4 ms·
This is the standard NRA line. It's not about guns, its about mental illness. But in fact its about the intersection of easy access to guns and mental illness.
by ojbyrne 14y ago
This is the standard NRA line. It's not about guns, its about mental illness. But in fact its about the intersection of easy access to guns and mental illness. It's terrifically hard to screen for mental illness. It's stupidly easy to restrict access to guns.
- icelancer 14y ago>It's stupidly easy to restrict access to guns. Yeah, the founders of the United States wrote the 2nd Amendment for exactly that reason.
- philwelch 14y agoThe view of Second Amendment advocates is that civilian access to firearms is a fundamental civil right that protects the people from their government. This makes it a fundamentally different question than the standard utilitarian arguments one could come up with. It's easy to imagine ways of making people safer by eliminating their civil rights. But we choose to maintain these civil rights despite the costs.
- ojbyrne 14y agoAnd the fourth amendment says that protection against unreasonable search and seizure is also a fundamental right that protects the people from their government. But that was gone in a flash.
- philwelch 14y agoNo, it's not. You're being hyperbolic. In any case, I think you and I would agree that it's worthwhile to resist violations of the fourth amendment even if you could make a case that they would save lives. I'm just suggesting we apply the same standard to other civil rights. American liberals are a little two-faced about this kind of thing.
- stcredzero 14y ago> You're being hyperbolic. I wish he was being a lot more hyperbolic.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- brown9-2 14y agoThe Supreme Court's recent decision in *District of Columbia v Heller" which found that the 2nd Amendment does give a fundamental right to own firearms might not be as expansive as you think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#... There is probably a lot of room in between what the courts would allow as far as limiting just what type of firearms one can keep in their home for lawful purposes (read: self-defense) and who can own them. A right to bear firearms does not necessarily mean a right to own fully-automatic assault rifles.
- philwelch 14y agoIndeed. Which is why fully automatic assault rifles have been illegal for the better part of a century. (They were outlawed during Prohibition due to the notoriety of the Thompson submachine gun.)
- beefman 14y agoTo clarify, fully automatic guns can be owned, at least in some States. Current federal law prohibits automatics manufactured after 1984 (IIRC) being sold to civilians. You can buy one manufactured before that. This restriction of course makes the available guns extremely expensive. There is also a demanding series of signoffs, from the ATF down to your local sheriff, that you need to get through. But it can be done.
- pmorici 14y agoYeah, like with a locked cabinet. They shouldn't restrict gun rights they should hold people accountable who fail to reasonably secure their weapons as if they had committed the crime themselves. Kind of like the father in this post put all his knives in a container and kept them safe.