3 ms·
gun control cannot be decided by a science-based, cost-benefit analysis alone. That's because we have the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything
by MichaelSalib 14y ago
gun control cannot be decided by a science-based, cost-benefit analysis alone. That's because we have the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about guns; it speaks of arms. And we seem to have a science-based cost-benefit based policy regarding all sorts of non-gun arms: you can't buy shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles or landmines or tanks. You can't even talk about practical astronomy with foreigners in some cases thanks to ITAR.
- jarrett 14y agoThe 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about guns In Heller v DC, the Supreme Court said: "United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes." If the Supreme Court ever has to decide whether tanks fit this definition, my guess is they'll say tanks do not. The existence of laws against civilian-owned tanks does not tell us anything about how the 2nd Amendment applies to ordinary guns.