4 ms·
If you really pay attention to all of these laws, you’ll notice most of them use these tragedies as an excuse to infringe upon our rights. Most gun control law
by _mlbt 2y ago
If you really pay attention to all of these laws, you’ll notice most of them use these tragedies as an excuse to infringe upon our rights. Most gun control laws are the same way.
- duxup 2y agoMost gun control attempts that I see would at least in theory possibly prevented the tragedy that inspired them. The real id, would not have done anything.
- _mlbt 2y agoWhat specific gun control laws do we not already have on the books that would actually prevent a determined individual from getting a gun?
- duxup 2y agoThe fact that anyone might get around a law doesn't prevent us from having laws. My point being a key 9/11 inspired law would not prevent even the event that inspired it, even in theory.
- _mlbt 2y agoYou’re deliberately dodging my question. Your point is also true of most gun control laws. Short of full confiscation you will not stop people from obtaining guns illegally via straw purchases or theft. Gun control will also not prevent law abiding citizens that suddenly become homicidal with no priors. So again, what specific gun control laws would actually make a difference that aren’t already on the books?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y agoThey're not dodging your question. They engaged your point with a point of their own and you asked a non sequitur question in reply to that.
- _mlbt 2y agoduxup said… > Most gun control attempts that I see would at least in theory possibly prevented the tragedy that inspired them. …yet when asked about specifics, they declined to provide any. So they did in fact dodge my question.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago> at least in theory The point that they are making is that this 9/11-inspired law would not have, even in theory if one assumes perfect enforcement, prevented 9/11. They are saying that they can conceive of gun control laws that would have, in theory if one assumes perfect enforcement, prevented 9/11. Coming up with a specific intention of such is not relevant to their point. I’ll answer your question to hopefully illustrate the point: no guns in US airports. That law, in theory, at least would have had a chance of preventing the attack, which is not something that can be said about this one.
- _mlbt 2y agoGuns were not used in the 9/11 attacks, box cutter knives were. It is also already illegal to bring firearms past TSA checkpoints.
- baseballdork 2y agoWhy is "prevent a determined individual from getting a gun" the bar?
- _mlbt 2y agoWhat specifically do you propose for effective gun control that isn’t already on the books? Also remember that in America there is a constitutional right to bear arms that shall not be infringed. So please keep your proposal constitutional.
- JohnFen 2y ago> that in America there is a constitutional right to bear arms that shall not be infringed. That's not clear-cut. The language of the amendment is more nuanced than that, and the interpretation you're using is a modern one. In the not-so-distant past, it was interpreted as meaning that states could have well-regulated armed citizen militias, not that everyone has a right to carry a firearm.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- _mlbt 2y agoThat’s a common misconception. The second amendment was always intended as an individual right. District of Columbia vs Heller simply reaffirmed this. It is the final check and balance against a tyrannical government.
- JohnFen 2y ago> The second amendment was always intended as an individual right. Well, I disagree. However, this underlines that the issue isn't so easy. It's one of several areas where the constitution isn't nearly clear enough in its meaning and can be reasonably interpreted in contradictory ways. That's the very essence of not being clear-cut.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]