Trucks and rifles are not the same vis a vis the Constitution. We have the 2nd Amendment, like it or not. And it has never been stronger in the history of the Union.
It’s not people who kill people, it’s butter knives that kill people.
It’s painfully obvious to anyone paying attention that Stephen Paddock could have killed just as many people with a hedge trimmer. It might have taken him longer and he may have gotten emotionally past his most resent gambling loss by then and just stopped but where’s the positive good in that?
Wake up, sheep-flakes!
10 Likes
Oh… I’m sorry.
7 Likes
There is tendency for discussions like this to get derailed by technical nitpicking on the definition of particular weapon types.
Every fricking time.
18 Likes
Never tell a True American that cars and trucks are less revered and protected than any other possession.
8 Likes
It was quite a bit stronger on September 17, 1862.
28 Likes
Ask a rigged question, get an obvious answer.
This is like saying “more property damage occurs in vehicle crashes involving an internal-combustion-engine truck compared to other vehicles”.
No shit. Trucks are more expensive than cars or motorcycles. And nobody’s going to show up to a car crash with a steam truck.
Rifles have been semi-automatic as the normal configuration for just about as long as internal combustion engines. When you promote banning or restricting that particular technology, be sure you understand that you sound like someone suggesting banning electric drills because hand drills are safer. In general, trying to roll technology back 100 years doesn’t make the world a better place.
1 Like
Which is exactly why an internal-combustion-truck is more heavily regulated than, say, a kick-scooter or an e-bike.
26 Likes
Why don’t I hear anyone complaining about triple rocket-swords?
4 Likes
Important, because as I understand it, and I am not a lawyer, the recent SC rulings on gun rights have indicated that the more popular a particular gun is, the more it enjoys 2nd Amendment protection.
Pretty heavy irony at play here: AR-type rifles became very popular in large part because of pushback (political protest) against the “Assault weapons” ban. Which makes them more protected.
It would really behoove the progressive wing (of which I am a part) to think deeply about strategy when it comes to gun control. It makes no sense to campaign for any particular gun control change, if that change is both UnConstitutional and almost certain to maximize the participation of rednecks at the voting booth.
We can not make progress in the world unless we retake the Congress and Presidency. If campaigning for an assault weapons ban is both unConstitutional and counterproductive, it is the most stupid strategy imaginable at this juncture.
So… does anyone know if it is Constitutional? Or is this really all about Virtue Signalling and winning elections doesn’t really matter?
Not to mention that big rigs and other especially dangerous commercial vehicles require a lot more training and regulation than a little family pickup truck.
Edit to add: and insurance. Lots and lots of insurance.
15 Likes
I’m sorry BL, on this side of the aisle it’s all about everybody voting.
It’s those other people who want to limit those who vote.
In fact limit those who even CAN vote.
4 Likes
Not everyone has a degree in semiotics, Tell us what you really mean.
3 Likes
When most SC decisions on what is and is not constitutional are 5/4 these days (maybe soon to be 6/3) divided mostly by which administration appointed each judge I think that it’s pretty clear that winning elections matters quite a bit.
We’re talking about a very vague, ambiguous line in the constitution that doesn’t even mention guns specifically, let alone give any specific guidance on what type of hypothetical weapons invented centuries in the future should receive extra levels of regulation. It’s nuts to pretend that there’s one clear, objectivity correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment, so we’d damn well better make sure we pay attention to who gets to interpret it.
12 Likes
Well, yeah, I’d have guessed that is the case. Mainly due to better accuracy and ballistics.
Though despite being used in more sensational mass shootings, they make up a minority of gun homicides. More people are murdered by blunt instruments than rifles of any type, typically. Handgun are by far the #1 cause of gun homicides.
They aren’t totally synonymous. All “assault rifles” are semi-automatic. Not all semi-automatics are considered assault rifles.
In rifles, by volume, bolt action is the most common, but semi-automatic of various types are also common.
And by swimming pools. How could you forget the unaddressed, woefully neglected danger of falling into swimming pools!
13 Likes
Sorry, I don’t get what you are saying. I’m all for getting out the vote - we liberals don’t do a very good job right now with our younger folks. I am not for energizing one-issue rednecks who will go to the polls and vote all Republican because they don’t want their AR rifles taken away. I am not saying we should restrict anyone’s right to vote, access to vote, etc.
Simply saying we should not be advocating something unConstitutional if it will also mean we win less elections.
Firearms (both handguns and rifles) are far and away the most popular class of murder weapon in America. Blunt objects are a distant third after knives/bladed weapons.
I agree with your point about the need for stronger handgun regulations though.
13 Likes
Yes, but quite a large number of people are working on their degree in semi-idiotics apparently with the goal of going for a full PhD in Idiotics. <sorry, couldn’t help meself>
4 Likes
