Yes. My right to own a gun is enshrined in the constitution, right along side and coequal with my right to speak my mind, worship as I choose, not having the government making me provide room and board for soldiers, not have the government digging through my stuff without a VERY good reason (that they can articulate to a judge), not letting the government force me to confess to a crime, regardless of whether I did it or not, not having to prove my innocence again, and again, until the government gets it right, not being tried by a judge, and only a judge, without my say so, not being forced to pay too much for whatever it was I might have done, or being tortured for my indiscretion, and all the rest.
Point two. We agree. That's a surprise.
You need to jump through so many loopholes because, unlike cars, there is a constitutional protection to the ownership of guns, so it takes loopholes to achieve the goal of disarmament.
I don't want some crazy to own a gun, either, but if the government, or more specifically, the anti-gun portion of the legislature or bureaucracy, is allowed to decide what constitutes "crazy", they WILL use it, in the same manner as poll tests of old, to restrict gun ownership for the purpose of restricting gun ownership rather than ensuring competence. Refusing the government that leeway is only common sense.
And as to "assault weapons".
First of all, US Citizens are already incapable of buying any but a very small, and dwindling, supply of true military arms. With full auto capability.
And that is wrong, because the point of the Second Amendment was that the citizenry would have arms the equivalent of soldiers, (so they could be drafted with their own guns, of course.) By restricting the citizen to only "sporting" guns, you neuter the point of the second amendment.
Would you agree to teaching all eighteen year olds how to handle a gun, as part of Civics class? We could ensure competence that way. Everyone should know how to shoot, and shoot straight. (And when not to.)
As for New York. They may have a higher standard of living, by some metric, but I'd rather live with fewer luxuries, (like reliable internet,) than live in a less-free place, such as New York City or Russia, (or Sudan.)
(Although, to be fair, where I live probably isn't really that much "freer" than New York. Just freer in ways I'm inclined to participate in. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals are all that considerate about following the fist-nose limit on legislating the behavior of others. Both want to tell you how to live your life and woe unto you if you want to live your life differently. I fully equate the deliberate campaign to post the Ten Commandments outside the state capitol with the campaign of shutting down any business that refuses to cater specifically to the interests of LGBT persons on equal protection grounds. Both are violations of the first amendment.)
46
@niels0827
Yes. My right to own a gun is enshrined in the constitution, right along side and coequal with my right to speak my mind, worship as I choose, not having the government making me provide room and board for soldiers, not have the government digging through my stuff without a VERY good reason (that they can articulate to a judge), not letting the government force me to confess to a crime, regardless of whether I did it or not, not having to prove my innocence again, and again, until the government gets it right, not being tried by a judge, and only a judge, without my say so, not being forced to pay too much for whatever it was I might have done, or being tortured for my indiscretion, and all the rest.
Point two. We agree. That's a surprise.
You need to jump through so many loopholes because, unlike cars, there is a constitutional protection to the ownership of guns, so it takes loopholes to achieve the goal of disarmament.
I don't want some crazy to own a gun, either, but if the government, or more specifically, the anti-gun portion of the legislature or bureaucracy, is allowed to decide what constitutes "crazy", they WILL use it, in the same manner as poll tests of old, to restrict gun ownership for the purpose of restricting gun ownership rather than ensuring competence. Refusing the government that leeway is only common sense.
And as to "assault weapons".
First of all, US Citizens are already incapable of buying any but a very small, and dwindling, supply of true military arms. With full auto capability.
And that is wrong, because the point of the Second Amendment was that the citizenry would have arms the equivalent of soldiers, (so they could be drafted with their own guns, of course.) By restricting the citizen to only "sporting" guns, you neuter the point of the second amendment.
Would you agree to teaching all eighteen year olds how to handle a gun, as part of Civics class? We could ensure competence that way. Everyone should know how to shoot, and shoot straight. (And when not to.)
As for New York. They may have a higher standard of living, by some metric, but I'd rather live with fewer luxuries, (like reliable internet,) than live in a less-free place, such as New York City or Russia, (or Sudan.)
(Although, to be fair, where I live probably isn't really that much "freer" than New York. Just freer in ways I'm inclined to participate in. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals are all that considerate about following the fist-nose limit on legislating the behavior of others. Both want to tell you how to live your life and woe unto you if you want to live your life differently. I fully equate the deliberate campaign to post the Ten Commandments outside the state capitol with the campaign of shutting down any business that refuses to cater specifically to the interests of LGBT persons on equal protection grounds. Both are violations of the first amendment.)