bjack on 15/6/2016 at 23:03
You do know that your words are fighting words, right? :p You are being exceptionally boorish in this respect. It is akin to me telling you that the Queen is a cunt rag. Maybe you would like that. Maybe you are into The Sex Pistols. I am too... ;)
But with that put aside, it is extremely difficult to change our Constitution, and for good reason. These are great laws. That fact that amendments were allowed in the first place is extraordinary. Essentially, the Constitution rejects the idiocy of Hobbes and goes with a more enlightened Locke. We restrict ourselves only to the point that we all consent to this restriction. Some restrictions are completely forbidden. Gee, that little amendment that eliminates slavery is a good one. What if some dick weeds decide that is no longer needed? By court fiat, maybe all those under 25 have to serve in government with no pay for a minimum of 5 years. We have checks against that sort of tyranny.
PigLick on 15/6/2016 at 23:38
You have to pay insurance on cars, maybe should do the same with guns.
bjack on 16/6/2016 at 00:13
Quote Posted by PigLick
You have to pay insurance on cars, maybe should do the same with guns.
Liability is key, yes. Responsibility? Yes. But an insurance requirement would be a restriction on the 2nd amendment. However, whatever you do with your gun, if and ONLY if you use it, is your 100% responsibility. You must show cause. You must prove that you were in the right. Nasty bastard kids throwing dog poop on your car and you blast them? Not acceptable. Creepy freaks break your windows and try to rape your German Shepherd? Blast away. However, if your buck shot goes through your wall and into your neighbor's house and kills their prize winning African Grey Parrot, then you are liable for that loss. Read between the lines and see the other consequences. Kill someone or hurt them collaterally and it is on your head.
Insurance? No. Not mandatory, but I think there is coverage for this very thing under umbrella policies in the US. Anyone in the insurance biz care to comment?
catbarf on 16/6/2016 at 01:13
Quote Posted by faetal
Catbarf - thanks for all of that. I wasn't necessarily looking for "straight" answers - convoluted ones are if anything more interesting.
I won't lie, everything you said is probably the first time I've talked about this with anyone where my beliefs about the situation have felt way off the mark, so I'm probably going to end my input around here as I believe your thoughts on the topic greatly outweigh my opinions. It's a shame none of the things you suggest are likely to happen in the US short of something cataclysmic happening. One final question - do you think interest groups like the NRA and those who profit from weapon sales are in any way responsible for regulation being cock-blocked every time it comes up?
In my gut, I still feel that members of the public carrying guns around is a bad thing and a horrible baseline configuration for public safety, not to mention a writing off of trust within society other than as a function of mutually assured destruction. That said, my brain and gut aren't in synch right now, so I need to cogitate on it.
Yes, I firmly believe the NRA (which is now more of a Republican arm than anything relating to gun rights) and gun manufacturer lobbies take a very obstructionist approach towards any legislation, while groups like the Brady Campaign use misinformation to push incremental laws and oppose any concept of compromise. I've come to feel that partisanship is the biggest problem in American politics and it's very hard to make any progress when we're stuck in tribalism.
I'm happy to leave it there, and I genuinely appreciate having a civil conversation on the issue.
catbarf on 16/6/2016 at 01:18
Quote Posted by PigLick
You have to pay insurance on cars, maybe should do the same with guns.
Isn't that kind of neither here nor there? I mean, I can understand the idea behind requiring insurance for something that can cause such damage, but the only thing insurance would address is people being unable to pay for liabilities due to negligent discharge or other accidents. That's not really a hot-button issue at the moment.
PigLick on 16/6/2016 at 03:38
It would probably reduce the sales of guns somewhat though.
demagogue on 16/6/2016 at 05:04
What would really work is making gun manufacturers strictly liable for all non-justified gun-caused harms, all accidental, negligent, and criminal use.
That would restructure the whole landscape overnight.
Fafhrd on 16/6/2016 at 06:39
Quote Posted by bjack
You do know that your words are fighting words, right? :p You are being exceptionally boorish in this respect. It is akin to me telling you that the Queen is a cunt rag. Maybe you would like that. Maybe you are into The Sex Pistols. I am too... ;)
But with that put aside, it is extremely difficult to change our Constitution,
It's a 2/3rds vote in the House and Senate, and ratification by 3/4ths of the States, dude. It's not
that hard. They passed an amendment banning the sale and storage of alcohol, ffs. If every Republican member of congress weren't in the NRA's pocket, an amendment limiting the Second would be cake. Go with a ratifying convention instead of legislative ratification and you'd probably get the 3/4ths State ratification with little issue, as an overwhelming majority support stricter gun control laws.
nickie on 16/6/2016 at 07:09
You been watching the Runaway Jury, dema?
I read this morning that some filibustering has been going on with an unconfirmed result of a vote on 'closing the terror gap & universal background checks'. ((
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36545432) Orlando shootings: Democrats in 14-hour gun control filibuster)
demagogue on 16/6/2016 at 07:14
I'd never heard about that movie actually.
I just took a class on torts in lawschool & my professor wrote an article on it.
It was a pretty thoughtful article.
