Takings must be recompensed. SCOTUS.
My understanding of that is that it’s up for interpretation when the legality of the taken thing is non-existent. So, for instance, AIUI nobody was compensated for liquor or distilling equipment seized after Prohibition. Nobody gets compensated when their liquids are seized at airports, either.
I wouldn’t.
Personally, the gun control I favour (apart from mandatory registration and periodic re-certification, same as for cars, aeroplanes, etc.) is fining the manufacturers truly colossal amounts whenever their weapons and ammunition are proved to be used in any crime. But I’m not averse to private ownership of guns per se.
I’m not only “comparing” them (I swear, “comparing” does not mean “equating”, or at least it didn’t use to and get out of my lawn before I throw a hardcover dictionary at you), I’m saying that in most countries both of them have in common that each of them is considered something which exists without anybody feeling the need to explicitly state that it exists.
We reckon people have lots of rights which are not explicitly stated; many Americans (those who prefer literalist interpretations of any document) consider that no right exists unless explicitly stated, while tending to treat any stated right as limitless.
Fining them just like cars and planes?
Nope. While I think they should have the same type of licensing requirements, there’s still a fundamental difference between cars/planes and guns: when a car or plane is used to kill or injure someone, it’s not doing so for the purpose it’s manufactured for. When a semi-auto gun injures or kills someone, it’s doing exactly what the manufacturer intended. Different kind of liability there, IMO.
Here’s the deal: if I don’t own a gun, don’t live in a violent neighborhood, and don’t live with a domestic abuser, then most of the risk factors leading to my being shot with a handgun are pretty much gone.
So what am I worried about, for my own sake and that of my loved ones? Yeah, the mass shooter. He may be a statistically unlikely event, but (a) when he happens, he can kill dozens rather than just one or two, and (b) his occurrences are becoming more and more frequent - barely have time for thoughts and prayers between one and the next, these days.
Now most Americans are in my risk situation. All those handgun shootings are real, and they result in way more deaths, but for most Americans, there’s a pretty powerful SEP field* surrounding them. But our kids go through active shooter drills at school, and many of us have to take active shooter training at work. It’s not Somebody Else’s Problem; it’s on our radar.
So this is why the weapons of mass destruction, so to speak, are the focus for many of us these days. You can argue right or wrong, but this is where it’s coming from.
*SEP field = Somebody Else’s Problem field. Renders things invisible, even when they’re in plain sight. From the third HHG book.
OK, then let’s fine the car manufacturers whenever their vehicles are used in a crime.:rolleyes:
No, sorry, civilian guns are not designed to kill people.
Of course they are.
Oh, you can *use *them for plinking at targets, but they’re *designed *to put holes in human beings. I’m referring to regular semi-auto pistols and rifles, here, of course, not fowling pieces or purpose-built sports shooters.
And even the most ardent “Oh, I use *my *AR-15 for hunting” sophist would have to be truly disingenuous not to admit that despite the use they’re putting it to, the weapon they’re using was *actually *designed to kill people.
Again they are not. Look in order for a thing to be designed for doing X. that thing must do X a significant amount of time. Guns do not kill people in a significant amount- per gun.
The “assault weapons” are designed to appeal to a certain type of buyer.
Nope, that’s a ridiculous requirement. For a thing to be designed to do X, all that is required is that the designers intend it to be used for doing X.
Go on, tell me the Armalite engineers *didn’*t intend their gun, which they submitted to the US military, to be used to kill people, I could use the laugh.
I was thinking about this.
Yes, people who know about guns do expect "gun grabbers’ to have specialized knowledge about the things they want to ban. Having gross ignorance about guns is very much like supporting drug laws but knowing littler true facts.
It’s like saying *"We have a huge problem with drugs here in the USA. Most of it can be laid upon those who want to legalize Marijuana. Marijuana is a dangerously addictive opioid, and one “toke” as the “potheads” say can make you a lifelong addict. Even worse, drug dealers hand out free samples to kids on the street corners, “pot” is a common “gateway” drug.
We could be winning the war on drugs by stricter drug laws! Yes, the current drug laws don’t work, because you can just bring in drugs from another area.
What isnt a issue is prescription drugs, because of course doctors will make sure you dont get addicted to them."
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
They did intend for the fully auto M16 to kill people, yes.
But the designers of civilian guns hope their products never kill anyone.
It’s the same designer, same gun. “oh, but it’s got a different lower receiver…” isn’t much of an argument with me, I’m afraid.
**
Fully auto.**
Again the ignorance over technical terminology comes into play.
Would anybody buy them if they were designed so as not to kill people?
There are any number of products e.g. medicines etc which are designed to be, and are effective cures but are banned/highly regulated because when used for purposes they were not designed for they kill orders of magnitude less people than hand guns.
If there’s no possible reading of the actual words of the Second Amendment on banning guns, how is it that knives with long blades, throwing stars, numchucks and other things are banned in some places. The Second Amendment nowhere mentions guns. It mentions “arms”
No, civilians buy them as they “look cool”.
As the saying goes, “hope is not a plan.”