Possibly in another thread, I’m participating in something like 6 of these on this exact same subject.
But specifically Heller said that gun ownership is an individual right, that self defense is a valid and protected reason to own a gun, and that you cannot blanket ban types of arms in common usage. It found handguns to be in common usage and thus blanket bans on their ownership, or attempts to say you must render them inoperable in the home at all times are not valid as the first violates the right to own a weapon in “common usage” and the second violates the right to self defense.
But the Heller decision left a lot of regulatory framework intact. It still allows regulations of things like magazine size, would still I assume allow limitations on total firearms, says nothing that would prohibit a State from mandating all guns be registered or individually licensed at time of purchase. If we look at say, California’s laws or the laws of New Jersey which seem to be still constitutionally valid that should be evidence of that.
UK law generally allows ownership of rifles, shotguns, and pistols (I had previously thought, for some reason, the UK only allowed shotgun ownership.) But there are strict regulations on the capacity of these weapons and there are strict storage requirements. I do not think either of those regulations would run afoul of Heller. There are requirements that each purchased gun must be individually licensed, which I do not think would run afoul of Heller. Basically I don’t see that the British strict control on the particulars of the firearms would run afoul of Heller, since they still allow weapons “in common usage” but would just regulate certain aspects of those weapons in what is allowed.
Now, where I do, upon further review, see a violation of Heller in the British law is that to get a license you must justify it to the police. Justifications can include target shooting or hunting, but cannot include self defense. Since the 60s, the British regime has not seen self defense as a valid reason to own a gun. Heller explicitly states multiple times that there is an intrinsic right to self defense and any gun control legislation designed to eliminate that right would be a no-go. So the “justification” part of British law would have to be expanded to include self defense as a justifiable reason to request a firearms license.
I won’t say it, because i don’t believe it. You seem to be arguing that gun ownership is somehow “not normal”…whatever “normal” may mean in your version of reality. That is simply not the case where I live. Gun ownership IS normal, and is a fact of life among the majority of households where I live. The same is true in many, probably most, of the rural areas of this country.
No. I’m saying that “Gosh, I wish that hadn’t been possible” is normal.
Saying, “Gosh, I wish Frankie hadn’t gotten behind the wheel this morning and therefore had not been in that horrific accident” is not saying “Gosh, driving is not normal.” It’s saying that things would have been better if Frankie hadn’t made the choices he did.
“Gosh, I wish that person had not owned guns that were then taken and used to kill people” is exactly the same sort of sentiment. But you turn it around and say it was her right to own them. What does her right to own them matter when we’re talking about “I wish” statements?
If I say, “I wish I hadn’t said that” does that mean I don’t think I had the right? If I say, “I wish you hadn’t said that” am I commenting on the 1st Amendment?
I have seen “not pistols” sold in Britain, where a stock is added to make it a different category (they might have been built that way, I know US law classifies a firearm based upon how it was originally made). The stocks remind me of “wrist rocket” style slingshots.
It is my understanding is that Northern Ireland had more relaxed laws than Great Britiain, e.g. self-defence is a valid reason to own along with hunting, target, etc., and pistols and semi-auto are allowed (although I think the latter has caliber restrictions?). And of course, the Channel Islands have their own laws.
You are blaming the gun owner for something that is not her fault. She is not responsible for the criminal acts of a third party. If her son had taken her car and run over someone, would you be saying “I wish she’d never bought a car”? I doubt it.
Maybe. Especially if she owned a car for fun or if she owned it for safety but she was the one run over (along with dozens of others). The reasons someone has for doing X of course play into the “I wish” scenario. The more difficult it is not to do something, the more unlikely it is to play a part. “I wish Frankie never ate anything” wouldn’t make sense after Frankie choked on a corndog. “I wish Frankie never ate that corndog” makes much more sense. “I wish Frankie didn’t love fried food so much” does, too. It’s not blaming Frankie. It’s just a sad dream.
You perceive every comment about guns to be either pro gun or anti gun. Some comments are neutral. Sometimes, when someone wishes something had or hadn’t happened, it isn’t about the politics of the matter, but about the tragic outcome. You act as if admitting that there are times when it might have worked out better if someone hadn’t bought a gun is admitting something dire about gun ownership.
My cousin and I used to make lemonade from lemon juice and water and sugar. She made her lemonade a little sweet, and I made mine a little sour. Each of us tasted the other’s and commented, and after that, it was like an arms race. I made mine so sour I couldn’t even drink it, but argued that it was just the way I liked it! She did the same with the sugar. This is what gun conversations remind me of. My cousin and I were eight, though.
Nobody’s claiming the gun control is a magic spell and will eliminate murder throughout the realm. Plenty of people would still be murdered by knives or cars or poison or rocks or even guns. All most gun control advocates are saying is that a reasonable amount of gun control would reduce the number of people who get murdered each year.
It could be that we are morally outraged by gun massacres. Maybe we dont like to see school children murdered en masse. You should consider that possibility.
ad the shooter could have rented a blimp and filled the gondola with cows and dropped the cows on school children, and killed many that way. Fact is, we dont see a lot kids killed by people with cars. Or falling cows. Guns … yes! So we look at that issue. See how that works?
The first Pepperbox pistols (multi-barreled flintlock handguns in which the barrels were rotated by hand, distant ancestors of modern revolvers) also came about in the mid-1700s.
In short, effective, portable repeating firearms were not at all unknown in the period the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was drafted.
You can grow ditch weed in your backyard, that’s about it. Shrooms too, maybe - the ones I came across were mostly just harvested straight off random fields (i.e. not grown purposefully) I think.
But beyond that, even quality pot requires some pretty serious gear & space to grow and process, to say nothing of cooking up LSD, Ecstasy, heroin or crystal meth.
So, are you getting like several incidents a year when a crazed driver mows down a hundred people with his mom’s car before running the wheels over himself, or is it actually the case that if you want to kill a lot of people in a hurry the gun is still experientially confirmed as the tool of choice?
what I’m not getting is the idea that removing the gun changes the intent. There is no advantage to the gun in expediting the event. In this case, a car was used to get to the location of the children.
