Here you go poisoning the well by calling all your positions ‘common sense’, which by definition means you are saying anyone who opposes your particular set of rules lacks common sense. This is a dishonest tactic, and one very common to the most vocal of the gun-banners.
I guess enacting stiffer punishments for people who commit crimes while using guns is ‘no suggestion’ to you?
My guns are behind my locked doors and windows. How dare you suggest that you would punish me for being the victim of a burglary.
No. It’s completely unenforceable, since you would have to violate peoples Fourth Amendment rights (searching homes without a warrant to see how they store their guns) and their Second Amendment rights (by forcing them to store firearms in such a manner that they cannot be used for self defense).
Do you think that a victim of a burglary should be held accountable for failing to properly secure his television set?
Take all the money that would be wasted on ineffective and expensive legislation and instead pay cops more and pay more cops. Of course, we would all have to pay that cost, instead of gun-owners exclusively, but if it is crime you’re against and not guns per se, you should be all over this idea.
I’m in favor of limiting maximum magazine size, myself. I think that would tend to reduce collateral injury from gunfire.
Also, I think we should have a gun safety program in high schools. It’d be fun, educational, and great for people interested in joining the Armed Forces later in life.
You know, just like Driver’s Ed.
After that, it’s more a proactive matter than anything else. Community organization, eliminate urban blight, give people a better alternative to gangs, show them there’s a way out of the ghetto. Lot of people literally don’t see that there is one.
We do a lot of work there at work. It’s a really good feeling when someone graduates our programs into a real and lasting job.
Not every bullet would need it’s own ID. As envisioned by the website it would be done by box. That’s where the hassle comes in. Every show I’ve seen concerning the manufacture of bullets show buckets and bins of cartridges which are then separated into lots to be boxed. In order to wind up with a box of 50 cartridges with bullets tagged with the same ID, you’d have to separate out each lot early in manufacture because you’re tagging the base of the bullet and you’d have to keep the lots segregated from one another once the bullet is inserted into the casing. I think that would be more of an imposition on manufacturers than the laser technology. Yes?
First off something can be illegal and need not violate your 4th Amendment rights. It is illegal to possess marijuana. Lots of people have marijuana at home. Despite this jackbooted government thugs are not kicking in doors left and right just to check and see if you might have any in your house. So too with a proper storage law. No one is going to barge in to your house just to check if you have your guns stored properly. Such a thing would come out as part of an investigation into something else…like someone got shot in your house and the police investigate and discover you did not have proper gun storage (if such a thing were required).
Second is this whole 2nd Amendment argument so beloved of gun rights advocates as if it magically waves away any notion of any restriction on gun ownership. It doesn’t. Read that again…it does not provide automatic immunity from any gun restrictions!
Certainly the SCOTUS would look closely at any restrictions to not violate a Constitutional right but that does not mean NO restrictions. You cannot own a machine gun for instance. You cannot own certain types of ammo for another (e.g. I think flechettes are illegal in Illinois). We accept curbs on “blanket” rights in many other cases as well and do not fuss (e.g. “free speech” is not absolute).
I see nothing in the Constitution that says the 2nd Amendment is for home defense. It says you can own a gun. Note I am not saying a gun should not be used for self defense. Nor am I saying mandating storage requirements is a useful idea. But waving the 2nd Amendment around is not the cureall you seem to think it is.
So you don’t think a weapon owner has any responsibility at all to make sure his weapon does not fall into the wrong hands? I think it’s quite reasonable to require them to be locked up in a reasonable safe. I hope you can see the difference between weapons and tv-sets.
So that’s slightly less unwieldy, only tens of millions of individual units to track, but with even greater cost to the manufacturer and still with no real hope of preventing or solving more than a few crimes.
People shouldn’t be breaking into my house or car, people who do break into my house or car and steal my stuff are breaking the law. They should be punished for their actions. Not me.
Am I “asking for it” if I don’t have all of my guns secured in an unbreakable safe? (because I expect the definition of a “reasonable safe” to slide quite a bit)
If I wanted to propose a $100 per page tax on political publications, I could say:
How does it infringe on the 1st? If you’re still allowed to read political publications, the restrictions put upon that right aren’t hurting you. There’s no guarantee that every citizen can afford political publications. There’s certainly no government official passing out political publications to anyone who wants one. You have the right. Not necessarily the ability.
The restrictions we place on freedom of speech are related to commiting crimes or other aggressive acts with that freedom. You can’t yell “fire!” in a crowded theater, or slander, and hide behind freedom of speech. In other words, the first amendment is not a license to commit crimes.
People want to say this is analogous to banning certain types of guns, but it’s not. If we banned the use of certain words, in and of themselves, it would be more comparable.
Not being able to yell “fire!” in a crowded theater is more analogous to not being able to fire your gun into the air in the middle of a city. It’s an act you engage in which is dangerous and illegal and you can’t defend it by claiming your rights.
Slander and child porn (for example) are not “types of speech” the way machine guns are types of guns. The former are inherently aggressive, harmful acts - the latter is neutral.
Ok…how about your right to peaceably assemble as guaranteed by the Constitution?
People tried to do just that at various campaign rallies this past election (or when Bush comes to a particular area). The people are allowed to assemble all right but a mile away in an empty parking lot set aside for the purpose and well out of the way of where they want to be. No crimes are committed but the right is circumscribed anyway.
“Free speech zones” are bullshit and we should be fighting the suppression of that right. Certainly the violation of one right shouldn’t be used to justify the violation of another.
But we don’t tape your mouth shut every time you go to see a film, and we don’t require that you have every speech read by a government official to be sure that it is not slanderous, and we don’t make you get fingerprinted to have a web forum account so that we can identify you in the event that you go from merely exercising your right to free speech to recklessly committing verbal crimes.
And it’s already illegal, much like the ‘fire in a crowded theater’ routine.
There is, of course, the ‘really good reason’ exception. You can fire a gun in the middle of a city if you’re defending your life. And you can yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater – if it is actually on fire.
The bottom line, however, is that we do not take away a person’s rights because of what they might do.
And was wrong and a curtailment upon my 1st amendment rights. I’m a big supporter of the Chicago Cubs and the entire Bill of Rights. I don’t pick and choose which ones satisfy my political leanings. (Not saying that you do by the way, but many staunch 1st amendment supporters couldn’t care less about the 2nd.)
Actually the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights I really do not care about is the 3rd. I wouldn’t sweat it if they tore it up tomorrow.
Of all the Bill of Rights the 2nd is an odd cookie. The rest is essentially detailing how I will be free of government tyranny and certain (I’d argue) innate rights everyone has (e.g. free speech). The 2nd is a right to a “thing”. I know some would argue it is there as the ultimate guarantee of avoiding government tyranny but I do not remotely buy that one. Further, the right in the 2nd can impact me in very undesirable ways. Ways that extend far beyond you saying something mean to me as your free speech right.
Not to mention it boggles my mind how “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,” always seems to be ignored. Gun rights advocates love rubbing everyone’s face in the 2nd Amendment yet manage to almost universally ignore this rather glaring part because it is inconvenient.
I’ll stand much more strongly to protect our 2nd Amendment rights once you (gun rights advocates “you”) include a reading of the WHOLE thing in that right.
It’s been gone over a million times, and I’m not going to do it here again, suffice it to say that the way you interpret “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State” show that you don’t have an understanding of how the militia system worked.
And equally as many staunch 2nd amendment supporters couldn’t care less about the1st.
Or rather, are only willing to defend their minimalist interpretation of the first, much like some gun control people claim they are defending their interpretation of the second by allowing the National Guard to have firearms.