Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ColdJay64 t1_j5un6tb wrote

Yet another example of how our current gun laws directly contribute to the country’s crime/homicide issue, no matter how much gun-lovers try to deny the obvious.

−1

gnartato t1_j5v19s9 wrote

On behalf of gun owners, even the ones I don't agree with; we don't like gun stores getting robbed either.

38

ColdJay64 t1_j5vhwc0 wrote

By no means do I categorize all gun owners as illogical gun-lovers. I grew up in a law enforcement family with guns and we aren’t.

3

TreeMac12 OP t1_j5vbmhy wrote

>current gun laws

I'm not sure they were obeying current gun laws.

29

ColdJay64 t1_j5vek1y wrote

If they weren’t available for sale, they wouldn’t have been there to steal. A fairly simple concept.

Nearly 30,000 'crime guns' recovered in Philly came from just 21 federally-licensed area dealers: https://www.phillyvoice.com/crime-guns-sales-philadelphia-brady/amp/

If they weren’t available for sale, there would be far less on our streets.

−17

ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR t1_j5vo8y8 wrote

So by "current gun laws" you mean the 2nd amendment? You think all gun sales should be prohibited?

9

ColdJay64 t1_j5vqqgt wrote

The 2nd amendment is a right to have a gun for self-defense, it says nothing about anyone who sells firearms. I do think the majority of gun sales should be prohibited.

−5

ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR t1_j5vr4xi wrote

You don't think the right to have a gun for self-defense would be curtailed if selling guns was unlawful?

16

ColdJay64 t1_j5vsrb8 wrote

It would be for sure, but maybe the 2nd amendment needs some updating too. As we are all aware it was written 250 years ago - with muskets in mind.

9

ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR t1_j5vudpf wrote

Well then it would fail the undue burden standard. You can't just make it impossible for someone to exercise their rights and claim those rights still exist.

Anyway, it's fine if you think the 2nd Amendment needs to be updated, but it seems odd you'd say "current gun laws" as if this is a new thing or could be changed with ordinary state legislation. There is really nothing you can do beyond amending the constitution.

8

ColdJay64 t1_j5vvyor wrote

I am obviously not an expert but that’s debatable, it’s been ruled in multiple courts that the 2nd amendment does not extend protection to firearm sellers: https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/04/does-the-second-amendment-protect-firearms-commerce/

Hence why I referred to current gun laws, as my understanding was that changing state legislation could potentially have an impact here.

5

ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR t1_j5vyk2n wrote

This is true. But it doesn't extend to the point that gun sales could be prohibited. Gun dealers can be subject to more regulation because they aren't protected by the Second Amendment. But if they were so regulated that the were de facto prohibited, then that would be unconstitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undue_burden_standard

I don't think this has ever been tested, but I also don't think any state has ever tried to regulate gun stores so aggressively that they couldn't exist. If a state did I think it would be a virtual certainty that the Court (especially this Court) would strike it down as an undue burden on people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

It's also worth nothing that this article is discussing a split amongst different circuit courts regarding this issue (when different Federal Courts come to different conclusions about an issue). Thus, this issue is still up in the air and hasn't been settled by SCOTUS yet.

10

m16a t1_j5w1yjl wrote

The constitution gives the right to have an abortion for personal reasons, it says nothing about anyone providing them. I do think the majority of abortions should be prohibited.

Same energy. Rights are rights, don't compromise on any of them.

0

Little_Noodles t1_j5w8duk wrote

But even the most pro-choice advocates are in favor of regulating and requiring standards of abortion providers and medical centers to the ensure safety of patients.

Nobody is arguing that the bar for providing abortions (particularly surgical options), or for storing medicines and medical supplies, be as low as the current bar for opening a gun shop and storing inventory.

The analogy would be that gun shops should also be subject to rigorous standards to ensure safety, even if that means that fewer shops exist.

I’d agree that “we can legislate away guns by making it impossible to sell them” doesn’t pass muster.

But “stores that sell deadly weapons should be closely monitored and require a reasonable but high standard of care re: sales and inventory storage, even if it presents a burden” is not incompatible with pro-choice arguments.

If that opens the door to legislating them out of states and towns by creating unrealistic expectations solely to overburden existing enterprises, that’s on the right and their judges for opening that door and enshrining it as a precedent. Maybe they shouldn’t have done that.

−1

pianoprofiteer t1_j5vqg4c wrote

Just say what you really mean..

7

ColdJay64 t1_j5vqvw9 wrote

Which is what? That our country has too many guns and it’s laughable that we are so divided on such a simple concept? Look at us compared to every other high-income country in the world - at their rate of gun ownership relative to both their overall homicide rates, and rates of homicide by firearm.

2

pianoprofiteer t1_j5wkgne wrote

So just say that you want to confiscate all the guns then. There’s more guns here than there are people, the rabbits out of the hat. You’re breaking the logic in your own argument by referencing “high-income countries”, the amount of wealthy people is a minuscule fraction of the total number in the US, most people are just getting by or poor which is the main problem here, along with people with mental issues and not fully developed brains (young people) having access to them. The problem isn’t inherently the guns themselves.

Fix the poverty and most of these problems go away. Confiscating all of the guns isn’t feasible, but none of this matters because doing either or those things isn’t in the interest of the people with power and money so they aren’t going to happen. So yeah this type of thing is going to continue to happen and that’s just the way it is, and can we stop with the empty posturing of “we need to something about all the guns”, it’s the nonsense of someone ignorant to the reality of the situation.

5

Glystopher t1_j5z7x14 wrote

Why don’t we start going after the power and money people. We need to start raising a fuss like the French, and bring out those uprights with the cute blade between them!

1