@SeanR All your arguments revert back to the same exact problematic concept: the right to own a gun is held to the same caliber as your right to free speech, freedom of religion, the press, privacy, a fair trail, etc. Such lunacy. Responsible people own guns in many developed countries around the world where there is no supreme law guaranteeing them this privilege. Even Australians can own guns if they have a legitimate use for them, but there is no legitimate use for assault rifles other than mass murder, so they ban them.
First off, the Supreme Court forces states to adhere to the Constitution. The federal government must also do this. No state can declare an official religion. It violates the First Amendment. No government agency may endorse any religion. States are not sovereign nations, no matter how much anyone wants them to be.
You need to jump through so many more loopholes to own a gun and related peripherals because unlike cars, guns were designed for the sole purpose of harming and killing people. Misusing cars can lead to injury or death, but relative to the total instances of usage, there is no comparison. Additionally, guns can go just about anywhere cars cannot, such as inside buildings.
"If a sixteen year old had to pass a similarly difficult written driver's examination test to qualify only bus and truck drivers would be on the road today."
Seriously? Then who would be driving the trucks and buses? They would practice, study, and reapply when they're older and more competent. Frankly, no 16-year-old should be driving if you ask me, personally, but your own comment implies only 16-year-olds can apply.
But perhaps most perplexing is your comparison of a would-be gun owner or permit seeker being rigorously tested on how to use something they're actually fucking hoping to use, with someone being forced to learn a language completely irrelevant to the voting process in order to vote. It sounds like your problem is the methodology and criteria by which would-be gun owners and CCL permit seekers are judged by, rather than with the existence of gun control in the first place. If prospective gun owners or CCL permit seekers are tested on anything other than the proper use, maintenance, and hazards of firearms and their mental health, and all that's associated with it, then your issue is purely with local administration.
And by all means, go ahead and stay out of New York. But to compare it to Russia or Sudan is utterly laughable. New York sure exceeds any flyover state's standards of living for anyone who isn't trigger happy.
29
@SeanR All your arguments revert back to the same exact problematic concept: the right to own a gun is held to the same caliber as your right to free speech, freedom of religion, the press, privacy, a fair trail, etc. Such lunacy. Responsible people own guns in many developed countries around the world where there is no supreme law guaranteeing them this privilege. Even Australians can own guns if they have a legitimate use for them, but there is no legitimate use for assault rifles other than mass murder, so they ban them.
First off, the Supreme Court forces states to adhere to the Constitution. The federal government must also do this. No state can declare an official religion. It violates the First Amendment. No government agency may endorse any religion. States are not sovereign nations, no matter how much anyone wants them to be.
You need to jump through so many more loopholes to own a gun and related peripherals because unlike cars, guns were designed for the sole purpose of harming and killing people. Misusing cars can lead to injury or death, but relative to the total instances of usage, there is no comparison. Additionally, guns can go just about anywhere cars cannot, such as inside buildings.
"If a sixteen year old had to pass a similarly difficult written driver's examination test to qualify only bus and truck drivers would be on the road today."
Seriously? Then who would be driving the trucks and buses? They would practice, study, and reapply when they're older and more competent. Frankly, no 16-year-old should be driving if you ask me, personally, but your own comment implies only 16-year-olds can apply.
But perhaps most perplexing is your comparison of a would-be gun owner or permit seeker being rigorously tested on how to use something they're actually fucking hoping to use, with someone being forced to learn a language completely irrelevant to the voting process in order to vote. It sounds like your problem is the methodology and criteria by which would-be gun owners and CCL permit seekers are judged by, rather than with the existence of gun control in the first place. If prospective gun owners or CCL permit seekers are tested on anything other than the proper use, maintenance, and hazards of firearms and their mental health, and all that's associated with it, then your issue is purely with local administration.
And by all means, go ahead and stay out of New York. But to compare it to Russia or Sudan is utterly laughable. New York sure exceeds any flyover state's standards of living for anyone who isn't trigger happy.