5 ms·

equating the purchase of a shotgun to having an ethnic or religious identity is a sad statement.

exabrial 10y ago
Why? Both are guaranteed in the Constitution. Picking parts and playing favorites is what has lead us to the current state of affairs.
- tjohns 10y ago
  One is a potentially deadly weapon, bearing a serial number that might be especially useful if found at a crime scene. The other is a largely inconsequential part of your personal identity, which has routinely been used as justification for persecution throughout human history. (Personally: I support responsible gun ownership, but I don't think there's anything wrong with asking owners to register their serial numbers.)
  - exabrial 10y ago
    There's plenty wrong with asking people to register their serial numbers, especially when you combine these two statements: > asking owners to register their serial numbers > deadly weapon, bearing a serial number that might be especially useful if found at a crime scene
    - tjohns 10y ago
      I'm legitimately curious here... what's the actual problem? I don't see any issue combining those two statements. The second amendment gives you a right to own a firearm. Nowhere does it say you should be allowed to use it to commit criminal acts with impunity. I view it like the requirement to have a license plate visible on my car, which seems reasonable given the risks involved in driving.
      - exabrial 10y ago
        Because who committed a crime and who owns the firearm are often very different people in reality.
      - exabrial 10y ago
        And you only need to have a plate visible on a vehicle if you plan on using it on public roads.
- dmritard96 10y ago
  "Picking parts and playing favorites is what has lead us to the current state of affairs." Citation Needed Should we not require drivers licenses or car registration?
lacampbell 10y ago
Is the right to keep and bear arms not an important part of an Americans identity? Everyone has a culture, even if from your perspective it's normal or even "low".
jnbiche 10y ago
It's protected by our constitution in the same Bill of Rights that assures US citizens' other freedoms, such as religion. Liberals and conservatives both need to learn that they can't pick and choose, and on one hand hold in reverence the 1st Amendment and on the other hand reject the 2nd, or vice versa. Libertarians, on the other hand, recognize that all of the amendments are vital and represented a huge step forward for not only the US, but all of mankind. Now, if only we would abide by them at the present time...
- woofyman 10y ago
  Does the second amendment apply to assault weapons, machine guns, bazookas, artillery guns? When it was written, there were only muskets.
  - jnbiche 10y ago
    Does the first amendment apply to Internet speech? When it was written, there was no Internet.
AcerbicZero 10y ago
An interesting, but somewhat depressing argument can be made that subscribing to a specific religion, along with one or two other "flags" is actually far more dangerous than legally purchasing a firearm. Most reports put between 80%-94% of crimes involving a gun as being committed with an illegally obtained weapon. Which means of the 300k firearm related crimes in 2013 perhaps less than 20k were due to legal gun ownership. I'm not bringing all this up because I actually believe Muslims are more dangerous than guns, or that Trump was right, or anything along those lines. I'm just trying to highlight how your bias might be more unfounded than you'd imagine.
- adrienne 10y ago
  Yes! In fact, in the United States, being a white dude who is at least nominally Christian is a HUGE risk factor for being a perpetrator of a mass killing. It'd be great if we could have a database of disaffected young white dudes from Christian households, right? We could prevent a lot of violence!

Why? Both are guaranteed in the Constitution. Picking parts and playing favorites is what has lead us to the current state of affairs.

tjohns 10y ago
One is a potentially deadly weapon, bearing a serial number that might be especially useful if found at a crime scene. The other is a largely inconsequential part of your personal identity, which has routinely been used as justification for persecution throughout human history. (Personally: I support responsible gun ownership, but I don't think there's anything wrong with asking owners to register their serial numbers.)
- exabrial 10y ago
  There's plenty wrong with asking people to register their serial numbers, especially when you combine these two statements: > asking owners to register their serial numbers > deadly weapon, bearing a serial number that might be especially useful if found at a crime scene
  - tjohns 10y ago
    I'm legitimately curious here... what's the actual problem? I don't see any issue combining those two statements. The second amendment gives you a right to own a firearm. Nowhere does it say you should be allowed to use it to commit criminal acts with impunity. I view it like the requirement to have a license plate visible on my car, which seems reasonable given the risks involved in driving.
    - exabrial 10y ago
      Because who committed a crime and who owns the firearm are often very different people in reality.
    - exabrial 10y ago
      And you only need to have a plate visible on a vehicle if you plan on using it on public roads.
dmritard96 10y ago
"Picking parts and playing favorites is what has lead us to the current state of affairs." Citation Needed Should we not require drivers licenses or car registration?

lacampbell 10y ago

Is the right to keep and bear arms not an important part of an Americans identity? Everyone has a culture, even if from your perspective it's normal or even "low".

jnbiche 10y ago

It's protected by our constitution in the same Bill of Rights that assures US citizens' other freedoms, such as religion. Liberals and conservatives both need to learn that they can't pick and choose, and on one hand hold in reverence the 1st Amendment and on the other hand reject the 2nd, or vice versa. Libertarians, on the other hand, recognize that all of the amendments are vital and represented a huge step forward for not only the US, but all of mankind. Now, if only we would abide by them at the present time...

woofyman 10y ago
Does the second amendment apply to assault weapons, machine guns, bazookas, artillery guns? When it was written, there were only muskets.
- jnbiche 10y ago
  Does the first amendment apply to Internet speech? When it was written, there was no Internet.

AcerbicZero 10y ago

An interesting, but somewhat depressing argument can be made that subscribing to a specific religion, along with one or two other "flags" is actually far more dangerous than legally purchasing a firearm. Most reports put between 80%-94% of crimes involving a gun as being committed with an illegally obtained weapon. Which means of the 300k firearm related crimes in 2013 perhaps less than 20k were due to legal gun ownership. I'm not bringing all this up because I actually believe Muslims are more dangerous than guns, or that Trump was right, or anything along those lines. I'm just trying to highlight how your bias might be more unfounded than you'd imagine.

adrienne 10y ago
Yes! In fact, in the United States, being a white dude who is at least nominally Christian is a HUGE risk factor for being a perpetrator of a mass killing. It'd be great if we could have a database of disaffected young white dudes from Christian households, right? We could prevent a lot of violence!