You are correct. A better analogy would be if there was an amendment to protect his right to race his car on the street, and he was allowed to race not just any car, but a special car built with rotating steel knives coming out of the hubcaps that were specifically designed to kill as many random pedestrians on the sidewalk as possible.
His special right to race cars on the street should not be restricted, just because he’s racing a special car designed to kill as many people as possible.
Dibs on the cole slaw!
The part where “national suicide pact” comes into play.
Of course. But it seems strange to me for someone to scream “2nd Amendment!” but yet casually disregard the “shall not be infringed” part.
Assault weapons were already banned under Clinton. If it was constitutional then, I can’t see why it wouldn’t be now.
Did the government take the opportunity to round up undesirables and “liquidate” them? Anything of the kind (besides the mass incarceration of black people, heh)? Nope, turns out the motives for the ban were face value: to reduce violence, which it did, a little.
If you need an assault weapon to feel safe, you need psychiatric help, not a gun.
Let’s assume you are correct.
Then what?
What states do you envision entirely banning the owning of a gun?
I’ve always been partial to the idea of mandatory liability insurance for guns, just like we have for cars. That certainly isn’t perfect, as even the largest rifles are still tiny, and can be hidden away much easier than a car. But anybody who wants to carry would need to show insurance when subjected to white-man stop and frisk. Let the free market determine each individual’s risk.
Just like with cars, this could take into account type of ammunition, intended use, and all of that. All of the sudden a pump shotgun loaded with bean bags, rock salt, or even bird shot, might seem like a much more sane home defense weapon than a semi-automatic rifle with flash suppressor, 30 round magazine, and steel jacketed bullets. I mean, I assume you’re defending against a druggie trying to steal your Oxy, not a well armed squad of Eastern block ex-military types wearing body armor who are breaking into suburban homes to steal Oxy.
Of course, in my fantasy world, all guns would magically be replaced by walkie-talkies.
Well, many other countries don’t have a constitutional right to guns, and therefore, these countries all ban gun ownership in entirety.
Oh wait, they don’t.
But the “slippery slope” argument here relies on feelings and fear, not factual analysis.
Perhaps he was thinking of Hillary Clinton when in August of 2016 she declared that she supported the Second Amendment. Based on her record, perhaps the most transparent election-year pandering in the 21st century so far.
All of them, eventually.
It’s a multi generational goal so don’t ask every few months, “How’s that ban going for you?” It took many years to get to where we are now. It will take many years to undo it.
No, that would be Trump calling for Clinton to be murdered with a “Second Amendment solution”, rather openly demonstrating the actual reason the Right loves guns so much: terrorism.
You folks are b a d! at analogies.
Lemme help you folks out. Professor octopus in the house!
Ok possession of an item such as a gun should be compared to possession of another dangerous item such as a car. Legal usage of the item should be compared to legal usage of the other item. Illegal usage of the item should be compared to the illegal usage of the other item.
Here are 3 excellent examples:
You may own a gun just as you may own a car.
Target practice with a gun or driving a car while following the law are both acceptable activities.
Shooting up a concert with an AK or racing a car at 150 mph on a residential street are both actions of nutty sociopaths.
It’s strange that the left is anti almost every part of the constitution at this point. Even the 1st amendment is not safe.
Putting aside that the “Legal use” of the two items is hardly analogous at all, if we analogized the level of tracking and regulation that we have on cars with guns, the typical gun-lover would piss their diapers.
Now you’re getting it. Both items can be dangerous, even when used as designed. But cars have a social utility, and the downside of banning them (right now, today, not in some self driving utopia) would have massive detrimental effects on the economy and society. Guns on the other hand have very little social utility, except in the minds of the people who worship them. If all civilian owned guns turned into walkie-talkies overnight, and new ones were banned, a few companies would suffer, and there would be lots of personal tragedies as some people lost their jobs, but the rest of the economy and society would keep moving along with barely any ripples (aside from the massive freakout from the gun owners because they have to get ham licenses for their new walkie-talkies).
But I may be required to register my car. I may not be able to have a car with certain attributes, such as tinted windows or excessively bright high beams. I may be required to have seat belts, or in the future a speed moderator that prevents the car from going faster than 85 mph.
If there was a danger of cars being entirely banned I would support an amendment that said “Being necessary of the economic health of our country the right to own and drive a car shall not be infringed.” But I wouldn’t take such an amendment to mean that I can drive a Monster Truck to work everyday.
It’s strange that with the world of extreme delusion that you clearly live in you’re able to find real physical devices that post actual posts to the real internet.
No, you are describing the right. The Right clutches its guns while destroying any and every right it can. The Right pushes the Second Amendment so hard so it can use that as a figleaf as it destroys the Constitution and turns the Us into a fascist state.
You are simply engaging in the standard right wing practice of projection. The right wing is composed of monsters who project their monstrous nature onto everyone else.
Right… it’s the right that equates the 1st amendment and the concept of freedom of speech with hate speech. It’s the right that thinks people should have their wealth and income confiscated to buy votes. It’s the right that believes the 1st, 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments aren’t real.
/sarcasm off
I said “actual Americans”, asshole.