are any rules acceptable? What f I don't feel a pistol meets my needs. I want to carry a bazooka and have a grenade laucher for my home. A well as some fully automatic rifles? Ok?
I'm 63, I've never had to defend myself in any way ever. No one has ever randomly broken into my house.
If no one carried guns, no one would need a gun for protection.
Now, there is some compelling logic. No one has broken into this poster's house, so we can assume no one has ever broken into anyone else's house.
And no one needs guns for self-defense, because if criminals didn't have guns, there would be no need for self-defense. We just need to make crime illegal, then we won't have any of these crime-related issues with crime and illegality.
are any rules acceptable? What f I don't feel a pistol meets my needs. I want to carry a bazooka and have a grenade laucher for my home. A well as some fully automatic rifles? Ok?
If you bother to read the Supreme Court decision that I linked above, you will find that many rules regarding gun regulation are "acceptable" meaning Constitutional. So the answer is YES to your first question.
The other questions regarding your desire to carry a bazooka, I would have to refer you to your state and local laws, and you may have to do additional legal research as well.
Not really. They correctly determined that law abiding citizens did not need to provide a supreme special need to protect their person. They have as much right as Johnny Depp or Nancy Pelosi.
Eh, maybe, kind of, a little bit. They could have been clearer on the Second Amendment, I suppose. No one is perfect. But the US founding fathers still did some incredible, ground-breaking things with respect to freedom, civil rights, enlightenment, ordered liberty (e.g., First , Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendments).
Compare the founding fathers of the US to the founding fathers of some sh!thole countries like, for example, Russia, Argentina, Libya, South Africa, Honduras, New Zealand or Iran. Those founding fathers (they seem to get new FFs all the time), seem to always botch everything. Terrible founding fathers in a lot of countries. Atrocious FFs.
maybe if the US didnt have this arrogant essentialist attitude to ita history it would actually be able to progress for the better and vet its own bullsh*t.
Eh, maybe, kind of, a little bit. They could have been clearer on the Second Amendment, I suppose. No one is perfect. But the US founding fathers still did some incredible, ground-breaking things with respect to freedom, civil rights, enlightenment, ordered liberty (e.g., First , Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendments).
Compare the founding fathers of the US to the founding fathers of some sh!thole countries like, for example, Russia, Argentina, Libya, South Africa, Honduras, New Zealand or Iran. Those founding fathers (they seem to get new FFs all the time), seem to always botch everything. Terrible founding fathers in a lot of countries. Atrocious FFs.
He’s, they were incredibly prescient in many respects, which is one of the reasons why botching this piece is so perplexing and frustrating.
It's not a gun problem, it's an individualistic problem. Also emphasizing the needs of the individual before the needs of society, except when it comes to women and the gays.
The 7 states with the most restrictive gun laws are all in the top 11 of most mass shootings since 1982. A mass shooting is defined as 4 or more people killed.
We have 40 years of data to show that preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying a legal firearm is not the answer.
Instead, we should be profiling potential buyers of firearms by the characteristics of the vast majority of school shooters. Profiling doesn't mean that they can't buy firearms; profiling means that they would be subject to a higher level of scrutiny before being allowed to buy firearms and the type of firearms would also be restricted. Specifically, the majority of school shooters are 1) Age 25 or under (over 90% of school shooters are 25 or younger) 2) On or previously on antidepressants... about 90% in one study I saw a few years ago, or 3) From a single parent household.
As a lifetime HCP permit holder, I'd support a bill restricting the gun ownership rights of individuals meeting even one of those criteria. Specifically...
I'd support limiting firearm sales to individuals age 25 and under to bolt action rifles, 4-round pump shotguns, and revolvers with no more than 6 rounds. No semiauto rifles or handguns could be owned because their capacity can be easily increased by adding high capacity magazines.
I'd support a bill requiring anyone under 25 with a history of taking antidepressants to pass psychological testing to buy a firearm.
I'd support a bill preventing a person under age 25 from a single parent household from buying a firearm from an individual. They could only buy from a gun store after a 90 day waiting period. They could only buy a bolt action rifle, a 4-round shotgun, or revolver.
Alito says in a concurrence that he doesn't think that a concealed carry ban would have stopped the Buffalo shooter (who was in New York and therefore was subject to the law being overturned specifically in this case). That just about "feels" right -- if you can't follow the rule about not killing people, it's hard to believe you'll follow the one about not concealing a gun on your person. On the other hand, it's awfully weird and not particularly satisfying to hear a SCOTUS Justice say, basically, "the law doesn't stop the extreme cases so why even bother" as opposed to "the law fails a Constitutional test" or something. The actual opinion itself says gun laws will only be upheld if they fit in with the historical tradition of gun laws in the US, so it's hard to know how "novel" any future gun law can be before it gets nerfed -- if it tweaks the standard rules we've had before by just a little bit, is it okay? By how much can it be tweaked? Or does it have to exactly match what we're used to? I guess that remains to be determined.
The 7 states with the most restrictive gun laws are all in the top 11 of most mass shootings since 1982. A mass shooting is defined as 4 or more people killed.
We have 40 years of data to show that preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying a legal firearm is not the answer.
Instead, we should be profiling potential buyers of firearms by the characteristics of the vast majority of school shooters. Profiling doesn't mean that they can't buy firearms; profiling means that they would be subject to a higher level of scrutiny before being allowed to buy firearms and the type of firearms would also be restricted. Specifically, the majority of school shooters are 1) Age 25 or under (over 90% of school shooters are 25 or younger) 2) On or previously on antidepressants... about 90% in one study I saw a few years ago, or 3) From a single parent household.
As a lifetime HCP permit holder, I'd support a bill restricting the gun ownership rights of individuals meeting even one of those criteria. Specifically...
I'd support limiting firearm sales to individuals age 25 and under to bolt action rifles, 4-round pump shotguns, and revolvers with no more than 6 rounds. No semiauto rifles or handguns could be owned because their capacity can be easily increased by adding high capacity magazines.
I'd support a bill requiring anyone under 25 with a history of taking antidepressants to pass psychological testing to buy a firearm.
I'd support a bill preventing a person under age 25 from a single parent household from buying a firearm from an individual. They could only buy from a gun store after a 90 day waiting period. They could only buy a bolt action rifle, a 4-round shotgun, or revolver.
No. 2 and 3 on the list for mass shootings are Florida and Texas. Texas now has unlicensed open carry. The Uvalde shooter could not have been legally detained just because she showed up near a school with a rifle and a bag full of high capacity magazines.
Also, the NY USC decision cast doubt on whether states can restrict who can purchase a firearm and much of what you propose would be struck down by the new conservative majority on the supreme court.