I can't, that is why I asked. You were pushing gun control in another thread, but here you are clearly saying gun control is racist.
I am clearly saying that kids getting shot up prompts no action, but black people open carrying will get gun control measures passed quickly…funny how that works
True there is not an enumerated right to air travel but as noted the 9th Amendement does state that the Constitution isn't limited to enumerated rights. The point though is that just because events are rare, such as plane crashes, doesn't mean we don't regulate them. So yes I agree mass shootings as a cause of death are rare events but that doesn't mean we just ignore them. Especially when Constitutionally per Heller we can. Actually we are beginning to regulate things like food with labeling of caloric and fat conent in foods. Also one of the "reasonable" gun control measures but forward even in this own thread is requiring liability insurance for firearm owners. As the USSC noted under the government can require health insurance and health insurance companies will raise or reduce premiums based on overall health. For instance if I exercise regularly and don't smoke I will play lower premiums. As such then we could use insurance on firearms to do things like requiring safe storage.
Again you're mssing the point. We do regulate air travel quite a bit. Even with a pilot's license you still can't fly anywhere. Try taking a piper over lower Manhattan and see what happens. The whole point is that currently we regulate air travel even though plane crases are relatively rare, particlularly large plane crashes with multiple fatalities. That goes to a point at @StupidMoniker was bringing up that mass shootings as a cause of death are relatively rare so we shouldn't regulate. them. If anything even though air travel has increased exponentially in the last few decades yet crashes are rare is because we regulate it so highly
I can't, that is why I asked. You were pushing gun control in another thread, but here you are clearly saying gun control is racist. The 9th Amendment, while it does say the bill of rights doesn't foreclose the existence of other rights, absolutely does not mean that everything is a right if it is not mentioned in the Constitution. Air travel is not a right protected by the Constitution. If it was, people couldn't be put on no fly lists without due process. We tread more carefully when passing laws that are potential infringements on people's rights, especially those rights expressly guaranteed in the bill of rights, than we do otherwise. That was my point. Also, there are already tons of regulations on weapons and shooting people is already illegal in every states. Yes, but we don't require a cholesterol check to buy a cheeseburger. If you want to put labels on guns that say bullets come out of them at X m/s, fine. That is the equivalent of food labelling. Isn't one of the effects of the ACA that they are not allowed to charge people more based on their health? That individual mandate to buy health insurance may not survive either, given the new majority. Roberts was the swing vote before, but now Kavanaugh is.
Universal background check and gun registration seems like a few common sense legislation that most Americans would agree with. Raising the age requirement, liability, insurance and mandatory training, gun licences are probably less popular and harder to pass. Banning of all "assault rifles" is probably very unlikely to pass unless something dramatic happens the next decade. As for issue of the 2nd amendment. No chance a repeal happens. But further regulating it is definitely possible as it explicitly written in the constitution. Furthermore even voting is highly regulated.
Voting is not a constitutional right, but implied as necessary to have a functioning representative government. Many people wanted a more expansive wording to the 15th, but basically discriminating laws banning voting is unconstitutional based on race or former slave status. Your point is still valid as the 1st Amendment is highly regulated, with changing interpretations over the years as to the free press, free excercise, assembly and other clauses.
So here is a question people should ask themselves, especially those that are staunch believers in 2A. What stopped this guy from getting a rocket launcher and killing more than 21 people? Well, the answer is actually simple...although classified as a 'firearm' there are many regulations that prevent just anyone from getting a Rocket Launcher. I think most 2A people even the hardest defenders of it agree that people should not just have access to rocket launchers and grenades so I honestly wonder what is the argument for assault guns whose only purpose is to kill other people and to do it as quickly as possible?
You can be a 2A person and still be for reasonable regulations. You can also be a faithful 2A person and want militia armed with rocket launchers ready to act when any level of government (states too due to post civil war incorporation) becomes too tyrannical. The latter is not a common take among most Americans. Nevertheless, it's a defensible constitutional perspective. It's probably dumb and impractical, but that's not the point.
Right, anyone can argue whatever they want from banning all weapons to saying you can have whatever you want. I am more targeting people that think banning assault weapons go too far or even putting more regulations on these weapons goes too far. Obviously, I disagree as I do not think there is a reasonable argument for them other than some people like to collect guns and enjoy collecting these weapons...but most regulations would not keep these guns out of reach for stable and law abiding gun owners. I think the idea here is...is 2A unlimited? Scalia made the argument that it isn't and no one ever makes the argument that we should eliminate the regulations on buying rocket launchers because it is impractical and dumb, people realize the danger of explosives. So my thing is...there are clearly guns that kill more efficiently than others and these guns are always the favored choice of shooters (for a reason) and I feel they should be treated more like weapons of war than just ordinary guns that people can walk into a store and buy. Yeah, there are 2A people that agree with this take but there are certainly a ton of 2A people that argue against any kind of further regulations.
I'm not even a 2A person and believe in regulation, but the argument is that you what you are saying isn't true and won't put a dent in gun violence since less than 10 percent of gun violence is committed with a rifle with even a smaller percentage being an "assault rifle". The argument against AR's is not founded in any facts or statistics and focusing on "assault rifles" is one of the reasons why common sense gun regulations that will actually have a impact on gun violence hasn't come about. Stupid arguments aren't good for making positive change. If you want to get rid of something that would actually have an impact, regulate the size of magazines and bring back the law that got rid of magazines over 10 bullets.
It is only a 'stupid' argument when you straw man it into something else that I didn't say. As long as we have guns of course there will always be gun violence just like as long as we have cars there will always be car crashes. So I never claimed that this would stop 'gun violence' in general or slow it down. The topic, at least recently, are mass shootings like the one last week, but this would put a dent in mass shootings... We have data that suggests it would actually help a lot. "Assault rifles accounted for 430 or 85.8% of the total 501 mass-shooting fatalities reported (95% confidence interval, 82.8-88.9) in 44 mass-shooting incidents." So honestly, I don't think this is up for debate, these weapons are always chosen by mass shooters for a reason...it's the same reason a basketball player wears basketball shoes and not cleats...because these weapons are more efficient at killing more people quickly. The harder it is to acquire these weapons then we can expect to see less of these shootings. If that's a stupid argument then I'll dumbly stand behind it and the data that suggets that it makes all the sense in the world that certain guns do a better job at killing people than other guns and maybe limiting access to these guns would be wise.
Considering that we are only harming ourselves, I think it's reasonable that we don't regulate this for adults. Guns, you have the ability to hurt others, unless there is a way for me to project my high cholesterol levels unto others, this is a silly analogy.
Trump banned bump stocks by executive order after the Vegas country music massacre. He usurped Congress' power, went anti-gun, and did something that only had a symbolic impact if you're looking at all the evidence. But the NRA and 9/10 fake 2A conservatives didn't say a word because Trump is the loved King. So it might take someone like Trump to actually do something.
