There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Kom graun, oso na graun op. Kom folau, oso na gyon op.
#IStandWithGinaCarano
My logic comes from an actual understanding of (not to mention investment in) constitutional law. Your ideas all require pretending that the document simply doesn't apply to guns at all. No, not because "regulations of any kind", but because of how impositions on a civil liberty are scrutinized, how the burdens are on the government to justify them, not on the individual to justify their right.
- - - Updated - - -
A 90% score on this quiz would be nice, but the point is this -- to put up such a requirement, the government would have to demonstrate that requiring it served a compelling state interest, and that the requirement was the least restrictive possible means of serving that interest. That's called "strict scrutiny", one of the two forms of heightened scrutiny.
Well, the closest test case was literacy tests, which were obviously struck down. Generally speaking, if the court decides that strict scrutiny is even the standard of review, the government action will almost always fail as a factual issue. But conceptually, if someone could contrive a literacy/civic knowledge test that would address the Court's concerns about Jim Crow laws, than it could survive -- but it would still need to be the least restrictive means of accomplishing the goal.
Not just machine guns, but suppressors, SBR, SBS, among other things.
Things that were not used in a lot of crimes, but they needed to make an example for those stinky poor people ($200 tax stamp) and gangsters.
And many of our EU counter-parts will point out, suppressors can be bought over the counter in most Euro nations and are considered a hearing device. But us? Nah, those ninja assassins use them. =/
So yea, that was about the time they started chipping away.
Last edited by TITAN308; 2016-07-06 at 03:09 AM.
I see you've downgraded from "Fucking over" to "Chipping away".
SBR's and SBS' were used in a lot of crimes though. I can agree that suppressors may have been overkill, though. Also, the NFA has been chipped away over the last 80 years as well. And as regards that $200 tax...well...all I'll say about that is that it has not been adjusted to the current dollar...so it has much less of a prohibitive effect now than it did then.
I can agree that suppressors are overkill on that list...all I can think of that might explain that is maybe the most common use of suppressors at the time was for criminal activity. Hey, maybe if you were to come to the table to talk about sensible gun laws...that's something you could iron out.
On the other side of the scale though you've had multiple Supreme Court Victories...one was even against the NFA itself which cuased much of tthat act to be reworked. The NRA has effectively blocked the CDC from researching gun violence. There's been lots of give and take regarding gun laws.
So, no...I'm not buying this victim mentality that gun owners are constantly on the losing end of things.
Contrary to popular belief every shot that comes out of a firearm (even those aimed at people) doesn't produce a fatality. There are instances of police (obviously "someone who knows how to shoot") having fire fights in distances as short as the length of a car with both officer and criminal emptying magazines without either hitting the other. Even if someone shoots at me and hits me, the odds are very high that I'll not be dead and will still be able to draw my weapon and at least attempt to defend myself - which is better than just laying down and dying.
What the hell would any of those do against a guy who legally owned a weapon and accidentally fired it?
I can answer that one Trebek! Nothing for 500!
Have you ever had hot brass land on you? That shit hurts like a motherfucker. I fully understand his reaction. What I don't approve of his having his finger on the trigger.
The annoying thing is you are using this terrible accident to push gun control that literally would have done NOTHING to prevent this.
- - - Updated - - -
We need him to replace the Director of the FBI.
Shit would be solved in no time. No more fucking around.
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.” - General James Mattis
While the father lost his presence of mind at the range, he clearly still has more moral perspective about... y'know, responsibility and agency and how inaniminate objects work than the anti-gun movement standing on his son's body to shout their agenda --
New York Daily News“The gun didn't kill my boy. I did,” Brumby, 64, said.
“Every round in the gun is your responsibility. When it fires you need to stand to account for it. That's what I've spent the last two days doing, accounting for my operating error.”
Didn't know this part -- the fatal shot was apparently a ricochet off the ceiling of the indoor range. That really doesn't change everything he did wrong, he still broke the same two of the four rules, but... I don't know, it horrifies me slightly less, to know he wasn't so unaware that he actually muzzled his kid.
There should be a required safety and proper use for a firearm when buying one. Unless you can prove you have had training such as a combat role in the military or previous police training. My point was mainly to dispute a person needs a lengthy class course to safely use a firearm.
Last edited by Ghostpanther; 2016-07-06 at 02:53 PM.
every gun owner is a "responsible, and well trained" and "no one could have seen this coming"
remember all that "we're trying to help you" stuff I was saying in the last gun death related thread...
If only this guy listened, Instead he shot his own son, and probably soon himself after he stops saying literally word for word the type of statements the NRA puts out after a white guy goes off and does a mass shooting.
Actually I have. You know what I didn't do? Try to fish it out with the hot gun I just shot it from.
There is more to this story than what has been said. The father just got away with shooting his son. Actual background checks might've prevented him from ever owning a weapon, as clearly he wasn't someone who should have been allowed to own firearms in the first place.
It's telling that simple, responsible laws make you react in such a way.
Last edited by Espe; 2016-07-06 at 10:39 PM.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.” - General James Mattis
I'm not on an ant-gun crusade, I have suggested simple, obvious improvements to gun laws in the US that could save innocent lives.
As for what happened to this boy I don't believe we have the full story. It just doesn't add up. You don't fish out a hot casing with a hot gun you just shot. Doesn't make sense.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov