Handguns really are a problem, HOWEVER we'd never get anywhere trying to deal with that issue so they focus on other kinds that might be easier to regulate.
Hell, between the Patriot Act and the Murder Memo, they wouldn't even have to declare martial law.
Murder Memo only applies to those fighting for foreign terrorist organizations as it argues that they have forfeited their citizenship. If it's a domestic organization, it wouldn't apply.
They could get around that pretty easily. Just need a little more rhetoric, which in a situation like that I'm sure they could get.
Hell, between the Patriot Act and the Murder Memo, they wouldn't even have to declare martial law.
Murder Memo only applies to those fighting for foreign terrorist organizations as it argues that they have forfeited their citizenship. If it's a domestic organization, it wouldn't apply.
They could get around that pretty easily. Just need a little more rhetoric, which in a situation like that I'm sure they could get.
And then they'd have the ACLU and such suing their asses, and the courts tend to be less free with dealing with this BS than politicians in general. They may move slowly, but it wouldn't hold up in the long term.
Hell, between the Patriot Act and the Murder Memo, they wouldn't even have to declare martial law.
Murder Memo only applies to those fighting for foreign terrorist organizations as it argues that they have forfeited their citizenship. If it's a domestic organization, it wouldn't apply.
They could get around that pretty easily. Just need a little more rhetoric, which in a situation like that I'm sure they could get.
And then they'd have the ACLU and such suing their asses, and the courts tend to be less free with dealing with this BS than politicians in general. They may move slowly, but it wouldn't hold up in the long term.
They wouldn't need it in the long term. They would only need it for the duration of the war, which wouldn't be too long if they were able to drone strike everyone.
They wouldn't need it in the long term. They would only need it for the duration of the war, which wouldn't be too long if they were able to drone strike everyone.
And then there would be a flood of lawsuits from family members and all that afterwards. Hell, they are going over some of that stuff with Jose Padilla right now, and he was moved to a civilian court after the courts found his military incarceration illegal. Right now, there are lawsuits and appeals from his family going through the courts related to whether he was tortured while in captivity and what sort of redress should be paid for his mistreatment.
Gun control laws would be easier to enact if we just got rid of the second amendment.
Making something easier doesn't make it a good idea.
Yeah, but in this case it's a good idea. Get rid of a pointless right and put in something useful and relevant, like the right to not be detained by your government, or the right to have access to affordable health care.
Gun control laws would be easier to enact if we just got rid of the second amendment.
Making something easier doesn't make it a good idea.
Yeah, but in this case it's a good idea. Get rid of a pointless right and put in something useful and relevant, like the right to not be detained by your government, or the right to have access to affordable health care.
How about you don't decide what rights I shouldn't have? I like the sound of those other two idea's but saying it's either them or reasonable firearms access is a false dichotomy. This conversation is about guns, not healthcare or detention by the government.
Or are you of the opinion that one can only be for gun rights if one is a right wing nutbag?
I think we need to also look at why so many people all over America feel compelled to pull the trigger. There's generally only 3 reasons a normal, rational person commits a murder. Love, money, and to cover up a crime. In our case I think most fall under the money category related to drugs.
Drunken Butler is right. We can repeal amendments that restrict something, but once an amendment gives you a right it shouldn't be taken away. The Second Amendment is inextricably tied to our freedom.
How about you don't decide what rights I shouldn't have? I like the sound of those other two idea's but saying it's either them or reasonable firearms access is a false dichotomy. This conversation is about guns, not healthcare or detention by the government.
Or are you of the opinion that one can only be for gun rights if one is a right wing nutbag?
No I don't mean to present it as a dichotomy, I just mean to say the right to have guns isn't actually useful compared to other more relevant examples of rights we're lacking, and if we didn't have the right to them it would be easier to make rational gun control legislation. You could focus on creating a safe market and not have to worry about infringing on rights.
And to be fair, when people talk about "only outlaws having guns," the vast majority of those outlaws using illegal weapons are involved with drugs and other organized crime, whether gangs or the mafia or what have you. In fact, I think it's very difficult for someone who is neither a hardened criminal nor involved with some form of organized crime to get their hands on illegal weapons. If I wanted to purchase a weapon to cause havoc, for example, I don't know which sketchy neighborhood I can find the sketchy guy selling them out of the back of his truck. However, I do know how to use the internet and the phone book to look up the nearest Wal-Mart, Dick's Sporting Goods, Joe's Gun Shop, regional gun show, or gunbroker.com -- all of which are legal ways to purchase legal weapons.
About the whole amendment making it difficult to "infringe on rights," I call BS on that as we already have regulations infringing on first amendment rights, including speech and religion, that are considered legitimate. Sorry if I'm repeating myself here, but we can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. We can't incite people to riot. Obscenity is not protected (though, granted, the definition of obscenity is very vague). Human sacrifice as part of religious ceremony is not protected. Taking hallucinogenic drugs, with a specific exception for peyote being only used by and for one Native American religion, is not protected. So how come only the second amendment for some reason has unlimited immunity from reasonable restrictions?
Drunken Butler is right. We can repeal amendments that restrict something, but once an amendment gives you a right it shouldn't be taken away. The Second Amendment is inextricably tied to our freedom.
Should first amendment advocates demand the same unilateral and extreme latitude that second amendment people do? Slander, libel, child porn, copyright infringement ahoy!
I think we need to also look at why so many people all over America feel compelled to pull the trigger. There's generally only 3 reasons a normal, rational person commits a murder. Love, money, and to cover up a crime. In our case I think most fall under the money category related to drugs.
The most common type of murder is an impulsive one occurring as the result of an argument.
One could, of course, pass laws restricting arguments, but I'd think it would be saner to simply make sure people didn't have guns so readily available when they do get into arguments.
Second amendment is not immune to those restrictions. Using a gun while committing a crime grants a harsher punishment than committing the same crime without a gun.
What laws restrict what religion you choose to practice? What laws prevent you from speaking at all? Saying that I can not buy a specific type of gun is not the same as fire in a theater. It is more like telling the Boston Globe that they can't buy that super high end press because they don't need to print that many papers.
Second amendment is not immune to those restrictions. Using a gun while committing a crime grants a harsher punishment than committing the same crime without a gun.
What laws restrict what religion you choose to practice? What laws prevent you from speaking at all? Saying that I can not buy a specific type of gun is not the same as fire in a theater. It is more like telling the Boston Globe that they can't buy that super high end press because they don't need to print that many papers.
Yeah except that press can greatly aid in the killing of a shitload of people and youre not sure how the Boston Globe intends to use it.
Should first amendment advocates demand the same unilateral and extreme latitude that second amendment people do? Slander, libel, child porn, copyright infringement ahoy!
They should, but for the most part they shouldn't be given that latitude.
What use is planned is irrelevant. The point is that if gun control logic was used with free speech people would be banned from buying high speed printing equipment.
Regulations on speech are all after the fact (libel/slander/etc). Regulations on firearms are designed both to stop you from getting them AND to punish you for misusing them.
If second amendment regulations were the same as first amendment regulations all firearms would be legal and anyone could buy them. Only time you would be penalized for owning them is if you used them to comitt a crime.
If the first amendment was all about free speech and didn't also talk about Assembly which is actively regulated before hand you would have something...
Should first amendment advocates demand the same unilateral and extreme latitude that second amendment people do? Slander, libel, child porn, copyright infringement ahoy!
Comments
Or are you of the opinion that one can only be for gun rights if one is a right wing nutbag?
About the whole amendment making it difficult to "infringe on rights," I call BS on that as we already have regulations infringing on first amendment rights, including speech and religion, that are considered legitimate. Sorry if I'm repeating myself here, but we can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. We can't incite people to riot. Obscenity is not protected (though, granted, the definition of obscenity is very vague). Human sacrifice as part of religious ceremony is not protected. Taking hallucinogenic drugs, with a specific exception for peyote being only used by and for one Native American religion, is not protected. So how come only the second amendment for some reason has unlimited immunity from reasonable restrictions?
Should first amendment advocates demand the same unilateral and extreme latitude that second amendment people do? Slander, libel, child porn, copyright infringement ahoy!
One could, of course, pass laws restricting arguments, but I'd think it would be saner to simply make sure people didn't have guns so readily available when they do get into arguments.
What laws restrict what religion you choose to practice? What laws prevent you from speaking at all? Saying that I can not buy a specific type of gun is not the same as fire in a theater. It is more like telling the Boston Globe that they can't buy that super high end press because they don't need to print that many papers.
Regulations on speech are all after the fact (libel/slander/etc). Regulations on firearms are designed both to stop you from getting them AND to punish you for misusing them.
If second amendment regulations were the same as first amendment regulations all firearms would be legal and anyone could buy them. Only time you would be penalized for owning them is if you used them to comitt a crime.