IvanV wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 06, 2021 3:48 pm
And now we have the extraordinary sight of states increasingly allowing you to carry a concealed weapon without any licence. And making it illegal for business proprieters, schools, etc, to separate people from their firearms at the door. Though with some exceptions such as aeroplanes, I presume.
If you mention the first amendment ("you can say what you like") in conjunction with a private company (e.g. Facebook) you're told that it only regulates what the governmnet can do and cannot be used to control private companies. That includes allowing a company to fire an employee for something they said while at home and not working. Why does that not apply equally to the second amentment ("you can bear arms"), so that the government cannot stop you but private companies can restrict your right as much as they like? Including having a gun at home when not working?
Another strange point is arguments about some types of guns being designed to kill people rather than for sport. It seems perfectly clear that the second amendment refers to arms borne for the purpose of killing people and not sport. If there are any restrictions which should be easy to implement it's restrictions which ban sporting weapons. The only military value in them is the extent to which they encourage their holders to practise with their weapons to as to be then better at killing people.
I think the focus should be on recognising that the second amendment is obsolete and should be scrapped, rather than pointless arguments over which guns can be regulated and which are covered by it.
But at least a start could be made by noting that any "well regulated militia" must, by definition, be regulated, and that such regulations should at least cover correct use and storage of weapons. Many American deaths are caused by accidental shootings and those, at least, could be greatly reduced by regulations that self-defence obsessives should have no grounds to dispute.