3 ms·
The reality is that this is putting the very people whom guns are supposed to protect us against in charge of their regulation. The second amendment is there n
by carsongross 10y ago
The reality is that this is putting the very people whom guns are supposed to protect us against in charge of their regulation. The second amendment is there not for hunting or sporting, but rather to maintain a state militia, literally a state-level military:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You can see this underlying (and, to many modern folks, uncomfortable) reality being admitted to implicitly when they go after long guns first, despite the fact that long guns account for a vanishingly small amount of total gun crime. Long guns are excellent for challenging an overreaching central government, however.
- kabdib 10y agoRegistries in the US have very poor compliance rates; under 5% for a rifle registry in CA in the 1990s (the Atty General called the registry "a failure"), and a similar rate for a more recent attempt to register long guns in Connecticut. The government can run through the physical paperwork (held by dealers), but it's slow, inaccurate and inefficient. Many people think that is a feature. [The funny thing about "assault weapon" bans is that of two firearms that are functionally identical, one will be banned because it merely looks evil -- black and creepy looking -- while the other will be explicitly allowed in legislation. It's political posturing that just creates more criminals and does nothing to address the underlying causes of violence, namely failed socio-economic policies and the war on drugs, which creates a nice, solid economic base for gangs].