They do say that it’s a right. And in Heller, which I (like you, I’m pretty sure) have read, they say there is plenty of room for regulation of that right.
I don’t know about “a lot” of the “regulation” people. I know about me, and I have no desire to take away hunting weapons. I am very concerned about handguns, of which there are far too many floating around, and, yes, I am concerned about weapons like the AR-15. And yes, I’d like to see more regulation, including registration, and including stringent licensing for carrying concealed weapons.
No. I’m just saying an AR-15 is not a unique weapon of its type. You argued that AR-15s were the weapon in every one of those shootings and invited conclusions about that.
It is. It goes like this: If we regulate guns, so that people who want to shoot up a school can’t get them, they’ll just use explosives (or poison gas, or battleaxes, or frying pans) instead, so it won’t make any difference, so there’s no point in regulating guns, so let’s not do it.
But it’s not true. As I mentioned before, Mexico’s gun laws are a lot more restrictive than ours, and yet their murder rate is massively higher. it’s even higher in Brazil. There are a number of countries with higher homicide rates.
crimeresearch.org
Mock all you want, but what evidence do you have that banning guns or particular kinds of guns is going to reduce the gun homicide rate?
It is not, as I’ve said repeatedly in numerous threads, my proposal to ban all guns.
It does … they have used knives and poison gas.
You are right, but it is not carte blanche. The Heller decision says on this point:Ridgerunner:
They do say that it’s a right. And in Heller, which I (like you, I’m pretty sure) have read, they say there is plenty of room for regulation of that right.
Semi-automatic rifles are more than just in common use, they are the prevailing rifle of choice. The same is true of semi-automatic handguns.
And yet virtually no one with CCL commits gun crimes. Reciprocity simply means law abiding can bee law abiding CCL holders in more than one state. Making them the target doesn’t solve the problem.
The only reason the Parkland shooter was able to walk into a gun store and pass a background check is because law enforcement at the federal and local level chose not to pursue clear evidence that he was a threat. The school district and local law enforcement abided by the so-called promise program, which undermined the enforcement of laws that were intended to prevent just such a crime.
[Justice Department rarely prosecutes 'straw buyers,' ATF nominee Todd Jones says - Washington Times]
And it is a lousy argument. The real argument is that regulations meant to stop school shooters but actually target the law abiding are not effective.
Didn’t the Supreme Court just strike down a law by which the federal government imposed its will on state legislatures?
Again, be they from Wyoming or Pennsylvania, CCL holders rarely commit crimes. They are truly the safe gun holders. The native inner city gun holder without CCL is a greater threat.JonNC:
Didn’t the Supreme Court just strike down a law by which the federal government imposed its will on state legislatures?
Concealed carry reciprocity would simply make the law of the state with the lowest standards and requirements for concealed carry the law of every state. Several states don’t even require a permit for concealed carry. Should every state then be required to make that the standard, at least for out-of-state visitors?
I know I don’t want someone from Wyoming who’s never been in New York City before in his life wandering around carrying a loaded gun.
Sounds like states’ rights go out the window when it comes to guns, then.
That’s what happened with gay marriage, right? And marriage isn’t even an enumerated right.JonNC:
Sounds like states’ rights go out the window when it comes to guns, then.