Why gun violence barely rates on Silicon Valley's long world-changing to-do list
backchannel.com
backchannel.com
Swipe...swipe...swipe...swipe...swipe...swipe...swipe...[gives up and types a backup passphrase on a huge touchscreen] For a smartphone, the functionality contained is rarely needed right damn now (and many phones allow the user to make emergency calls from a locked device; I believe that's even some sort of regulatory requirement). If you're unlocking a smartgun, and you have all the time in the world for that, what purpose exactly are you unlocking it for?
Mass shootings get loads of attention, but the murder rate using guns has actually decreased in the last 20 years, not gone up. But to listen to the mainstream media, you'd think that a few nutters with guns is ushering in the end of the world.
There will always be guns, there should always be guns for the law abiding enthusiast. Making it so difficult to obtain and use a gun is akin to a de facto blocking of the 2nd Amendment. A simple background check, which is already the law, works. Anything else is burdensome. Ditto have special permits to buy guns and ammo. If I need a permit to buy something legally, it's no longer a right, but a granted privilege. This is the reason, despite living in Texas, one of the most gun owner friendly states in the union, I have no gotten my concealed weapons permit. A right does not need a permit. I don't want a granted privilege. I carry one in my car because the law allows it sans permit, but I will not ask permission to do something the 2nd Amendment already grants. This is why states like Kentucky, Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, Vermont, Arizona, all allow what we call "Constitutional Carry". They can carry legally with no permit, because the 2nd Amendment is the permit.
No, residents of those states can carry legally without a permit because their state legislature said they could. "Constitutional Carry" is a cute nickname, but Vermont is still granting its residents the privilege of carrying guns in public. There is no nationwide right to concealed carry.
I'd advise you to read up on United States v. Miller (1939), in which the Supreme Court considered the argument you describe. The defendant was carrying a sawed-off shotgun without the proper permit, and his counsel argued that the 2nd Amendment absolved him of any wrongdoing. It was the Court's ruling that many of the firearms we purchase and possess today have nothing to do with the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, and as such, the states may regulate them as they please.
The Founding Fathers may have given you the inalienable right to a musket and a hunting rifle in the days before we had a standing army - but today, even in Texas, you're going to need a permit to conceal that semi-auto on your person.
Well-regulated has yet to be defined, as it were, and it needs to remain somewhat amorphous. I'm opposed to firearms registration because it becomes a de facto list of gun owners to demonize down the road. A certain presidential candidate has already said they intend to pursue more heavy restrictions, especially registration. They have been heard to mention that handguns should be for the military and police only. These politicians all seem to be in love with Australian-style firearms registration. No, thank you.
The public has a strong and completely defensible interest in stopping violent crime. That's a shared goal on both sides of the aisle.
I'm already disappointed that most of the Republicans in the House and Senate are actually RINOs. Just goes to show you that there is a difference between a Republican and a Conservative. No true Conservative will ever vote against gun ownership. We need an entire House and Senate full of guys like Jeff Sessions in order to undo the damage by liberals in this country.
Yes, it can protect you from somebody who steals your gun, and it can protect cops from people who steal their guns, but it is not such a big thing one way or the other.