bbauska
I recall RickyP castigating me for my choice, saying that it could endanger other drivers
.
No you don't.
fate
Again, I have a problem with the "terror watch-list" idea. There are 70 or so DHS workers on the no-fly list. So, either that list is useless or DHS is a joke.
One can either work to make the watch list better, and provide recourse for people on it to clear their names...
Or one can just ignore the watch list and let everyone on it buy guns.
One is a sensible response. One is irrational.
The right to life and liberty should also include the right to a safe environment. That means making regulation and enforcement of regulation better, not just enduring the results of the increased risk that arises from the protection of individual liberty.
If a safe environment requires that there be severe restrictions on gun ownership and use, that should change the way people think about the 2nd. As has been seen in the interpretations of SCOTUS regarding gay marriage ... the constitutional language can be interpreted differently when the understanding of the Constitution changes as society changes.
The issue needs to be looked at as a public health issue. People have a right to any behaviors that do not risk the lives or diminish the enjoyment of life for other people.
You can smoke. Just not in public spaces.
You can drive. But you need to follow the rules of the road. You need to be licensed, pass tests, and your vehicles must be licensed and pass tests. You need appropriate insurance to protect other people on the road from any mistakes you might make.
Private use of drugs? Right to end one's own life?
Currently the debate about guns is not genuinely one about public health and safety and the right for the general populace to enjoy their lives. Its about individual liberty only.
The reason republicans don't want additional research into the effects of gun ownership is that they already know that gun ownership is not good for public health and safety. (As do the people debating on this board which is why they either evade or simply run to the cover of "Yeah but the 2nd amendment".)
It should be incumbent upon gun owners to show why guns have made the US a safer place. They should have to prove that there is a positive good to be gained from looser regulation ...
Generally they can't. Why should the public have to risk allowing people on the terror watch list access to legal gun ownership? Why shouldn't someone on the list have to prove they are not a threat and can be trusted with guns....
Bbauska Why should a gun owner not have to prove that a 20 round clip is
necessary? We have to prove that the cars we own are designed for use on public highways or they aren't licensed. (race cars are not allowed)....
When the discussion becomes about public health and safety, the burden of proof should be on those who's individual liberties may affect the liberties of others...
Carrying and using firearms cannot be proved to be a positive good for society. Until it can, the 2nd amendment as currently interpreted contradicts other parts of the Constitution.
It would't be the first time that Scotus and the public had changed the interpretation of the Constitution. And it will happen when people are forced to deal with the increasing carnage and the irrationality of those opposed to any restrictions on guns.
Already 92% of Americans want gun show checks, and I'll bet when polls are taken of whether or not someone on the terror watch list are taken, it will show an overwhelming majority don't want those on the watch list to get guns... When this becomes an election issue... then politicians will stop bowing to the NRA.
BTW, I had a friend who would never wear her seat belt. She had seen an accident where someone was "thrown clear", she said. And against all evidence to the contrary she was convinced that if she were in an accident she too would be "thrown clear". People who own guns have a similar mindset to my friend. Despite the evidence that shows that successful suicides increase in houses with guns, that accidental deaths increase in houses with guns they persist in thinking that guns in their house will be a positive benefit to them.
That they will be able to interdict a home invasion, just by running to their gun safe and quickly loading their weapon before the invaders reach them.
They think that they will be carrying their weapon with them when there is a shooting or crime going on and they will be able to act like Wyatt Earp and end the conflict for the side of good.
Against all evidence to the contrary. It just doesn't happen. Especially not with the regularity that would provide a net positive.
(And against the reality that Wyatt Earp took guns from everyone entering Tombstone, because too many drunks had taken shots at his deputies when they carried them with them. Gun control in the so called Wild west. Imagine that..)