You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.
Yeah! Every time somebody get shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something … Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’
And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’
So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn’t have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like “I believe you got my property.”― Chris Rock
Classic
This is pretty fucking elitist.
If you don’t want guns go all in and ensure the elites cannot have them either.
Yes, but it’s also a joke. He likely doesn’t believe what he says. He’s trying to make people laugh.
Some people really do forget that a comedian isn’t a well-versed expert in the shit they talk about, and their primary intent is entertainment.
Same can be said for OP and Steve over here, the former of whom posted it presumably because they take it at face value as a good idea, and the latter defending it because he clearly does.
In times like that it can be a worthy pursuit both to refute the premise, as the poster who said “this is pretty fucking elitist” was doing, and to remind people of the nature of comedians, as you have done.
Except the top voted comment for being the answer is a joke says a lot about how much people are willing to actually think about a solution that isnt something far fetched.
A world where only the wealthy elite have guns?
What could go right?
A sword is a noble’s weapon and you will be killed for so much as touching it.
It’s a simple, easily enforceable policy, with no constitutional hangups.
Gun deaths will absolutely plummet. Lives will be saved.
But sure, lets not do that because the rich yada yada yada.
It’s a simple, easily enforceable policy, with no constitutional hangups.
Gun deaths will absolutely plummet. Lives will be saved.
But sure, lets not do that because the rich yada yada yada.Except that bullets are a hell of a lot easier to make than guns are. Black market bullets would be rampant and it would be difficult to do anything about it.
Black market bullets would also be very expensive.
Why sell them for 1$ when the alternative legal option is $5K?
They’d sell for something like $4K, because why not?That’s not how supply cost and pricing work. Basically it would be cost of material + cost of capital spread out over life of equipment + labor costs + cost of being caught multiplied by risk of being caught + a profit margin. The risk of being caught would likely be pretty damn low so you might increase their cost by 25-50% if you’re lucky but it sure as hell will be nowhere near $4000. Demand would be different but likely not enough to matter much.
Yes, let’s further consolidate power for the rich, give them even more tools for oppression.
Since when do the rich use guns for oppression?
They use money, not guns.
That money funds police forces and private security companies.
Guess what they have.
deleted by creator
In exchange for thousands of lives? Thats an easy trade.
We can use other, far more effective means, to limit the power of the rich.
The power of the rich doesn’t even have anything to do with their access to bullets anyway.Those thousands of lives will be consumed by the rich, they don’t need guns to accomplish this.
Those thousands need guns because it’s the only way to stop the rich.
Iirc that’s how Australia does it. You need the whole strict background check and training and I believe you can only get ammo at the range.
Illinois has some fairly strict gun laws… which is why so many guns used in crimes there come from all the states surrounding it. So I ask… do Arizona, Utah, and Nevada have these taxes as well?
I’m not against gun control, but it seems to me that a state level fix ain’t it.
In the US, especially in this polarised climate, the vast majority of changes to law start with one state, and then another, and then another until slowly it gets adopted around the country.
States have long been called “laboratories of democracy” for exactly this reason. I’d actually argue that the current climate calcifies the process of policy experimentation in states and among them.
california is big. It may work better than other places, but a fed licensing program would be ideal
I’m not against gun control, but it seems to me that a state level fix ain’t it.
Views like this are why nothing gets done. Starting small is better than doing nothing at all.
It’s hard to change things for the whole country. It’s a lot easier to change things just in one state and observe the effects. If the changes work, other states may choose to do the same thing.
Of course, it’s illegal for an FFL to sell a handgun to anyone with an out of state license unless they ship it to an FFL in the person’s home state for the NICs check and to make sure it complies with local laws. As for rifles, while there is no federal requirement stating the same, you’d be very hard pressed to find an FFL that is going to sell one to a person with an IL license unless it goes through the same system, all FFLs especially in border states know IL laws and are obviously hesitant to run afoul of them, iirc there is actually a local IL statute prohibiting the buying of long guns out of state without sending them through an FFL (like federally for pistols but for IL specifically with the long guns too) in it’s own that the neighboring FFLs would get in trouble with the ATF for violating, not to mention FOID and standard capacity mag bans
Pretty sure the guns i see the criminals use aren’t even legal. Crazy extended mags
This is the fundamental problem with gun regulation at the state level – they can be effectively abrogated by neighboring states with more lax regulation. FiveThirtyEight did a piece on this a while ago. In that article they show how strict gun laws in Illinois, California, and Maryland are defeated by guns flowing in from the surrounding states with more lax laws. The vast majority of gun crime is committed with guns which are illegally possessed, but were initially obtained through legal means.
That’s why Mexico is suing Arizona, and maybe Texas? Cali has strict gun laws so the cartels can’t get guns here. They have no issues getting guns in AZ and TX
Yeah, that’s basically the legal theory of the suits. It’s pretty novel and there are a lot of issues with it.
Big part of the modern drug trade is fueled by arms sales passing South as collateral.
US arms exports are paid for with Latin American drug money. And those arms help gangs engage in the human trafficking they need to produce recreational narcotics and amphetamines at industrial scale.
Wait are you implying that regulating fire arms in USA would help to deal with human traffic and drugs from mexico?
I mean it makes sense, but doesn’t certain people hate mexicans and like guns a bit too much? Are they using their brains at all?
You can’t even argue that Mexican Cartel members have a constitutional right to bear arms.
Wait are you implying that regulating fire arms in USA would help to deal with human traffic and drugs from mexico?
More describing the economic incentives of the opposition.
I mean it makes sense, but doesn’t certain people hate mexicans and like guns a bit too much?
On paper, sure. But in practice the folks profiting from the exchange can just blame the drugs and the crime on stupid weak leftists in government to deflect blame from the arms trafficking.
Are they using their brains at all?
Garbage in, garbage out. If all your information comes from gun-sponsored sources, you’ll end up with gun-sponsored views.
Even though the law can be circumvented, it nonetheless provides resistance. Traveling to another state, filling out paperwork, paying extra money, etc all provide additional obstacles to overcome. If someone was having an acute mental problem and felt compelled to eat a barrel, a simple few hours delay in acquiring a gun can make all the difference. For someone planning on using a gun for criminal activity, at some point they might just consider employment as an easier alternative if acquiring a gun is too much of a pain.
We have already seen this effect in reverse with regard to immigration. Legal immigration is such a painful crapshoot that people are willing to surrender their fate to cartels as an alternative.
That’s great and all, but the data are in the article. Your hypotheticals don’t do much to change the numbers of guns flowing in from other states. If your argument is that the counterfactual would be even more gun crime, you’re welcome to make it; it’s just a really weak argument to lean into.
Wait… You’re telling me that they continue to do crimes with guns even when the guns are illegal? Criminals? Really? I refuse to believe it.
the guns i see the criminals use
Are you running up to folks during a bank robbery and asking them for receipts?
Or is this, like, guns you saw criminals use in a cartoon show?
I assume they mean the ones they show on the news after a mass shooting.
Those are usually legal.
I assume they’re more likely to show pictures of the weapon when the gun isn’t legal or has unusual features. I hadn’t even seen a bump stock before that shooting in Navada made them big news.
over 80% of mass shooters at K-12 schools stole guns from family members, according to research funded by the National Institute of Justice
Stolen and ghost guns absolutely make up a large percentage of the weapons used in crimes, there are many reports and statistics to back this up. If you need some hard data I’ll be happy to provide or you could do a quick web search as well.
How is this relevant at all? If the tax slows the sale of guns, then there will be fewer guns in the future compared to the projected numbers without a tax.
Fewer guns = less gun violence. This is a well understood dynamic.
I’m really fucking tired of people like you arguing against harm reduction just because it doesn’t go far enough to actually solve the gun crisis. We never take a step forward because of this attitude.
Stolen and ghost guns absolutely make up a large percentage of the weapons used in crimes
You’re leaning hard on the term “stolen” to describe a teenager using a parent’s firearm, particularly when the teen already has regular access to the weapon for target practice.
Similarly, guns that have been anonymized after purchase aren’t something you can regulate against.
Sure, that’s one of the missing links: owners need to be responsible for safeguarding their weapons or face consequences. Either it was an actual theft and the kid faces legal consequences for that too or it was careless behavior on the owner and they face partial consequences for the deaths and devastation
owners need to be responsible for safeguarding their weapons or face consequences
We played this game with Beto O’Rourke. He tanked his electoral prospects by suggesting he’d enforce gun laws like any other governor would enforce drug laws.
Between the Sandy Hook style conspiracy theories and the NRA hysteria, the onus is never on the gun owners. It’s always on the victims to not get shot.
Naw just around some major cities in California
How very non-specific.
The point of most gun control is to reduce the amount of guns not necessarily remove them all.
Of course at least some criminals will always have guns but lots of deaths could be prevented by just reducing the amount of people with illegal or legal guns.
It’s also much more likely for a potential criminal to become a criminal with a gun if it’s really easy to get guns, especially if they or someone they know (like parents) already own one.
I think it was Chris Rock who said something like “if you want to reduce gun violence then you gotta make bullets more expensive.” You’re gonna see a drop in gunshots if every bullet costs $1k.
“Damn! He musta did something cuz he put fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass!”
You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.
Yeah! Every time somebody get shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something … Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’
And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’
So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn’t have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property.
This is a great idea. The flood of illegal and stolen weapons wouldn’t be taxed but they all need ammo to do harm.
I know home made ammo exists but I find it hard to believe it would ever be more than niche
I’ve been saying for years this was going to be what happens, instead of common sense gun laws they are just going to tax the shit out of it. Which sucks for law abiding responsible gun owners who just want to hunt or defend themselves. This is what happens when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table.
The constitutionality of this tax will come down to how the Roberts Court wants to interpret and apply the 200-year old concept first issued in an opinion during the Marshall Court – the power to tax is the power to destroy. The government cannot use its authority to levy taxes in a manner which significantly encroaches on the exercise of an enumerated right. I like CA’s idea here, but it’s all going to come down to implementation.
“As a giant chicken with a southern accent wearing a judges robe, this here tax is unconstitutional on the grounds of me not liking it.” -The Roberts court, most likely
Foghorn Leghorn had more integrity and righteousness than the justices on the current SCOTUS
In my heart I genuinely wish that I could argue to the contrary, reality is just dashing my dreams term over term.
There’s also this crazy thing called an illegal market which circumvents tax entirely
Tbf, define “refuses.” Suppressors, SBS, SBR, 1932; Background Checks, 1968; Full auto ban, 1986; AWB, 1994-2004, expired, little to no measurable impact on crime.
And yet they push and push to get the AWB back despite the fact that those guns make up less than .01% of our gun deaths, why would I think that rounding down that .01% would be “enough” and they wouldn’t then progress to handguns which are demonstrably the highest contributing type of arms? Frankly there has been those compromises in the past and yet they continue to push already, it wouldn’t make sense for them to stop pushing for the 99.99% once they get the .01%, they just know the “well handguns for protection I understand but those assault weapons are automagical murder machines” crowd won’t go for it yet.
National firearm registry. Have all the guns you want, but be accountable for them.
Ehhh no thanks. States like NY and CA which publish a “steal guns from me” list with your name and address are not exactly privacy friendly. I mean, “what if the database got hacked,” but also what if CA and NY just publish them as public knowledge without the need to “hack,” because they do. Furthermore, there’s already 600,000,000 unregistered firearms in ~50% of the populations hands most of whom refuse to register, it’s not even effective enough to make a difference. And with that whole AWB thing, they can’t really take them all right now, but with a registry they could, and that’s why they push for it so hard. Those of us who see this writing on the wall are hesitant to give them the power they seek.
And sucks even more for POC because statistically they don’t have the monetary means that white people do. So higher taxes mean less legal guns for POC… Oh, wait, the law is working the way it’s intended.
Sure, but you say that guns are a human right like housing or food.
No one needs a gun.
De facto is a right in the USA by the 2A. Try again. I didn’t say it was the equivalent of food but it is a right.
But it’s not an important “right” in the slightest.
How often do people really defend themselves with lethal force?
Are your criminals weird or something? Do they shoot people at every opportunity?
No, defending property doesn’t justify lethal force.
I live on a farm, an hour from town. The sheriff response time is about 45 minutes usually. Meth heads roam around looking for stuff to steal. There’s also wild dogs, Coyotes, and also wild pigs that will kill you given the opportunity. I truly hope that I’m never in a position where I have to take a human life. But having a gun is a necessity out here, even if you only have to fire a warning shot to get the crackheads to scatter. I also hunt, not even just for sport, game meat is a not inconsequential portion of our food supply. Wild pigs are a very real concern, they will gore you before you can even blink, and they can run at close to 40 MPH.
I absolutely get hunting rifles we have a lot of them here and as far as I know they are rarely used or crime.
Maybe don’t let those wild pigs in when they ring your doorbell? Even if they huff and puff
Even if they huff and puff
Be careful - there’s a correlation between huffing, puffing, and houses being blown down.
This is what happens when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table
Say for the sake of argument, I am President of the NRA and I can persuade my members to agree with whatever comes out of negotiations and you are on the other side, seeking a ‘reasonable compromise’ on gun ownership and some ‘common sense’ gun control legislation.
What are you willing to compromise on? What are you willing to give up??
I don’t get how it’s even constitutional. How are even permitting fees constitutional? I could see having the requirements exist, but I don’t see how forcing a cost can be.
Does the constitution say that guns need to be free?
I would consider it an infringement, do any other rights include a fee? The only reason some states haven’t made it prohibitively expensive is that it is more likely to go to the courts.
Neither side wants to negotiate here. Democrats want bans. Republicans want as much access as possible. Both sides view compromise as a temporary step towards their ultimate goal.
With respect, that’s bullshit. Common sense gun reform is on the table almost monthly, after every single mass shooting pretty much… which happen with great regularity. The simplest of measures is treated like a slippery slope to full bans and so nothing at all is allowed to progress. From the outside looking in, a nationwide firearms ban is a bogeyman used to prevent anything happening at all.
The simplest of measures is treated like a slippery slope to full bans
Is it not a first step leading to full bans? Look at this very thread.
Public opinion does not equal policy, and what you’re effectively saying is that there is no negotiation possible. Moving an inch could lose you a foot, so no movement is possible.
Don’t pretend that it is both sides who refuse to “negotiate”, when one side views any change at all as unacceptable compromise.
Moving an inch could lose you a foot, so no movement is possible.
I mean, this is a succinct description. You’re saying it as a criticism, but it makes perfect sense.
Great. So everyone will just continue dying or being in fear of dying in mass shootings, regular shootings, and more. This will continue for the rest of time because one side is scared of making a positive change to the situation.
there’s already bans on military hardware sales to civilians. Explain why we should exclude bans on anti aircraft guns from slippery slope hypotheticals
No. Same as relaxing gun laws is not the first step leading to no gun laws. That logic is idiotic.
Am Democrat. Do not want bans.
I’m fine with permits after training, safe storage laws, registration, and universal background checks. We also need to do a hell of a lot better in tracking down the source of illegal guns once they are obtained. If it was registered and never reported stolen, they need to question the registered owner.
Did you know it’s already a felony to not report a stolen gun? If they track it down that far they’d be more than “questioned.”
In California it is, yes. That is not the case everywhere. In fact it is only the case in 11 states.
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/11/stolen-guns-reporting-requirements/
I was stating my preferences for gun laws. Not sure why anyone would downvote that.
In most states, not just CA. And even most without a “duty to report” lets call it, can and will punish you if an unreported gun is used in a crime. Besides, not reporting a criminal stole your gun a good way to get falsely imprisoned for murder which usually people don’t want to do, so even without laws requiring one to do so or not specifically enumerating punishment for not reporting if it is used in a crime, it is still seen as a generally good idea to prevent said false convictions.
I didn’t downvote you, can’t answer for them.
Can you provide a source?
You’d have to look into state laws and previous cases where a gun purchase being tied to some murder got someone convicted. I’m not going to hunt it down to prove it to you but you’re free to spend your time doing so.
There are not two sides here. Try ten, or twenty, or some large number.
Tax it higher than alcohol & tobacco.
Oh well, it’ll suck for me, but at least the poors won’t be armed.
That’s the real point. This will have no impact on violence, let alone make a dent. It’s about the controlling class disarming the working class. If only Marx had said something about this.
Go pull the other one. Of course it will have an impact on violence. You can argue that the risk is not worth the rewards, but clearly raising prices will deter purchases, and in turn reduce gun violence incidents.
Yes most crime is committed with legally aquires firearms
Where do you think illegally acquired firearms are sourced from?
PDF: ATF NFCTA vol2 part3, Crime Guns Recovered and Traced
ATF traced 70.2% (1 million firearms) of submitted ‘crime guns’ to having originally been purchased from a dealer. An additional 22.6% (⅓ million) were from pawnbrokes. [page 7]
In 12.2% of the cases [page 26] purchaser and possessor was the same.
One or more guns are stolen in 63% of household burglaries.From conclusion page 41:
Traced crime guns typically originate from the legal supply chain of manufacture (or import), distribution, and retail sale. Crime guns may change hands a number of times after that first retail sale, and some of those transactions may be a theft or violate one or more regulations on firearm commerce.
Lovely another way to penalise the poor
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary
Karl Marx
Yeah, it will accomplish ensuring poor people have a harder time exercising their rights. Apparently that is something California is very interested in.
Marx said things like that because he believed that his political and economic theories could only be implemented through violence. That statement was not intended as “workers should be able to protect themselves.” It meant “workers need to go out and proactively kill people.”
There are plenty of ways to interpret Marx’s writings, yours is certainly one of those ways.
“By force if ‘necessary’” This part is an important distinction.
Like it did to alcohol and tobacco use?
Smoking is so much more prevalent in other states than it is in California. Even vaping has been dropping off recently. California overall has less binge drinking than other states but I’d attribute that as much to good weather and lots to do instead of just taxes.
Both of those are way down from when I was in my twenties.
That’s education and culture. People will pay whatever it takes to feed their addictions. It’s cultural disappoval that changes behaviour.
Taxes are an effective way of reducing at least tobacco usage. Tons of studies prove that. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951962/pdf/2270.pdf
I doubt it. Look at Illinois, they’ll just straw buy shit from neighboring states.
A demonstration that the laws work, but need to be implemented at a national scale.
Right. Which brings prices up. Which decreases sales.
And makes it so only the wealthy can afford them. Increasing the class divide. Which would give the wealthy even more power over the average citizen than they already have. On the other hand, it should increase money for the politicians to dole out to their best buddies. It also might reduce the population a bit as this might be the last straw for some. Not that criminals care. They ain’t buying them in a store.
How about if we make it totally illegal for people who live in cites over 40,000 populations to own any type of weapon. That would seem to solve most issues with city violence. Or is there a problem there also?
Just food for thought. What is seen a good idea at first glance almost always have some kind of unexpected effects that need to be taken into account. Some of which might not be seen until much, much later.
but then how will I defend my famuhly from the 39,997 other criminals?
What about my second home in the mountains? I’m a poor person barely scraping by so when I drive my Bentley there, I need my full auto m-60 to hunt squirrels for dinner
Issue is gonna be with stolen guns and ammo also it’s not far to get to the Nevada border if people wanna stock up
Bingo. I know several people who make significant ‘side hustle’ money by bringing in objects california bans when they travel there for other business. Someone else mentioned illinois has the same issue.
That’s not an issue. Reduction is the goal, not elimination.
The people shooting people will not be paying these taxes. Another law that punishes law abiding citizens.
No citizen should own a gun so its a good step to tax them more. Should be much higher though
Criminals love paying taxes
I don’t understand how anything related to firearms can be legally taxed in the USA — their taxation can certainly be viewed as an infringement on one’s right to bear arms.
Poll tax is illegal but watch the ID required to vote crowd lose their mind when you discuss free government IDs
SCOTUS has ruled in the past that some reasonable restrictions can be placed on the right to bear arms (banning kids from carrying, for example). Not to mention that some legal minds disagree on the entire intent of the 2nd amendment
It’s no different than the “time and manner” restrictions placed on speech
It’s no different than the “time and manner” restrictions placed on speech
By “it” are you referring to taxation?
SCOTUS has ruled in the past that some reasonable restrictions can be placed on the right to bear arms (banning kids from carrying, for example).
I would argue that such taxation goes beyond those sorts of “reasonable restrictions”, and only serves as a blanket infringement on the rights of the entire populace, regardless of context or circumstance.
Not to mention that some legal minds disagree on the entire intent of the 2nd amendment
For the sake of clarity, would you mind elaborating on this? Which legal minds disagree, and to what extent?
Souter, most famously (edit: and most recently, not sure about earlier justices in US history) and other SCOTUS justices have dissented
Here’s a summary: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-the-roberts-court-undermined-sensible-gun-control/tnamp/
I barely skimmed it but it touches on the dissenting opinions around the second amendment.
Here’s a summary of Souter’s positions:
https://www.ontheissues.org/Court/David_Souter_Gun_Control.htm
And here’s a take from a linguist:
The linguist might seem out of place here but I’ve always felt that analysis was pretty damning for SCOTUS’ take during Heller. Been a couple years since I read that article but it really stayed with me.
Sorry for all the edits… but to be clear, prior to Heller in 2008, there was no assumption that an individual had the right to arms
Souter, most famously (edit: and most recently, not sure about earlier justices in US history) and other SCOTUS justices have dissented
Here’s a summary: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-the-roberts-court-undermined-sensible-gun-control/tnamp/
I barely skimmed it but it touches on the dissenting opinions around the second amendment.
I’ll preface this by saying that this linked article isn’t exactly about David Souter. He is only mentioned once in the article as someone who supported another’s argument in D.C. v. Heller.
Scalia treated the clause [“A well regulated militia”] as merely “prefatory”
I agree with this. Imo, this comes out of how the commas are used: “A well regulated militia” is the first item, “being necessary to the security of a free state” is parenthetical information emphasizing the importance of a well regulated militia, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is the second item, “shall not be infringed” is stating the level of protection on both items. Do note that this is only my personal interpretation/opinion.
Stevens pointed out, the term “bear arms” was most commonly used in the 18th century to describe participation in the military.
This is an interesting point to consider, however, it is not, on its own, an argument for the original intended interpretation of the Second Amendment.
“The idea that the founders wanted to protect a right to have a Glock loaded and stored in your nightstand so you could blow away an intruder is just crazy,” says Saul Cornell
Aside from this statement being conjecture, if I deviate from the interpretation of the original intent of the Second Amendment, in my opinion, I don’t understand why this is a fundamentally negative idea. Why wouldn’t one want people to have the means to protect themselves in the event of a scenario that public law enforcement cannot?
Here’s a summary of Souter’s positions:
https://www.ontheissues.org/Court/David_Souter_Gun_Control.htm
Important to note that only the last section in this link is really relevant to the original point being “some legal minds disagree on the entire intent of the 2nd amendment”. And that being said, it essentially just reiterates what was said in the first link, albeit without the surrounding opinion piece, and much more to the point (which I do appreciate).
Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion that, even with an individual-rights view, the DC handgun ban and trigger lock requirement would nevertheless be permissible limitations on the right. The Breyer dissent concludes, “there simply is no untouchable constitutional right to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”
Given the wording of the second amendment (if you interpret “bear” as a person physically arming themselves, and “keep” as the general ownership of firearms) I would agree that this argument is sound.
And here’s a take from a linguist:
The linguist might seem out of place here but I’ve always felt that analysis was pretty damning for SCOTUS’ take during Heller. Been a couple years since I read that article but it really stayed with me.
This was an interesting read. Interpretation of the Second Amendment is certainly a linguistic issue.
From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.”
This is very interesting.
“A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”
This argument is essentially conjecture — they don’t argue why it can’t be interpreted that way, they just state that it isn’t.
“In the 18th century, someone going out to hunt a deer would have thought of themselves as bearing arms? I mean, is that the way they talk?” Clement finally conceded that no, that was not the way they talked: “Well, I will grant you this, that ‘bear arms’ in its unmodified form is most naturally understood to have a military context.” Souter did not need to point out the obvious: “Bear arms” appears in its unmodified form in the Second Amendment.
This appears to be an attempt at linguistic trapping, rather than an argument. Simply because it wasn’t colloquial, doesn’t necessarily mean that it couldn’t be understood in the manner that bear arms doesn’t require one to serve in the military.
to be clear, prior to Heller in 2008, there was no assumption that an individual had the right to arms
I can’t really comment on this, as it’s conjecture. Would you have any sources that show that the consensus prior to Heller was that the Second Amendment didn’t grant individuals the right to arms? Regardless, the current supreme court decision is how the constitution is officially interpreted. What that means is that if people were of that opinion prior to Heller, Heller states that those prior opinions were unconstitutional.
I’m confused by a lot of what you said, in particular that it’s conjecture that it’s conjecture that there was no individual right prior to Heller. That’s just case law?
I’m confused by a lot of what you said
Would you mind pointing out all that you are confused with?
in particular that it’s conjecture that it’s conjecture that there was no individual right prior to Heller. That’s just case law?
Would you mind citing case law? I said that it is conjecture because it was an argument without premise. You now mentioning that you are basing the argument on the premise that there is case law which supports it is in the right direction, but I would be curious to know what case law you are referencing.
gestures to all the nonexistent case law
Are you serious? A tax does not prevent you from legally acquiring anything. At worst, it risks putting the poor at even more of a disadvantage
Are you serious?
Yes.
A tax does not prevent you from legally acquiring anything.
I could be wrong on how this is defined legally, but the term “infringement” doesn’t require absolute prevention.
At worst, it risks putting the poor at even more of a disadvantage
This is an unfavorable outcome, imo.
