Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumWhat is reasonable gun control?
The answer seems to be a moving target. It always starts as one thing then escalates into a hydra. If an existing issue is already covered by an existing law then why the duplicity? What about laws for theoretical crimes that have never been committed? What about laws for crimes that are technically impossible? What about repealing laws that have not had any demonstrated effect?
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)"Need" (no one needs AR-15...)
Must issue concealed carry
Private ownership of handguns
Mandatory registrations/licensing
Handle those and the rest of the issues fall into place fairly easily
Missycim
(950 posts)And if you don't agree you are a shill for the NRA,rethugs and kitten killers.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Missycim
(950 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)as long as you have HUMANS as the primary interface for firearms.
While the modern firearm is infallible, the being in control is a crap shoot at best.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)Even if every single legal gun owner surrendered their firearms (and they wouldn't), do you really expect criminals to turn in theirs?
ileus
(15,396 posts)Criminals eventually get caught.....
It's those sneaky "honest" owners that we need control over.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)It fulfills an ideological need often as not divorced from actual utility or practicality.
Bonhomme Richard
(9,545 posts)The big problems associated with gun ownership are only symptoms of a much larger problem.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)No mentions of crime rates, murder rates, recidivism, or any serious definitions of social problems worthy of the central govs attn or resources. It is still a discussion of prohibition in an echo chamber of elites.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)It is impossible to define what "reasonable gun control" is without first agreeing on what the intent of the second amendment is.
If the intent of the second amendment is to keep military-grade small arms in the hands of civilians so that they can function as infantry in an emergency, then any "reasonable" gun control must not defeat that intent.
If the intent of the second amendment is duck hunting, then reasonable gun control would restrict any guns not appropriate for duck hunting.
If the second amendment was only about smoothbore muskets, then it would be reasonable to restrict ownership of any other kind of firearm.
If the intent of the second amendment is only self-defense inside the home, then it would be reasonable to restrict ownership of concealable weapons.
You have to agree on what the second amendment means before you can talk about "reasonable" gun control.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Some of those delicate flowers are inclusive of Tulip plantings.
Bonhomme Richard
(9,545 posts)Except for hunting or target shooting.
trouble.smith
(374 posts)unless you have to shoot someone at your six o'clock position.
Response to Remmah2 (Original post)
AnotherMcIntosh This message was self-deleted by its author.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)without significantly harming our basic rights then it is reasonable.
Too often though it's based on "well that ought to make things better" or "it stands to reason" or some other such nonsense.
former-republican
(2,163 posts)I use to think there was but I don't anymore.
The anti gun grabbers will stop at nothing less than complete confiscation.