• Septimaeus@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    (Apologies, got busy at work.) Yes I’d have thought so too. There might be a list which jurisdictions where it’s available.

    I suspect the lack of precedent for their incorporation among the amendments binding the states comes down to just the budgetary requirements for expansion. As long as it remains unreasonable or impossible to enforce without effectively being taken over by federal, these exceptions remain.

    2A might be similar in principle, since there’s no one-size-fits-all doctrine that can be realistically applied besides either zero regulation or a complete ban, both of which would risk a great deal of legitimacy.

    I’m with you re: gun control. Tools not toys. Many tools are dangerous enough to require proof of competency or purpose, and some can only be used in certain situations. Surely a tool whose purpose is danger shouldn’t be the exception.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m with you re: gun control. Tools not toys. Many tools are dangerous enough to require proof of competency and/or purpose. Guns specifically designed to be dangerous, so it’s not unreasonable to expect those tools have greater oversight

      A gun should be dangerous. That’s its job.

      I’m for reasonable restrictions and I’ll admit that’s a hard term to define without seeing the law proposed. I have no issue with a background check being required for all purchases. With the internet. It’s not that hard now.

      I am not against permits for CCW. As long as it’s an easy process that doesn’t make overly difficult. In Nevada I had to take a class , shoot a couple of times and apply for the permit.

      I don’t mind bump stocks being banned.

      Things like that I find reasonable. Banning assault rifles I do not think is reasonable.

      • Septimaeus@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Banning assault rifles I do not think is reasonable.

        Yeah I avoid debating weapon class bans because it always amounts to an arbitrary threshold on the scale of potential kill rate, and people sporting desert storm kits at the grocery store do all the talking anyway.

        In Nevada I had to take a class, shoot a couple times and apply for a permit.

        Training is the regulation I think my fellow progressives should back. Do that correctly and the rest takes care of itself. Anti-gun messaging clearly isn’t working. Instead, embrace gun ownership as a public service wed to demonstrated responsibility and discipline, since safety is the actual goal.

        By discipline I mean require training, make it rigorous and cheap, and make regular shooting mandatory for permit renewal. Require inspections for proper maintenance and adherence to storage safety protocols. Offer specialist certifications for more exotic equipment. Basically, make sure would-be gun owners respect the weapon, understand the responsibility they’re taking on, and are equipped to use them safely and proficiently. Done right, civilians seeking military outfitting would face the same requirements as equivalent military personnel, so that they might as well just become a reservist.

        Every hooah 2a person I’ve known would be all for this. But they take guns seriously and aren’t contributing to the statistics. The actual unsafe assholes, who make guns a national problem, wouldn’t bother owning guns if there was work involved. It may not be popular (yet) among “liberals” but lots of countries with high rates of gun ownership and low gun violence handle regulation this way.