Blaming guns for murders is emotional nonsense anyway you look at it.
1 Like
The premise of the entire thread is one of change the law in the US the same as has been done in Australia and New Zealand. You (and some others) have consistently and continually advocated that the US do that. But such a law would be unconstitutional. Its all here in black and white for everyone to see.
No quite frankly it is a puerile and baseless argument to try to divorce the instrument (i.e. gun) from the murder with the credo “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.
You are right. Just think of the deaths we could prevent if airplanes, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, swimming pools, two story houses, gas heating appliances, electricity, wood stoves, and horses were banned. Where does it stop?
You cannot play the “too emotional” card while also maintaining you need guns to fend off the government in an insurgency, which is even worse than emotional to the extent it it’s laughably histrionic. That’s emotions and fear-hugging on steroids.
When did I do that?
Oh of course it would be ridiculous to ban all of those things because we need those things. Instead, societies have decided when and how to regulate all of those things generally for the purpose of preventing injuries and deaths.
The only reason guns have not is because of the Second. Should the Second be defended and amended only by Constitutional amendment? Absolutely. But in the meantime, can we point out how anachronistic and self-defeating it is? Absolutely.
If you have not done it, I apologize. We hear that argument often, and I recall reading it very recently in this thread, and assumed it was either you or something you endorsed. If you think that argument is bogus too, I really do apologize.
Sure, you are free to do that, or at least to express the opinion that you believe that to be the case (you have not shown it to be true.) But until or unless you change the Constitution to allow such laws, you are just bloviating.
The actual topic heading is ‘New Zealand: “Our gun laws will change.” Why them and not us?’.
There are legislative changes that have been proposed that would not of necessity “violate the Constitution”.
I would note that the implication of the topic is why is there a lack of action in recognising the problem and/or commitment to attempt to resolve the problem. For example, why can’t the CDC use government appropriated funds to research gun violence?
Of course we’re bloviating. We’re on a politics forum on the internet.
1 Like
A politics forum of a certain bent on the internet. However, in order to resolve any problem there needs to be a recognition that there is a problem to be fixed.
The 2A is not absolute. Restrictions can be placed within the confines of the 2A.
Apology accepted. But I think you may be misinterpreting the argument that you hear as being that. There is a distinct difference between fending off the government in an insurgency and intimidating the government from over stepping their bounds. The 2nd gives the government pause to consider a wholesale move against the people. It may not prevent the government from ultimately winning, but it makes the prospect of trying very unappealing. The 2nd Amendment is like the fire break built through the woods to prevent the spread of wild fire. It could just sit there as a open space doing nothing for decade, but if a wild fire should occur, it gives the fire fighters a chance (not a guarantee) to stop it from spreading beyond the break.
Name one.
Really? Like what? What restriction placed on the keeping and bearing of arms is not an infringement?
Read my post that you responded to.
Thanks for the clarification. However, I struggle to imagine any scenario where our United States government would even need to contemplate citizens’ ownership of guns before taking any action whatsoever, so even if you attenuate the cause-effect analysis that far, I still think it’s bogus, imho.
That suggestion was not a law.
No one is arguing hat you don’t have a constitutional right to own guns. The constitution was written by men and not omniscient and benevolent Gods…nor did the founders reach their decision based on a scientific analysis of the data.
Simply repeating that it’s in the constitution does not mean that gun culture is smart.
