If the NJ law is a violation of second amendment rights … and while IANAL the argument that it is, or at least would be viewed as such by the current Supremes, seems pretty reasonable to me … then why not let the law get triggered and then challenge it having it overruled?
I certainly support the right of gun owners to boycott and protest whoever they want but it seems that going after the putatively unconstitutional law makes more sense, especially given the degree of confidence expressed that it is unconstitutional.
Of course if the law is not unconstitutional then why doesn’t some deeper pocket “gun grabber” just open up a store to sell only “smart guns”, thus triggering the law’s implementation countdown?
Because it take years to work through the courts and a whole lot of money. And in the end SCOTUS doesn’t have to take any particular case so it’s a crap shoot anyways. Better to head off bad legislation than to fight it after the fact. That’s why the NRA is a valuable resource they motivate legislative votes trough their lobbying.
I won’t totally disagree with you. We can’t get rid of anyone, unfortunately, and like any other controversial subject, the extremists will set the tone of the discourse. Not only do wackos on both sides of the subject keep repeating the same thing over and over, they don’t really listen to each other.
I’m not a recreational shooter, I don’t bear arms, but I hate to see the government ban things. I hate that it’s taken so long for the ban on pot to start to crumble, and so long for the ban on Same Sex marriage to finally wither. These are things that should have always been permitted. The real problem here isn’t the folks who want sane gun laws that put gun ownership in perspective, or the reasonable people who want to be secure in the protection of the 2nd Amendment. The problem is the politicians who will do and say anything for votes. The Republican politicians will fight against anyone that sounds Moderate, “Look at me I won’t give an inch!”, and the Democrats will ban firearms entirely, just to make points with the fringe of their own party. That’s why the Constitution is so valuable, even if a lot of people don’t give it their full attention … it at least keeps the politicians from sacrificing all of our Rights for a little more power, or at least I hope it will.
Bullshit. We could get by as a society without cars. They’re not essential for liberty. Gun rights are much more important than cars. I can imagine moving to a city where I didn’t need a car. I can’t imagine living under such tyranny that the government forbids me my basic human rights to own a gun.
It’s silly to mock the constitution in this way. What you lament simply isn’t true. The constitution and the founding fathers were omniscient enough that they did set in place a method to change the rules.
You don’t like something in the constitution? Amend it.
Here in the US, that’s the current state of affairs. Gun ownership is a right. Car driving is not. Although, most people can drive cars if they get a license and go through a registration process. We allow it, but it’s not a right and isn’t mentioned in the constitution.
No-it can go on for a looong time and the true cost, in rebuilding, suffering and human lives, is often immeasurable.
Say what you want about terrorism, but in the end it is nothing but terrorism.
There is another thing that is common in anti-gun legislation that is true with the NJ law. Law enforcement officers are exempt. My speculation is that this is because the tech is unreliable and unsuitable for self defense or defense of others.
That may be true recently but smart gun technology has been around for decades. Mossberg actually has the trademark on the term Smartgun because they tried to market a smartgun in the 1990’s and it was a flop. Noonne wanted to buy a battery operated gun that could malfunction.
If and when they ever invent a smart gun that works, I might be interested in one as long as it was clear that smart gun laws are unconstitutional.
And in what way would any sort of gun control have stopped the bombing in oklahoma city (or the boston marathon or the world trade center)? In what way do these bombings justify more gun control (sepcifically smart gun laws)? Or did you just want to mention Timothy McVeigh and try to associate him with gun owners generally?
Are you under the impression that we do not have any gun laws in this country?
Gun nuts didn’t always say no to everything. They started saying no to everything when they realized that gun grabbers weren’t looking for a happy medium, they want half now and they’ll come back for the other half later. They saw each new gun regulation as another step in the march towards getting rid of guns altogether.
Would you think there was any point in compromising with pro-life groups on laws that restricted abortions if you knew they would just press for more restricitve laws as soon as the ones you agreed to were passed? Now imagine if all the caselaw was going your way and the vast majority of states have been trending in your direction with one or two notable exceptions?
Really???
Seems to me that laws are moving in the a pro-gun direction and the courts are too.
They inserted a method for updating the constitution. Its called the amendment process.
They do not malfuntion as frequently or catastrophically as smart guns. You can clear most gun jams in under a minute. A busted smart gun or dead battery can make the gun useless for any relevant time period.
Of course not, I didn’t think anyone would condone it. (and for the record I think picketing his store would have been fine). I thought I made that clear in my first post in this thread.
One side wants to get rid of guns entirely and the other side doesn’t trust the side that wants to get rid of guns entirely to stop trying to get more for their side after an agreement is reached. Almost everyone I talk to thinks that licensing and registration would be fine if they was an absolute guarantee that it would stop there. Of course gun grabbers would think of licensing and registration as a “good start”
I happen to support licensing and registration but its hard to rebutt the argument that this will do nothing to reduce gungrabber efforts to eliminate guns altogether and might provide gungrabbers a mechanism to achieve their ultimate goal.
If you or someone you love is being mugged, robbed, raped, killed?
I would rather have smart cars than smart guns.
People give cops a pass because they think cops carry guns to protect them and cops get some sort of special training that makes them more competent and safer than others. Cops carry guns to protect themselves. I (an moderate gun user, at least I think so), fire more rounds per year at the range than the average NYC cop. Also you can never pass these kinds of laws without support from the police chiefs and thats where your speculation probably comes in. The people writing these laws have no fucking clue if this technology is reliable or effective and frankly they don’t care.
Read this article and I thought of this thread. It’s one anecdote for sure, but if this family gun had been a smartgun instead, this 12 year old girl would likely have been kidnapped or worse. Not all stories of kids getting their parents firearms end in tragedy.
Depends on the child I suppose. I certainly had access to many firearms as early as 7. There ate two issues at play here - children and smart guns. The children angle is dicey I admit. The smart gun one is less so.
I notice you asked me a question earlier which I responded to but youhave not responded to my question back to you.
Yes, gee whiz, that sure was lucky. Just like it’s lucky when an eight-year-old figures out how to get in the car and drive gramps to the hospital when he has a heart attack, but that doesn’t mean we want to leave every car unlocked with the keys inside of it just in case that situation pops up again.
So what is the threshhold for disregarding events?
Can we disregard the accidental shooting deaths of 700 people a year because there are 100,000+ defensive gun uses every year? Sure we should try to minimize those accidental shootings, but should we do so at the cost of turning those defensive gun uses into crimes?
