That is a good point but that also goes across the political spectrum to the political rhetoric that cities are now criminal hell holes over run by MS13 or that the Federal government is out to take away our "freedoms" so we need AR's with extended magazines, and body armor to fight off either a wave gang bangers or black helicopters. In regard to situations like this the answers we've seen from many is that rather than regulate or restrict firearms is that we need to have more firearms, we need to arm more good guys. That is exactly an arms race that is being drive by fear.
As have been stated the courts do have a role in this and in Heller they did say that there can be restrictions and other regulations on firearms. Also as been stated the 9th Amendment does say that just because some rights aren't enumerated doesn't mean they don't eist. And as stated yes you are correct to point out that overall crime is down since (although the last couple of years have shown an unsettling rise) but that goes again to my point. Regarding political rhetoric pushing less restrictions on firearms because of fear of crime.
I agree with everything except the short barrel gun thing. The only reason to own a sbr or shotgun is to kill people. The are more concealable and more accurate but not very useful for real hunting. I would raise the magazine limit to 10 but 5 is okay with me if the stamp is a little easier to go through. There are reason to own magazines over 10 like hunting pig infestations.
See, that is what I am talking about reasonable discussions, limit magazine capacities, get rid of assault style weapons without a special license (hogs for instance), and background checks on everyone - even private sellers. DD
Yes it does. We shouldn't be taking away people's rights because of fears of crime or MS13 either. I would say that there is no particular need to do anything, certainly not as a response to any particular danger that is overblown by the media. Yes, I pointed that out. Also true. I gave a fairly detailed analysis of this in one of the abortion threads. That doesn't really have much application here. The 9th Amendment doesn't talk about congress exceeding its Article 1 powers, it is an additional limitation on Congress, not a grant of additional unenumerated powers. We should push less restrictions on firearms because freedom is good and we have the right to bear arms, not because of fear of crime. We should rarely, if ever, make policy based on fear, especially so when the fear is of rare events without particular statistical significance.
while I agree with you on short barreled shotguns, it could be argued that they are a perfect defensive weapon. Same thing with the vast majority of handguns. The reason they are usually purchased is for self defense. In other words, outside of target practice you could argue that even in a legitimate defensive situation, they are designed to kill people. As for short barreled rifles, they can be an awesome packable or saddle hunting firearm. Especially with todays newest calibers and powders. Heck, the 300 blackout is optimized for a 9” barrel. I have one (will, legally it’s a pistol) with a seven inch barrel. Lightweight and easy maneuverable. It’s a bolt though, so you won’t see it any any mass shootings.
300 blackout isn't an ideal hunting round and why use a 9 inch barrel when in hunting situations when barrel length isn't an issue. The only real use for short barrels is for urban situations where you aren't shooting anything beyond 100 yards and you may have to maneuver in tight spaces. Again, short barrel rifles are really only useful for killing people. That being said, if saving human lives were really the main goal, then I would much rather ban handguns and make short barrel rifles more readily available. Hundguns are are what criminals use because you can conceal them, and are the main guns in accidental shootings like when toddlers kill themselves and their parents. It's also much easier to commit suicide with a handgun.
Should we then drop restrictions on airplane safety because plane crashes are rare? Just because something isn’t common given the amount of risk regulation is still called for. In the US death from firearms is far greater than death from plane crashes and as notes there is nothing in court cases or the Constitution that says that they cannot be regulated.
an individual can build a plane to whatever specs they want, from kit or scratch, fly wherever they want and however they want. This is an even worse analogy than car registration because there is no public roads consideration.
The Flaw in the Progressive Stance on Guns Reducing gun violence will require more policing and incarceration, not less https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...l-require-more-policing-not-less?srnd=opinion excerpt: Fulminating at congressional inaction in the face of spree killers may be satisfying and even necessary. But it is unlikely to persuade them to change the law. Continuing to insist on new rules while shying away from enforcing existing ones, meanwhile, burns credibility with conservative voters, who see a left that’s eager to penalize their hobby and reluctant to punish criminals. Considerable progress against gun violence is politically and logistically feasible with more quality-of-life policing and vigorous prosecution of illegal gun possession — and the increased levels of incarceration both would require. If progressives want to make guns harder to get but don’t want to prosecute those who have guns illegally, then … it’s almost as if they’re inviting a future in which only outlaws will have guns. more at the link
The Trouble With Do-Somethingism on Guns https://www.creators.com/read/david-harsanyi/05/22/the-trouble-with-do-somethingism-on-guns
That only applies to ultralight planes that are under 254 lbs unloaded and only care a single person. https://pilotteacher.com/do-you-need-a-pilots-license-to-fly/ Also there are many restrictions regarding air space.
I'm not super familiar with airplane safety regulations. I know there is no right to airplanes or air travel guaranteed by the Constitution, so there are no real Constitutional considerations when regulating it (that's why no fly lists pass Constitutional muster as do invasive searches are at airports). There are probably many safety regulations promulgated by the FAA that are absolute nonsense or are far more restrictive than necessary to achieve their goals though, yes. In the US death from heart attack is far greater than death from firearms, but we don't regulate diet and exercise. The number of deaths caused is not a good metric for determining how much regulation is allowed.
Great so with your argument I can with a CHL/LTC buy a 80% lower and build whatever machine gun bullet hose I want. No level does this analogy work.
Black Panthers started to open carry, and gun control measures were promptly passed…funny how that happened
