New Yorker magazine has an interesting article about history of 2nd amendment, NRA and gun control

[Atypical Liberal]

54. Here are your words:

Way to put words in my mouth


That is the opposite of what I said.

Here is what you said:

What works in Bum Fuck Texas, may not be appropriate or work in NY city or other large, high density urban areas

Now why would what works in Bum Fuck Texas not work in NY City or other high-density urban area? Why can't the people of NY City responsibly own firearms just like they do in Bum Fuck Texas?

The implication is that they can't, and I reject that. They can. The difference between Bum Fuck Texas and New York City is not the ability of the people living there, it is the huge gang and drug presence. Gun control isn't going to do anything to affect that any more than drug prohibition does.

I think the radical gun rights folks that post on this forum feel pretty paternalistic in their complaints about urban mayors that were elected by the PEOPLE. Be it NY, Chicago or DC, I've never heard a good word about them and guess what, those folks elected them. They, as a group, tend to support more regulations on handguns because that is what the people that elected them support. If not, they would not have voted for them.

Should the people of California be able to vote away the rights of gay people to get married, as they did with Proposition 8? It's what the voters wanted, right?

The right of self-defense is not the problem. It's the availability of handguns.

Actually, it's drugs that is the problem. I bet you 80% or more of the firearm-related crime in these urban areas is gang and/or drug related.

Laws about the sale of unregistered handguns and possession by criminals can well be voted on by the elections of mayors that support what the majority feel would be safe. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that would prohibit the registration of and requirement of mandatory background checks on sales of handguns. In fact the wording, "well regulated", almost calls out for it.

Except it is the militias that were supposed to be well-regulated, not the people.

But that is academic. MacDonald vs. Chicago incorporated the second to the states, which greatly limits how much the states are going to be able to infringe on the individual right to keep and bear arms.