Actually, Zabal, it’s pretty generally accepted that the person making the assertion is the one who needs to back it up. (For one thing, how could someone give a cite that the Supreme Court has not ruled a particular way? Quote the entire text of every Supreme Court decision back to Marbury v. Madison?) It’s hardly difficult to provide a cite to back up an assertion that the Supreme Court has made a particular ruling: “It was the 1897 case Fleegleman v. Foonsterman…” With Supreme Court decisions, you should even be able to provide a link to the full text of the opinion.
Guin: even if the only restrictions upon any bullet-launcher was a simple requirement to provide some form of ID, with no background checks af any kind, then there would still be some gun-rights types squealing about their rights being infringed.
If such a scenario ever came to pass, however unlikely, those whiners would be an overwhelmingly vast minority.
Neither the NRA or most rational gun owners (and most of us truly are) have no problem with most of the current restrictions (no felons, illegal aliens, habitual drug abusers, the mentally incompetent, those who have renounced their citizenship or who have been dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces), and minor quibbles with things like permanent disarmament for people with misdemeanor convictions for domestic abuse.
While I think spouse abusers rate only slightly higher than child molesters (who squeak in just ahead of lawyers), the broad wording of the law (18 USC, 922[g], IIRC) allows a disgruntled spouse to disarm and/or criminalize their soon-to-be-ex-significant-other with little more than heresay.
And who are we kidding here? I’m willing to bet, 9 times out of 10, that it’s the guys getting the dirty end of the lollipop in these circumstances.
Some might say that, in the interest of preventing violence and insuring domestic tranquility, that such steps are prudent and necessary; I would be hard pressed to seriously challenge this position, even though I have reservations about such broad, sweeping definitions and categories of crime.
You wouldn’t be referring to our former Gov here, would you? You know, the guy who though concelled carry would have stopped the bloodshed at Columbine because some janitor could have blown the kids away with his .44?
These people do exist. I’ve met them. Some of them I’m proud to call my friends.
Honestly though, I’m not too concerned about the law. The people interested in carrying already HAD weapons permits - they probably already had a weapon in their glove compartment, and many of them already had permits.
I do find it amusing that one of my coworkers is concerned. Me, gun shy liberal woman says “no big deal.” Him, conservative, frequent hunter, redneck (and I really like him, that’s a descriptive term, not an insult) truck driving, huntin’ dog owning, beer guzzling male thinks its a bad idea. Seems he has even more of those friends than I do and he used to own a bar in Northern Minnesota, where people get drunk and shot each other with bird shot in the parking lot.
Well, it happens often enough. Even in my own little town.
There was no one else packing heat in the bar (They’re still in the process of legislating it).
I’m trying to imagine that, if anyone else had been armed, there would have been less carnage.
Nope, can’t do it.
I want to look for some statistics about innocent bystanders.