The amount that both the first and second amendments are misquoted and misinterpreted is so ridiculous. It would be funny if the people misinterpreting it weren't putting gun rights over the right to be in public without fearing being shot.
I would love to know how many people are hunting out of necessity in today's society.
Not being snarky, genuinely curious.
we have two families in our current church who are hunting out of necessity. their kids eat everything from deer to squirrel.
I imagine they have access to government and church assistance programs? I understand if they would rather provide for themselves but I just don't agree that eating deer and squirrel is a necessity.
I know that opinion may not be shared by everyone.
ETA: I think its sad that they are resorting to hunting out of necessity But maybe they don't consider it sad.
frkls--- Totally not picking on you! Thank you for sharing an answer. I edited my post above. I think it sad that people still hunt as a way to feed their family.
I think it's really important to note that repealing the 2nd amendment (or limiting its application to militia activities) does not equal a ban on guns. The people saying that don't understand the Constitution, which is an irony I just cannot tolerate.
Well, I said that and I absolutely understand that that's what it means. I believe it's a necessary, if not solely sufficient, step towards increased gun control.
Well, I said that and I absolutely understand that that's what it means. I believe it's a necessary, if not solely sufficient, step towards increased gun control.
No, it is. It totally is a necessary step towards increasing gun control. I'm not explaining myself well. What I mean is that if the 2nd Amendment is repealed (or redefined), it changes the category of "gun ownership" and moves it out of "fundamental right" territory, which makes it MUCH easier to regulate. You could regulate guns the way you regulate cars, consumer products, whatever. I'm just responding to people who think that repealing the 2nd Amendment would mean suddenly poor people couldn't hunt rabbit. That's not how it works.
I don't see anyone making that argument here. Talking about whether licensing et al would be cost prohibitive isn't the same thing as misunderstanding the nature and function of the second amendment.
I don't see anyone making that argument here. Talking about whether licensing et al would be cost prohibitive isn't the same thing as misunderstanding the nature and function of the second amendment.
I didn't understand that to be her argument until her response to my comparison with cars. But I guess, I just don't find the idea that it's "too expensive" to get a license/insurance etc... for a gun to be very persuasive. Or at least not a very good reason to not regulate guns in the same way that we regulate cars. People need cars to get to work. Even poor people need cars to get to work. We still require them to have a license and pay taxes and fees and insurance. I agree with moxie that I'd happily support an expanded welfare state (and do anyway) in exchange for being reasonable about whether the "need" to hunt should be preserved by way of a 2nd Amendment free-for-all.
Well, I don't think frkls thinks it's a "persuasive" or "very good reason not to regulate guns" either. I think she's saying that OTHER people think so. And that the rhetoric has become so polarized and entrenched that a sympathetic individual saying "These licensing fees will mean I can't afford to hunt deer and my family will go hungry" will become the poster child for an army (pun intended) of gun rights wackos who think that if you don't allow them to have unlimited ammunition for their semi-automatic weapons cache, that means we're two steps away from a federal SWAT team storming through your doors to steal your venison and force your children to take birth control at age 8.
However, I am feeling pretty helpless on this issue altogether. I kind of feel like the lid is already off of Pandora's box, or whatever the expression would be. How on earth are we going to get people who already own guns to agree to just give them up? We can stop selling new ones, which would be a start, but there are already millions of guns in this country. Guns are expensive, and people don't like to be told they have to give up or stop using their expensive toys. Most people who own guns are not misusing them, so they are not going to agree to just hand over their "investments" without something in return. Does our government have the money to pay people for their guns? If not, what incentive are they going to provide? Can we afford that incentive?
I think tighter regulations on buying guns or preventing people from buying guns altogether would be fine, but I don't think that solves the problem that so many guns already are out in our population and aren't easily going to be removed. What do we do about that?
FTR if we could magically remove all guns from this country I'd be in full support. I used to be married to a family of hunters/gun owners and I did learn that most gun owners are responsible. But I'll never be convinced that a hobby is more important than safety and I don't see the appeal myself. I will never own a gun myself. I just don't know what kind of gun control would actually make enough of a difference.
I wish we could take away all of the crazy, unnecessary assault weapons etc. I would still want guns for hunting to be allowed. I pretty much wouldn't have a job without hunters, and most ecosystems would be screwed, in more ways than one.