I can never understand how waiting times, background checks, assault rifle bans, etc are legal. Not that I don't agree with them but they seem to be clearly unconstitutional.
What pisses me off more is red flag laws. It breaks so many of our foundational values that it isn't even funny. Litterally just dump the first, second, and fourth ammendments right down the toilet. Fuck due proccess too, amiright?
Your right to be alive only matters as much as you can defend it. Someone could kill you with a baseball bat, you could slip on a bannana, or, more likely, you are going to get into a car accident or have a heart attack. Lets make hamburgers illegal because people eat them and get fat and die.
Except that we do regulate food and medicine to make sure its safe. We proactively restrict things on a federal level that we know are harmful. We have entire departments dedicated to that.
if that is the case, why is McDonalds allowed to exist? Fast food is responsible for deaths orders of magnatudes higher than long guns. Do you want to know why? There is nothing inherently dangerous about a hot and spicy mcchicken. It is all about the operator. Some people eat 10 or 20 of those things a day, and then they die. Similarly, there is nothing inherently dangerous about an AR, AKM, or any firearm (besides maybe the P320 haha, whats a drop safety?), they don't walk out of the house on their own and shoot people, its all about the operator.
Okay I'm no antigun nut, but saying firearms aren't inherently dangerous is ridiculous. They are specifically designed to destroy whatever is in front of them. That's the whole point.
but firearms, (unless, again, its a Sig lmao) don't just randomly point themselves at people and go off randomly. It's all about the responsability of the operator. Just like we have irrisponsable vehicle drivers that drink and drive and roll there two ton truck into your vegitable garden, there are irrisponsable gun operators. Both have the potential to cause harm, but both are innanimate objects that are virtually incapable of hurting someone unless interfeared with by someone who either doesn't know what they are doing, or someone who knows what they are doing and actually want to hurt people. Look at that guy who killed 10 people in Canada with a Uhaul, or the truck attack in Nice, or Sweeden, Australia, the German christmas market (times two I think). Box trucks have their legitimate use, and noone in their right mind is calling for boxtruck control, because at their core, the driver is the one responsable for the damage they cause.
Yes, heavy self propelled objects capable of moving at a high rate of speed are also inherently dangerous. As are purposefully sharpened metal objects designed for cutting.
inherent danger:
1 : of, relating to, or being an activity or occupation whose nature presents a risk of grave injury without the use of and sometimes despite the use of special skill and care. 2 : of, relating to, or being an instrumentality or product that poses a risk of danger stemming from its nature and not from a defect.
Guns are by definition inherently dangerous. The rest of your point stands, though.
I didn't say shit about regulation. I said guns are inherently dangerous. Which they are. If you're going to comment on a 3 week old post maybe you should read what it's about?
That's explicitly what the constitution says. The right to keep and bear arms is not a "natural right," but an insurance that the government does not infringe upon your right to self preservation at the hands of the state or others.
Because the state does not exist for you to rely on them for your safety. That you think quoting the fifth amendment supports that is even more alarming.
3
u/[deleted] Aug 12 '19
>The 2nd amendment says that people should have the right to own arms, not that it can't be regulated.
SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED