Politics Trump’s support for background check bill shows gun politics ‘shifting rapidly’

I should add to my previous post that I'm not convinced we need to license driving.

It's funny you brought it up, since even with licensing, deaths on the road are significantly higher than deaths by gun. 1.3M/year. So I have to ask what benefit is the licensing? It's a way to make government jobs and raise revenue. That's all I see in it.

There are a similar number of cars (268M) as guns (300M).

 

I've answered this over and over.

It's in the bill of rights for a reason. For whatever reason, the right shall not be infringed. It makes no difference what example they chose.

The constitution should be read as plainly as possible. It was written that way. They didn't write, "the right of the people to bear arms to form militias shall not be infringed." That would be a serious rewrite and it takes twisty logic to read it that way.

For whatever reason, the right shall not be infringed.

You might want to consider what "security of a free state" means. Free includes the right to bear arms. Militia means all men between 18 and 48 years old.

 

So what? Driver's license regulation didn't prevent it. Thanks for supporting my point.

 

I appreciate the answer. I've heard others suggest that submitting to licensure requirements is nothing more than a concession of liberty. I might tend to agree with this position, but where public health and welfare is concerned, I generally think the government has a responsibility to be involved.

 

I think this "regulation doesn't prevent all wrongdoing" strawman really needs to die.

 

The government is involved. They tax you, then they provide services after the fact. That's the nature of government - close the gate after the horse has left the corral. Pardon my metaphor.

 

It doesn't seem to prevent anything we should care about though.

 

So you speculate. Impossible to say what has been prevented.

 

Jumping through a hoop.

Nobody can learn to drive without passing a government test.

That just makes no sense. People drove before there were licenses. People don't always need licenses (like driving on a farm).

 

You can tell by the data that it's not very effective. 1.3M/year die in spite of the regulations. That's a really large number. The biggest source of death in the US that I can find.

1.3M is more than heart disease and cancer and lung disease combined (those are the top 3 medical causes).

 

Scalia wrote:

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

 

If you are driving on the roads.