That wasn’t the question. You can’t even read honestly.
There has been a recent spike in mass shootings but there has been a very clear reduction in shooting deaths. If your argument for stricter gun control is that this small sliver of gun deaths have increased while gun deaths overall has decreased, then I don’t really see how you can convince anyone that doesn’t already believe what you believe and you WILL have to convince a LOT of people to get any sort of forward momentum for your cause.
I don’t recall ever saying that there is an acceptable number of gun deaths for freedom or anything like that, I leave the “defense of tyranny” arguments to others. I have said that we have to compare the costs of gun ownership to the benefits. You choose to only see the costs of guns to society and ignore and value of guns in society, I recognize both the costs and benefits.
You treat gun ownership like its slavery (or some other inherently immoral policy) where you cannot morally engage in a cost benefit analysis.
BTW, I don’t think you’re a sicko. I just think you’re crazy, stupid a tool or all of the above. The fact that your ideology puts you on the right side of most arguments may have led you to believe that you are intelligent but you are in fact just a tool and a parrot.
That’s a meaningless factoid. If the occurrence of church and elementary school shootings continues to go up, the math won’t matter. People will demand that something be done about it, and the most visible common element is guns.
But extending California regs nationwide is definitely within the realm of possibility.
California’s gun control laws are based on the premise that owning and carrying firearms is a privilege, a license granted by the state. Most of the rest of the country has accepted that when our country was founded possessing weapons was considered a fundamental right. If we really don’t believe that anymore, amend the Constitution.
Have California’s laws been ruled unconstitutional? If not, I see no need to amend the Constitution before rolling them out for the rest of the country.
What a sharply self-aware post on your part. Bravo.
Extending CA regs nationwide is in the realm of possibility, much like modern day alcohol prohibition is in the realm of possibility. It doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not CA laws have been ruled unconsitutional though. The CA constitution does not contain any provision for the right to keep and bear arms. Prior to the Heller and McDonald ruling, there was no right to arms at all in CA. The legislature was unhindered in passing whatever gun control they desired, and they did so often. The history of gun control in CA is rooted in anti-Mexican and anti-Chinese racism, and in more modern times, anti-Black racism.
Many other states however, do have provisions for the right to keep and bear arms. Some of those offer greater protections of the right than the US Constitution. It’s not that the CA laws would have to be ruled unconstitutional to lend support to your opposition, it’s that the constitutions of those other states would need to be amended.
Even more so, many of the regulations in CA are probably not unconstitutional in any state - that means that it’s not a matter of the federal or state constitutions, but each individual state legislature. And in that regard, over the past 30 years or so, the state legislatures have generally been making gun laws more permissive, not less. Over the same time period, violent crime has dropped significantly (I make no claim these are connected).
So when you use examples like school or church shootings in an effort to bolster your cause, it gives the appearance that the gun control supporters actually hope for tragic events so they can push their agenda. Not saying that you do this, but when politicians of all stripes seize on tragedy as an avenue to push their agenda, it seems like more than just opportunism - it actually seems like folks want tragedy to occur so they could use it. It’s gross.
I do agree with you about the nature of public opinion and how it could change. If there actually was a sharp rise in school shootings it could turn public opinion such that more restrictive laws could be passed. It’s bad public policy to be dictated by isolated tragedy. I hope that doesn’t happen, both the tragedy and the aftermath. What do you hope? Do you think there is an avenue for your agenda to be successful without tragedy as a catalyst?
I think that some form of “brandishing” law is needed. Having a gun on you is one thing, holding it at the ready is something else. In fact since long guns are hardly the first choice for a day-to-day carry firearm, I’d be ok with a law saying they had to be carried cased.
I’m sure doorhinge will be along in a moment to explain how we’re all pussies and how he and his daughter would have been happy to stand next to that guy. Because hunting or something.
So why didn’t the recent South Carolina shooting result in renewed call to ban guns or something?
Considering that intermediate scrutiny is the most likely level of scrutiny that will be applied to second amendment rights, it is not clear to me that the entirety of California’s gun control regime would survive judicial scrutiny.
How the hell would you do that? It will NEVER pass at a federal level and most of the states wouldn’t even get their state Democratic parties to support it.
And there is a good chance that at least some parts of it would get struck down by the courts. Which parts of the California gun control regime do you think should be rolled out across the country?
But it could, when there is sufficient public pressure to do something about gun violence. You seem to think public opinion is static, and what can’t be passed today will never pass; must I remind you of the reversal of public opinion regarding gay marriage. It will happen that fast for more responsible gun laws.
It will. It has only been two weeks.
So why hasn’t it been successfully challenged in California? Does the Constitution apply differently there? Seems to me the arguments that failed to change the law on constitutional grounds in California will fail for the same reason in the rest of the country.
I picture you narrowing your eyes and shaking your fist when you make these “just you wait!” posts.
BTW, gay marriage wasn’t a quick reversal of public opinion. It was one of the results of a decades long campaign for gay rights. You gun control lot have been at it for at least as long, but your position has continually worsened rather than improved. Your high water mark for achieving your agenda was the Bill Clinton administration and even he admits the assault weapons ban was a political blunder.
To date, there have been no CA gun laws that have been adjudicated at the SCOTUS level. The “may issue” CCW scheme was stricken down in Peruta at the appelate level before it went en banc. The 10 day wait as applied was stricken down as unconstitutional at the district level. This is being appealed by the attorney general.
Other current cases - it’s illegal for a gun store to have images of handguns visible to the public, but images of rifles are just fine. This is being challenged on first amendment grounds, so not sure if you’d consider that part of the CA laws you’d like exported across the nation. I personally am a fan of free speech, but YMMV.
Sure, I agree public opinion isn’t static but I can’t remember the last time this sort of shift occurred to reduce rights.
Gun control is nothing like gay marriage.
Its already too late.
The standard of scrutiny has not be determined yet. But once it is, you will see many of the sillier gun laws disappear.
Three-year-old Texas boy dies after accidentally shooting himself:
The gun owner should go to prison. That’s responsible gun ownership.