainly not going to agree if you characterize my position as extreme, though.
Except that the second amendment has already been incorporated in Heller, so the states would not be free to make whatever restrictions they wish. If incorporation required rewriting the incorporated amendments, it would still be legal for states to enact and enforce state religions and censor the press.
Except that the second amendment has already been incorporated in Heller, so the states would not be free to make whatever restrictions they wish. If incorporation required rewriting the incorporated amendments, it would still be legal for states to enact and enforce state religions and censor the press.
[/QUOTE]
So, the SCOTUS should have asked my advice 3 years ago or we should accept that incorporation now means that the states are forbidden to make law that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms and work to rewrite the damned amendment to make it say what we actually mean by it.
No you weren’t. Concealed carry, properly implemented, is not a problem (as the lack of increase in gun crimes following its implementation shows). Any decent concealed carry class teaches that just because you have a gun does not make you a cop, and you shouldn’t go looking for trouble. The gun is only for those rare situations where trouble comes to you and there’s no other way to avoid it. Perhaps Florida needs to modify its carry requirements to include more education, but that’s quite doable.
The Florida “Stand Your Ground” law does look like it’s causing problems, and I think it should be repealed. But since I don’t live in Florida, my opinion on the matter doesn’t count for much.