4 ms·

1) That's a blatant violation of the Constitution of these United States. 2) Any bolt-action rifle is capable of firing 10 rounds in 20 seconds. Any revolver i

1) That's a blatant violation of the Constitution of these United States. 2) Any bolt-action rifle is capable of firing 10 rounds in 20 seconds. Any revolver is capable of firing 10 rounds in 20 seconds. A single-shot long gun is capable of firing 10 rounds in 20 seconds.

tlb 7y ago
1) States today require a written proficiency exam. (At least, California does). I don’t see the argument for why any reasonable level of making sure people know how to use their guns properly is unconstitutional.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Rebelgecko 7y ago
  Things like large license fees and mandatory expensive classes will disproportionately impact poor people and minorities. Not everyone gets a week of paid vacation so that they can take a class. Some would argue that this is by design. It actually reminds me a lot of voter ID laws (and imagine if you had to pay $400 and spend 40 hours studying your voter guide to vote in an election!). Regardless, it's not clear to me that this 40 hour class would be the best way to save lives. Accidental gun deaths have already been rapidly decreasing for decades. Assuming the classes were equally effective, you'd save an order of magnitude more people by requiring someone to take a 40 hour swimming class before setting foot in a pool.
rtkwe 7y ago
> 1) That's a blatant violation of the Constitution of these United States. Only under an unrestricted interpretation of the Second Amendment. We already have a large number of restrictions on gun ownership [0] (see question 11 for a convenient list) in addition there are whole classes of 'arms' that private citizens can't own, it's impossible to own a modern automatic weapon (built in the last 20 years). All of those are largely accepted exemptions to a literal reading of 'shall not be infringed' in the Second Amendment and have also survived direct Second Amendment challenges. [0] https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-trans...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
BuckRogers 7y ago
The 2nd Amendment only covers weapons available in 1791. Anything after is not covered and people who want those weapons are lucky they slipped under the radar with these poor interpretations that nuclear weapons and bazookas were to be covered by the 2nd Amendment. We did ban most of those weapons (a 2nd Amendment violation according to the unrestricted interpretation), but we didn't quite get the regulation for the remain for guns and magazine sizes.
- flyingfences 7y ago
  The 1st Amendment only covers publications available in 1791. Anything after is not covered and people who want those ideas are lucky they slipped under the radar with these poor interpretations that wrongthink and hatespeech were to be covered by the 1st Amendment.
  - BuckRogers 7y ago
    Your imagined "right" to having a dirty nuke is not equivalent to freedom of speech, and you're fully aware of that.. merely frustrated about it. The schools are still open for enrollment, it's better to develop your mind than imagining what you can do with weapons of war. Ironically enough, gun culture fetishes that lead people to think weapons are solutions to their problems are being defeated by those of us utilizing our 1st Amendment rights. The weapons you hold so dear to your heart can no longer be used as a tool of the 2nd Amendment to prevent the rest of us from utilizing our 1st Amendment right any longer, outside of a mass shooting. No matter how much that pains you.

tlb 7y ago

1) States today require a written proficiency exam. (At least, California does). I don’t see the argument for why any reasonable level of making sure people know how to use their guns properly is unconstitutional.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Rebelgecko 7y ago
Things like large license fees and mandatory expensive classes will disproportionately impact poor people and minorities. Not everyone gets a week of paid vacation so that they can take a class. Some would argue that this is by design. It actually reminds me a lot of voter ID laws (and imagine if you had to pay $400 and spend 40 hours studying your voter guide to vote in an election!). Regardless, it's not clear to me that this 40 hour class would be the best way to save lives. Accidental gun deaths have already been rapidly decreasing for decades. Assuming the classes were equally effective, you'd save an order of magnitude more people by requiring someone to take a 40 hour swimming class before setting foot in a pool.

rtkwe 7y ago

> 1) That's a blatant violation of the Constitution of these United States. Only under an unrestricted interpretation of the Second Amendment. We already have a large number of restrictions on gun ownership [0] (see question 11 for a convenient list) in addition there are whole classes of 'arms' that private citizens can't own, it's impossible to own a modern automatic weapon (built in the last 20 years). All of those are largely accepted exemptions to a literal reading of 'shall not be infringed' in the Second Amendment and have also survived direct Second Amendment challenges. [0] https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-trans...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

BuckRogers 7y ago

The 2nd Amendment only covers weapons available in 1791. Anything after is not covered and people who want those weapons are lucky they slipped under the radar with these poor interpretations that nuclear weapons and bazookas were to be covered by the 2nd Amendment. We did ban most of those weapons (a 2nd Amendment violation according to the unrestricted interpretation), but we didn't quite get the regulation for the remain for guns and magazine sizes.

flyingfences 7y ago
The 1st Amendment only covers publications available in 1791. Anything after is not covered and people who want those ideas are lucky they slipped under the radar with these poor interpretations that wrongthink and hatespeech were to be covered by the 1st Amendment.
- BuckRogers 7y ago
  Your imagined "right" to having a dirty nuke is not equivalent to freedom of speech, and you're fully aware of that.. merely frustrated about it. The schools are still open for enrollment, it's better to develop your mind than imagining what you can do with weapons of war. Ironically enough, gun culture fetishes that lead people to think weapons are solutions to their problems are being defeated by those of us utilizing our 1st Amendment rights. The weapons you hold so dear to your heart can no longer be used as a tool of the 2nd Amendment to prevent the rest of us from utilizing our 1st Amendment right any longer, outside of a mass shooting. No matter how much that pains you.