Miller didnt decide anything different than Heller. Heller didnt override Miller.
I have- repeatedly.
I have no idea what that last crack means.
And likewise, allowing your neighbor to own a gun is not forcing gun ownership on you. If you claim that it is, then gay marriage and abortion have been forced upon people in those areas that would choose to not legalize those things. You can’t have it both ways.
Further, we are not making it legal for your neighbor to shoot you so your comparison is not apt.
In many ways, Heller limited Miller. Miller seemed to hold that if one could prove that the weapon he owed was suitable for militia use, it would be protected. Heller added the “commonly owed” element.
It IS forcing the increased risk of death or injury upon me. That is not *quite *the same as forcing tolerance of gay marriage upon you, now is it?
The risk is there whether or not the neighbor is claimed to be “law-abiding”. Your denial of inaptness is inapt.
The point was that you have denounced a ruling you like, while deferring to the judgment of the court without question or independent consideration on a ruling whose effect you *did *like. So quit ducking, please.
What sort of “fed” are you, then? Clearly *not *a sworn and trained LEO, as you have been trying to imply, or you’d have simply said so, right?
The username you’ve chosen is evocative, btw.
There was a point but I think you missed it. Different states have different laws - some more and some less permissive wrt firearms. Sure, some things are precluded at the federal level, like complete handgun bans in the home. But different states have already enacted differing levels of strictness in their firearm laws. For example, background checks are required for private party sales in CA, but they are not in AZ. If the people of AZ wanted to make background checks mandatory for private party sales in their state, they can do so. Perfect example of states being able to craft their own laws. CA has preemption, like WA, PN, and a host of other states. CA has a supermajority of Democrats in both of its state houses so if they wanted to, they could eliminate preemption. There is also a majority of people in the state that live in larger cities. In other words, if city dwellers wanted to pass these laws that you describe, they could.
I have no problem with how anyone wants to live their own life. When they attempt to dictate how I may live mine is where we would disagree. Folks in this thread want to ban firearms. I oppose that idea. Who is having a problem with how someone else wants to live their life again? I’m all in favor of a minimalist government. Will you join me? Let’s abolish minimum wage, social security, the ACA, public education, the war on drugs, medicare, the EMTLA, and a host of other things. A tough sell for sure. For now, I’ll settle for more permissive firearm laws.
Indeed. You seem to have a problem with commentary regarding a given hypothetical. It’s clear the hypo is meant to make a point (as was done in post #408) so in my view, it makes sense to address that preemptively. If that offends you somehow, you’ll just have to get used to disappointment.
Do you think there would be any single incident of an innocent person being harmed that would not have been if they had a firearm?
Possibly. Carol Bowne comes to mind. But we’re not talking about a few minutes. In several states in the union, depending on where you live, a regular person simply cannot obtain permission to carry a concealed weapon. And many folks in this thread are not talking about a few extra minutes, or demonstrating proficiency - they are talking about bans. There is nothing I can do to obtain a CCW valid in my state. I can meet everything you’ve stated, yet no dice. My application was returned without the check being cashed and without comment.
Because firearm ownership is a civil right. Do you think civil rights should be subject to local votes? Like, should a city be able to eliminate minimum wage, or declare disparate impact analysis to be void? Let’s do that then and see how things turn out.
That’s funny - you think you’ve made an evaluation of more harm than good, yet you haven’t identified any good. Can you show your work?
You want to make it seem like what you are asking is reasonable, just a bit more diligence, training, etc. And if that were all it was, I’d likely be fine with that. But look around - those that are opposed to firearms are not content with those limited speed bumps. They want bans. They want to confiscate my property, they want to eliminate firearm ownership. So until those extremists are obliterated, I’m of the view that anyone who wants more gun control can go pound sand and hope that RBG hangs on to her seat. Good luck.
Only if you equate gay marriage with death and injury.
I do not equate gay marriage with death and injury, so I do not see it as having it both ways.
You apparently do equate gay marriage with death and injury, and that is why you consider them to be equivalent.
I am not sure if there is any more room in this argument, as we do not see eye to eye on the fundamental difference between gay marriage and death and injury.
It is not legal for my neighbor to shoot me, no, but it is legal for my neighbor to get ahold of all the items that he needs to shoot me, and will only break the law at the moment that he pulls the trigger, whether by accident or on purpose.
It is legal for my neighbor to get a dangerous device that can shoot me, and leave it sitting out on the coffee table, or, if he is especially diligent, tucked away in the couch cushions, for any curious child to pick up and shoot themselves or others, or for any petty criminal to easily take, and now become an armed criminal.
Well, yeah. Back when Reagan was governor of California, and the concern was about black people having guns, California did actually pass some rather restrictive gun laws.
Now that democrats are in charge, people complain about them.
But, once again, you miss my point. I understand how things are. Explaining how things are does not change that. What I am saying is that I advocate a change to how things are.
Explaining the status quo is not helpful when I do not accept the status quo.
Do you mind that the government dictates how to live your life when it tells you that you are not allowed to murder your neighbor, take his stuff, and rape his family?
No, I will not join you in favoring a minimalist government. Somalia has a minimalist government. Afghanistan has a minimalist government. In those countries, if you want to murder your neighbor, take his stuff, and rape his family, no one is going to stop you. (Assuming that you are bigger than your neighbor. If not, then he will murder you, take your stuff, and rape your family, and no one is going to stop him.)
I also am in favor of speed limits (though I do think that some of them could be revisited), DUI laws, Texting and driving laws, basic traffic control laws (stop at stop signs and lights stuff). Are you against all that? Does the government have a right to tell you how to “live”?
I could join you in abolishing minimum wage if replaced with a minimum basic income, but I would guess that that would be the opposite direction form a minimalist govt that you are looking for. I could join you on ending the war on drugs too, but I would use the savings to invest in drug awareness and treatment, treating addiction as the disease it is, rather than incarcerating people for not being able to make themselves well (even if it was their fault they got “sick” in the first place), and I assume that you would not want that, but would rather let addicts just die in the streets. But SS and public education improve the lives of your fellow citizens, and also improve your own. Medicare and the ACA I could do away with, as it would be redundant with a comprehensive UHC, and EMTLA wouldn’t be necessary, as it would not be a burden for hospitals to administer life saving treatments to those who may not be able to pay.
(Also, EMTLA is not a law that says that hospitals must treat those with life threatening conditions, it is a rule that says that, if hospitals agree to treat those with life threatening conditions, then they can receive federal funds. It is a voluntary agreement, but a voluntary agreement that you disagree with, so want to disallow parties from entering into it.)
The world that you favor is one in which only the wealthy have any chance of succeeding, and everyone else is left sick and impoverished, where people are left to die in the streets if they can’t prove that they can afford life saving treatment. We have countries like that right now, you don’t have to turn this one into one of those.
The wealthy also are not better off in such a situation, as they have a weaker economy to work with, they have a less educated and sicker work force, they have a higher chance of riots and revolts, they have fewer goods and services to consume, and overall they just have a lower quality of life than they would if they lived in a prosperous country.
I just don’t see mocking other posters in GD as being productive. YMMV.
It’s like seatbelts, here. I have an acquaintance that insists on never wearing his seatbelt, because he heard about some guy one time that would have been killed if he had been wearing his seatbelt in an accident. Do you think that there would be any single incident of a person being harmed that they would not have had they not been wearing their seatbelt?
This is the same as your argument. That you can show anecdotal evidence that guns have done some good in some situations does not mean that they are always a plus.
We have anecdotal stories of DGUs, many of which are the DGU’er actually breaking the law, and most of which there was never any real evidence that the gun warded off anyone, just that they were scared, and pulled their gun to be less scared. If you are in a Home Depot parking lot in broad daylight, and a couple of people walk up to you, you may think that pulling out your gun and pointing it at the entrance to the store is a good idea, and that it will keep you safe, but what you have actually done is endangered the lives of other people in order to comfort your insecurities.
Anecdotes, once again. For every Carole Browne, I can show you several, well generally unidentified, because the news doesn’t usually identify minors, but several toddlerswho are dead that would not have been had there been a bit more care given to who we give guns to.
And I agree that our patchwork of gun laws doesn’t really make sense. But, you keep saying, “What do gun owners get by cooperating with the people who want to lower gun violence?” and an answer would be that we could look at the laws together, and come up with ones that would be effective without being burdensome. Unfortunately, gun advocates refuse to work with people who want to save lives, mock them, insult them, read their mind and tell them that they just want to ban all guns and make law abiding citizens into criminals, and the conversation breaks down from there.
You end up getting laws that are incovnicnet, but not really effective, and we end up with laws that are ineffective. I am all for you being able to have a CCW, if you are half as responsible as you claim to be. You sound like the person that would actually be able to keep a gun around without being a threat to others. But, if we make it too easy for you to get a gun, then that means that it’s easy for the criminals to get guns to threaten you(and me), and that irresponsible people have an easier time getting a lethal device for which they do not have proper respect.
At a certain point, those who want to save lives and lower gun violence do give up. After back and forth, and the refusal of gun advocates to give an inch, eventually we go to extremes as well. DrDeth, your ally in this thread, insists that there can be absolutely no decrease to gun violence without a complete gun ban and confiscation effort. If I agree with your gun advocate ally, then I will also need to take the position of banning all guns, as it is your side that insists that there can be no compromise.
If we can get you your CCW, is there anything you are willing to compromise on?
Of course, DrDeth also says that he will, and has, used his gun in the defense of others, but most other gun advocates say that their gun is only for their own defense, and they will not be the “good guy with a gun”. I don’t remember your position on the subject. So, they are threatening my safety without giving me anything in return.
It is a right that has been interpreted in the constitution. Between the fact that I don’t think that it is a proper interpretation, in that the whole amendment means something, not just the parts that you like, and the fact that I am perfectly willing to change the amendment if necessary, no, I do not see it as a sacred or natural or god given right. It is a right that is given to you by your fellow citizens, and it is a right that can be taken away as well.
As far as your hypothetical, that’s not how things work. Laws in municipalities are more restrictive, not less so, than that of the state. If the state has a fine for marijuana possession, a city may have a greater penalty, but they cannot have a lessor.
Just like some cities have anti discrimination policies that are more strict than the state’s, or have higher MW’s than the state. There are, of course, some states that don’t allow their cities to have those sorts of laws either, and is another case of people outside of the city telling people who live in the city how they must live and work. That’s how that actually works out.
Your idea of municipalities passing laws to lower the restrictions imposed by the states is a nonstarter, based on the most basic of principles of how the legal system works.
Mine is to allow municipalities to pass laws to raise the restrictions, a completely different idea, that has none of your slippery slope concerns, and actually follows reality of how laws work.
Sure, here’s bunch of people who are dead, that wouldn’t be dead, if we didn’t allow people to be irresponsible with their guns.
Can you demonstrate the good that came from these deaths?
What you say you want is reasonable, but look around you. There are gun advocates who are not content to keep things as they are, or loosen up a restriction on a particular firearm, they want to legalize all weapons. If you can judge my argument based on some other arguments of others, then I have no choice but to judge your based on the arguments of others.
You say “you’d be fine with that”, and then come up with an excuse to not be fine with that, that has nothing at all to do with what I have said, nothing to do with what actual gun control advocates want, but only because you pay attention only to the most extreme 10% that are “on my side”, the ones that most of us moderates ignore for the most part, you must reject any sort of compromise.
We could do the same. We could judge your argument in light of what the most extreme 10% of your side says, I could “read your mind” and claim nefarious reasons for your desire for easier access to guns, I could tell you what it is that you really want, but that would just be acting as a gotcha, not advancing a productive discussion.
You say that, until the all the extremists on gun control are “obliterated” (rather violent imagery in a thread about gun control), you will not compromise. That is a condition that you know very will will never come to pass, so you have declared that you will not ever compromise, and you use the existence of people who disagree with you as an excuse for that position.
Do you think that CA hasn’t passed additional restrictive gun laws since Reagan was governor? CA has passed restrictive gun laws on multiple occasions and continues to do so. My point was that you don’t understand the status quo, thus it needs explaining. You bemoan the fact that cities can’t pass all the laws it wants to restrict and ban more guns. But that’s not true. Cities certainly can, if the voters wanted to. CA is a perfect example - the Democrats have supermajorities, and there are more people living in these cities. That’s the status quo. And look, you have cities like SF and Sunnyvale and a host of other localities in the state passing more restrictive laws than there are statewide.
So then why the useless blather about having a problem with how someone else wants to live their life?
It’s a good thing I didn’t do that then. It’s clear to basically everyone that this is true. The magic required for the hypothetical was acknowledged by the person who offered it. It’s not mockery, it’s reality.
I don’t think they are always a plus. And there is certainly evidence that guns have had negative outcomes in certain scenarios. I’d say the seat belt analogy is applicable to your position. You are asserting the more harm than good, yet you continually fail to assess any positives.
When have gun owners ever benefited from cooperating with their opponents? All I can see throughout the history of this country that has happened with cooperating is greater and greater restrictions. It’s hardly reading minds when folks come out and say they want to ban guns. Repeating back to them what they freely admit doesn’t take mind reading. I’m sure there are reasonable people out there on the gun control side, but they are not the ones writing the laws, leading the conversations, or running for office.
And this implication that only one side wants to lower gun violence and save lives, as if your opponents want to increase gun crime and take lives, is farcical. Perhaps that’s why conversation breaks down - gun control folks imply that their opponents are evil.
Make it easier for me? Like, from impossible to possible? Yes, more permissive laws means that there will be an increase in those that may arm themselves and would not be responsible. Is that sufficient reason to maintain the status quo where it is impossible?
I see no meaningful daylight between your position and that of extremists. Because at the end of the day, it results in the same outcome. You wont vote against an extremist on gun control because of their views, so you get lumped together. Only when extremists get penalized because of their view will it make a difference.
Anything not firearm related.
This is a key disagreement and another reason why there can be no compromise on firearms. This view is wrong based on the history of our laws, 100% of constitutional jurisprudence, and the nature of the founding of our country.
40 years ago, CCW shall issue was a small minority position. Now, 41 states in the union have shall issue or constitutional carry. Give it time.
No I get it. But we are talking about cities where their laws were struck down, or states where their laws are currently in court, likely to be struck down.
CA isn’t going to pass a law that it knows it will then have to defend and ultimately lose in a court fight. Oregon’s is marginal, at best.
I want to live my life free of bullet holes. Why the useless blather on why I may not live that life?
In any case, I did say that I am not joining you on your quest to abolish the government. Which means that I am perfectly happy in telling others how to live their lives, if the way that they are currently living their lives causes harm to those around them.
If your neighbor wants to live his life in a way that involves killing you and taking your stuff, do you have any interest in the way he lives his life? Yes? Then you are for the govt telling people how to live their lives. No? Really?
Right, but by mocking it in the way you did, you completely missed the point of it.
Really? Dead toddlers are a neutral condition to you? Having toddlers be alive, rather than dead, is not a positive?
Okay, I’m not a huge fan of children myself, but that’s going a bit far.
When have the ever tried?
And yet, you end this post by talking about how restrictions are being lifted across the nation.
But you are not repeating back to them what they freely admit, you accuse them of what you think that they meant, or you accuse them of hiding an agenda, because they didn’t say the same thing that some other guy on some blog said somewhere.
Yes, actually, that’s exactly what they are, as you noted, gun laws are being made to be less restrictive. What you mean to say is that there are reasonable people on the gun control sie, but they are not the ones that you pay attention to, rather, you pay attention to the most extreme, and then paint that extreme position onto anyone who is writing the laws, leading the conversations, or running for office.
No, the conversation breaks down when gun advocates make accusations that gun control advocates simply want to take away all the guns for some nefarious purpose.
I don’t think that you, in your advocacy for making guns easier to get, and easier to carry into more places and times, want to increase gun crime and take lives. I think you just don’t care that your position will increase gun crime and take lives.
Apathy, not evil, is what I accuse you of. The conversation also breaks down when gun advocates fake outrage at the slight that they have perceived that was thrown at them, and accuse the people who are looking to save some lives of hating freedom, or wanting to control people, or wanting to throw law abiding people in prison, or any of the other things that have been elfed at the gun control crowd by people in this very thread.
Wait, what? You are saying that you don’t own any guns? I thought you did.
I guess, then yes, I would like to make it possible for you to own a gun, provided that you can demonstrate responsibility with it.
And this is you doing your mind reading thing, and conflating the views of extremist to those of moderates, and therefore refuse to make any sort of productive conversion.
I too, can say that I see no daylight between you and a sovereign citizen. Because, at the end of the day, you won’t vote against an extremist on gun advocacy because of their views.
But I am here for a productive discussion, not lumping and labelling. Not telling other what it is that they believe, because there is someone else that they may support at some point in the future that may believe something else.
That’s just an excuse. That is all it is. It is not reasonable, it is not rational, it is simply the way that you have rationalized dismissing anyone with a differing opinion than yours.
Well, that pretty much shuts down any negotiation about fire arms control, doesn’t it? How about we get “open borders?”
Really, the constitution has never been altered? These are your opinions, many of which are simply rendered counterfactual by reality. The history of our laws did not provide everyone the right to bear arms, that was a federal issue, not a state. Many states could and did limit the rights to bear arms. The country was not founded with the idea that people would be running around with guns all the time, the country was founded with the idea that a well regulated militia would have need of able bodied people with guns.
You cannot even say “100% of constitutional jurisprudence”, as many of the decisions were not 100%, for instance, your view on Heller only agrees with 60% of the people that we put in charge to determine jurisprudence.
Do you level the same charge at the 4 justices that do not share your view?
Yes, it is a key disagreement, but disagreements are where the conversation should be starting, not where it should be ending. That we disagree shouldn’t mean that you refuse to negotiate, that you disagree means taht it is time to negotiate.
There are many reasons for that, largey that the republicans have waged a rather dirty but successful war on the idea of progressivism and liberalism at all. That had nothing to do with guns, but had mostly to do with people being scared of minorities in their neighborhoods, and so voted for the party that promised to make them feel safer. That that party also happened to be pro-gun works out in your favor, but the two do not go hand in hand. It could have gone the other way, and the party that was willing to help people to find ways of discrimination and redlining minorities may have been anti-gun, then you’d be sitting here, with much more limited gun rights, and lamenting that you can’t have one.
The gun fight hasn’t been all that important to democrats, but because the republicans know that they can count on single issue voters like yourself to consistently support them in anything and everything they do, all they have to do is toss you a little bone from time to time to keep you satisfied, but they don’t even really have to do that, they just point at some democrat that at some time and place said something bad about guns, and you will vote for them, even though they are playing you from the beginning, that they have no interest in your gun rights, that they will not do anything to restore them. If they ever did, they may lose your vote.
They work on fear, not on reason, and on some people, fear is a much more powerful motivator than reason. It seems that, at this point in history, more voters are motivated by fear than by reason.
I dont care for Miller as it was a set up. And the defense didnt get a chance to make a case. But the ruling that sawed off shotguns can be illegal is OK by me.
Treasury. Anti-money laundering. Retired.
Thank you.
But you have to know by now I am not a gun nut, right? I own a .22 rifle my dad gave me when i was a kid and my service handgun. No AR15s or anything.
No, it is only that you *think *you have a increased risk of death or injury upon you.
You want us to pass laws that would cost billions, triple the prison population and gut part of the Bill of rights- so that you can feel safer. While many other people would feel* less safe. *
Not really- what was passed was a bill banning the open carry of loaded guns in municipal areas. Since then dozens and dozens of gun laws have been passed, several of which have not been Constitutional.
Well, let’s see your proposals, then. I accept mild controls that are Constitutional.
But we dont agree that gun laws will reduce violent crime, that’s the whole point- and the evidence points both ways.
Actually, no that wasnt me, that was another poster or two- posters that want more gun laws- that said that *sure, local gun bans dont work, as they can get them elsewhere, so we need widespread federal laws. *
Actually CA has recently done so: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/ninth-circuit-protects-gun-rights-california/
Dont we all? But the point is, I feel that allowing responsible people to own guns may reduce my chance of getting shot, and i see no results from American gun laws that reduce violent crime. Restrictive gun laws are passed, they dont work, and then the gun grabbers make an excuse of why it didnt work, claiming they need more gun laws.
Again, that’s not correct. Would you think that a city in CA would pass a law that directly contradicts Heller? SF passed a law requiring firearms to be kept in a gun safe, in direct contradiction of Heller. Cert was denied.
Sounds like a good plan. The vast vast majority of people in the US are able to do so. I’d say advancing my desired system of laws would further that goal.
This seems to have started with the magic nature of the hypothetical. Given the originator of the hypo admits it would require magic - what part of what I wrote was an accusation of what I thought was meant?
Isn’t this you engaging in the exact same thing that you’ve railed against? Physician, heal thyself.
Call it an excuse, or call it a reason. It makes no difference to its effectiveness. The moment it stops being effective then the tactic will change.
I’ll compromise on firearms, but the ask would be much larger than CCW. But if it’s open borders you want for CCW, fine with me. I’m in favor of a dramatically easier immigration process already so this is an easy ask. Open borders isn’t my preferred end state, but whatever.
The issue is that the constitution has no bearing on the right to arms. You think this right is granted, but it is not. A lot of disagreement stems from this and it’s a matter of first principles whether you accept this or not.
If not, there can be no common ground.
If someone’s goal is to kill you, will you negotiate with them? Like, maybe not kill you all the way, but how about just cut off an arm? There are some things that cannot be negotiated.
So, Reagan restrictions were OK, but subsequent ones were not. So, passing gun control is fine as long as you have an R next to your name, as the R’s don’t pass gun control.
We’ve been through this before…
It will reduce gun crime. It will reduce gun accidents. It will reduce gun suicides. As crime is easier, accidents are more tragic, and suicide is more effective with a gun than without, I do not see how you can make the argument that it will not reduce death and injury.
Oh, I thought that you had told a story about how you had protected some woman from being dragged into an alley. If that is not the case, if you actually would not use your gun to protect someone else’s life, I apologize for the confusion.
[quote]
And that goes straight to my point that what we consider to be reasonable gun laws are fought in the courts. California is not going to be passing a full gun ban, no matter how democratic the legislature is.
There are a few dozens of thousands of people that started this year not wanting, nor expecting bullet holes, and yet, they got them anyway.
As fr as your reasonings, they are well laid out and well explained, and it is only because you seem to think that there is some magical border that prevents people from bringing guns from one state to another that makes you not able to understand it.
Ah, that was the controversial law that I was thinking about before. So, you are saying that it is unreasonable to ask people in a city to take responsibility for their guns?
And yet, thousands of people every year find that they are not able to do so. I do not see how increasing the number of irresponsible and criminal holders of gnus lowers the chances of a gun being used in a criminal or negligent way.
That it would require magic to create the scenario is why it is a hypothetical. That is not the part you are supposed to argue or comment on. It is the meat of the hypothetical that you are supposed to consider, and that was dismissed.
No, I didn’t claim to be reading your mind, I was correcting you. You claimed that you do not believe that there are any democrats in office with reasonable views on gun control. I provided some reality to confront that inaccurate assertion.
That you consider it to be effective to lump anyone who disagrees with you on anything into the same catagory of the most extreme to be a “strategy” explains a bit about the rhetoric that comes from the gun advocates. It is an effective way of ginning up fear amongst your fellow gun owners, but it is actually not an effective tactic if you are actually trying to have an honest discussion.
It does work well as a tactic to drive moderates on the other side into extreme positions as well, as we become frustrated with your accusations of what it is that we want and advocate for, and give up with trying to work with you anymore.
I just threw that out there, and I even put it in quotes, to demonstrate that it is not open borders that I advocate for, but “open borders.” Which is just increased immigration. But I said that because it is what your side is always accusing us of wanting.
But, then you said, anything, then you said that that’s not enough.
If the constitution does not grant this right, then what does? If the second amendment did not exist, then what would it be that you use to sue municipalities and states when they pass laws that you don’t like?
Yeah, yah, I get it, you believe in natural rights, that guns came from god or nature or something, and therefore, the laws of man cannot apply to them. I personally consider this to be more magical thinking than the hypothetical that you mocked.
If you insist on magical thinking, then you are correct, there can be no common ground.
Well, if someone was really trying to kill me, and I could get them to take an arm instead, I’d consider that a win. But that’s nothing to do whatsoever with this argument. It is not I that is trying to kill you, it is the people that you help to get ahold of guns that are trying to kill me. If I take the position that you have here, then I would have no choice but to advocate for a complete and total gun ban, with confiscation and steep legal penalties for non-compliance.
Fortunately for you, the people on my side of the gun argument are not as stubborn or full of magical thinking, and there are plenty that would be fine to see gns continue to be part of our country and our culture, but with some reasonable restrictions that decreases their harm. This means that the gun control crowd isn’t nearly as fanatical as the much smaller gun advocacy crowd, and so is less noticed and much elss coddle to (and lied to) by politicians.
Unfortunately, it is attitudes like your own that move people out of moderate positions, to move to more extreme positions. Id’ like to find a way to co-exist with you and your toys, but if you cannot find a way to co-exist with me, if you refuse to do anything at all to reduce the threat that your toys pose to others, then yes, we will change our positions that you may not have your toys anymore.
No, actually, I am not really happy with reagan’s restrictions, either. But that was then, this is now. That law was passed due to white hysteria.
So you say, but you have no evidence.
Yes, I had. I was replying to this " DrDeth, your ally in this thread, insists that there can be absolutely no decrease to gun violence without a complete gun ban and confiscation effort." with my reply of “Actually, no that wasnt me, that was another poster or two- posters that want more gun laws- that said that sure, local gun bans dont work, as they can get them elsewhere, so we need widespread federal laws.”
There isnt any such magical border. But there are Laws. If the laws wont stop the guns from crossing, why shoudl more laws work?
If you have your gun in a safe, you can’t use it to defend your home. Now, the courts have said that gun locks can be required if you have kids in the house.
But actually the SF law banned the sale of handguns also. It also more or less banned the possession of handguns.San Francisco Proposition H (2005) - Wikipedia
dup
First, let me point out another example of anytime starting a phrase with "so …"and then a rephrase, it’s almost always wrong. You have this habit in phrasing things in a loaded way. Most of your posts I ignore because they so blatantly misconstrue what is being said it’s hard to believe it’s not on purpose. Let me do it as an example. So you are saying that it is unreasonable to follow SCOTUS rulings and the constitution of the United States?
So you’re saying that a hypothetical requires magic, and anything that represents a realistic scenario can’t be a hypothetical?
So you think folks who don’t agree with you are true scotsman?
I have no idea how you are delineating between with or without quotes. But you didn’t understand what I wrote. You want open borders, or “open borders” in exchange for CCW, fine with me. I never said it wasn’t enough, outside of the constraint of anything not related to firearms.
You keep repeating this, but it’s wrong. There was no mockery.
Go ahead. As I said, there’s no real difference. You couch this in terms of moderate positions, but there is no moderate positions where I am. CA has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, so not moderate. What of the laws here are you opposed to, that you would vote against a politician for advocating?
There are multiple stories in the news every day that demonstrate otherwise, not that proof of something so completely fucking obvious should actually be required.
What doesn’t?
You gun lovers are not “law-abiding citizens” after all?
If that’s what it takes to make you respect the rest of the Constitution and its spirit, sure, why not? We’ve amended it many times before. It isn’t holy scripture.
So that *all *of us can *be *safer.
The ones who have been conditioned to live in fear and fantasy by an industry that profits tremendously from that fear and fantasy? Those people? You’d continue to live in fear and fantasy anyway, or eventually learn not to. Maybe.
I also trust you’ll not bother us again with stories about your life on the tough streets as a “fed”, and all the violence you’ve witnessed investigating money laundering, okay?
Sounds like a wonderful idea.
Please define “reasonable”, and tell us how you propose to get the laws changed to allow this idea to work?