Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

Where in the Constitution does it say guns have to be cheap to own and maintain

And when a gun someone owns is not secured properly and is used to kill someone else, there should be liability. When parents give guns to minors the parents should be liable!

InfraBlue wrote:

I'm referring to measures such as national weapons registries

We already have a registry. All guns made within the past 50 years have a Form 4473 attached to their sale.

InfraBlue wrote:

and limits on the number of weapons one can own.

What would be the compelling government interest to justify such a limit?

It would be interesting to see how hunters react at the voting booth after the left deprives them of some of their hunting rifles.

InfraBlue wrote:

This fundamental right does not preclude stringent regulation.

That depends on the regulation. The Constitution precludes any measure that cannot pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.

InfraBlue wrote:

It's much easier to kill with guns than with other weapons.

Is there any evidence to back this up? Knives and baseball bats are pretty effective weapons.

Even if it is true, how does a killing with a more-easy weapon make the death any worse than if the killing used a less-easy weapon?

Thing about it is...
Any reasonable person would grant that, regarding citizens having weapons in a civilized society, there has to be agreement that there is a continuum. On one end, anyone can have a slingshot. On the other end, no one can have a nuclear weapon.

The rest of the gun control argument is simply negotiating - to what area on that spectrum can we as citizens be relegated?

What is unreasonable is to assert and insist that there is no discussion to be had, and/or that there should be no regulation of their weaponry.

Reducing the levels of guns would reduce the levels of suicide and homicide rates, and unintentional deaths by firearms.

According to this study, "the increased rate of suicide and homicide in states with high gun levels was accounted for primarily by significantly elevated firearm suicide and firearm homicide rates. Unintentional firearm death rates were also increased in states with more guns. At the regional level, qualitatively similar results were obtained."

oralloy wrote:

It would be interesting to see how hunters react at the voting booth after the left deprives them of some of their hunting rifles.

Their interests are secondary, at best, to the interests of the larger US population.

The Second Amendment refers to good regulation.

These regulations would be within the Second Amendment's scope.

According to this report, "An assault committed with a gun is at least five times more likely to result in death than an assault with a knife."

I don't have stats comparing mortality rates between guns and baseball bats.

The point isn't that one killing is worse than another. The point is that a killing is more likely to occur during an assult than with less-easy weapons, like knives.

Given the scope of that continuum, I'd prefer that we as citizens be relegated closer to the side of slingshots.

Well, I’d like to keep hoping to get an assault rifle ban

How about before we allow someone to buy an assault rifle, we send them to a war zone for 12 months. If they demonstrate good gun hygiene during that time THEN they can have their coveted weapon of war. But only if they get back.

Do you think we’d get some action on gun control legislation if large numbers of young black and Muslim men started (in open carry states)going everywhere with assault rifles slung over their shoulders?

Leftists really do hate the Constitution.

Request denied.