80% of Asian voters want more gun control


#1

80% of Asian voters want more gun control.

WaPo Cheers: Mass Immigration Will Destroy the Second Amendment

I guess this means that only 20% of Asians own gas stations or bodegas.


#2

I thought Asians were relatively conservative?


#3

They are socially.


#4

Far east or near east Asians? Why don’t they just say what they mean. Muslims.


#5

Support for the reasonable regulation of firearms is neither “conservative” nor “liberal”. Support for the confiscation or banning of firearms is “liberal” in the sense that such policy would clearly violate the Second Amendment. But the Second Amendment doesn’t preclude the reasonable regulation of firearms or the licensing of gun owners. One’s view of the matter generally coincides with whether someone is rural or urban. Many urban residents have been the victims of gun violence or gun crime, and want something done about it. Many rural residents haven’t been touched by gun violence (unless they live near a meth lab), and appreciate the sporting uses of firearms.


#6

OK, Jazz. What part of “…shall not be infringed” did you not understand??? It does NOT say, “…shall not be infringed UNLESS the federal government wants to keep a list of arms owners, ban the sale of those they think are ‘too dangerous’ or otherwise ‘reasonably regulate’ who can and cannot own any arms.”


#7

The Second Amendment doesn’t involve the “right to hunt.” It doesn’t even involve the “right to self-defense.” It involves the absolute right of everyone to hunt, self-defense and to defend the country against all enemies, foreign OR domestic. My oath, taken in 1960 and again in 1965 to defend the country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, doesn’t HAVE an expiration date. I am bound by it today, just as I was 50 and 55 years ago! It’s utter idiocy to claim that the feds have the right to deny me the MEANS to defend them. The same applies to ALL of the men and women who’ve taken that same oath…whenever it was taken…and we are in the MILLIONS.


#8

I support the Second Amendment, Dave. The right can’t be taken away, but it can be subject to reasonable regulation. See the Heller case.


#9

[QUOTE=Jazzhead (C&P from quote)]Support for the reasonable regulation of firearms is neither “conservative” nor “liberal”. Support for the confiscation or banning of firearms is “liberal” in the sense that such policy would clearly violate the Second Amendment. But the Second Amendment doesn’t preclude the reasonable regulation of firearms or the licensing of gun owners. One’s view of the matter generally coincides with whether someone is rural or urban. Many urban residents have been the victims of gun violence or gun crime, and want something done about it. Many rural residents haven’t been touched by gun violence (unless they live near a meth lab), and appreciate the sporting uses of firearms.[/QUOTE]
Rubbish. First of all, the only “reasonable regulation of firearms” is to keep it out of the hands of kids, convicted felons, and the dangerously unstable. YOUR idea of “reasonable regulation” (requiring owners to insure their firearms in case of misuse) is indeed a violation of the 2nd Amendment. So is registration; the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say “shall not be infringed except for people who don’t register and insure their firearms;” it says PERIOD.


#10

Jazz what is “reasonable regulation” to you? Why do you not want to regulate knives and other sharp objects that cause far more deaths a year than guns do?


#11

Who gives a rat’s furry patootie what Heller said? Just as the Congress cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, NEITHER can the SCOTUS–certainly not unless they pass an amendment to the Constitution. WHEN are you Statists going to realize that the Constitution says what it means and means what it says and can’t be reduced or expanded except by the means the Constitution itself provides?


#12

I want “Reasonable Gun Control” as well, it should be required that every citizen know how to hit what their aiming at with reasonable proficiency; no child should be allowed to advance past elementary school until they can control a gun well enough to hit what their aiming at.

Every Elementary School should have a gun range to make this “Gun Control” available to all students regularly.


#13

they are coming from countries where firearms ownership is highly restricted.

Anti-gun Hispanics (besides conservative Cubans)

The irony hurts…


#14

I would support as “reasonable” regulation that is BOTH (i) efficacious, and (ii) not in violation of the Constitution.


#15

Can you give us an example of such a “regulation” or law? Which of the 25,000 arms laws currently on the books do you believe meet your criteria, if any? What do you consider an “efficacious” regulation with regard to guns? Can you outline a single, federal regulation regarding the keeping and bearing of arms that is NOT an “infringement” of a free citizen’s rights?


#16

Thank God Meth is illegal, and not sold in stores! And Drug free zones. Those are great!


#17

[QUOTE=Jazzhead (C&P from quote)]I would support as “reasonable” regulation that is BOTH (i) efficacious, and (ii) not in violation of the Constitution.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. You stated your support for requiring gun owners to carry insurance against misuse, and you implied support for registration, both of which are unmistakable violations of the 2nd Amendment.


#18

Dave, you and I are not going to agree regarding the meaning of “infringement”, since you take the view that any regulation constitutes infringement. My view is that infringement means a rule that denies the right, such as the law struck down in Heller that banned D.C. residents from owning handguns. I don’t consider, for example, a general requirement for gun registration as denying the right. Just register and go get your gun.

Where we’re more likely to agree is whether or not a particular law is efficacious. A perfect example is the so-called assault weapon ban, which bans certain guns on the basis of appearance rather than function. (Correct me if I’m wrong, but the assault weapon ban reaches some semi-automatic weapons but not others based on whether the gun looks “military”). I’d say such a law is Constitutional, but unlikely to be efficacious (it’s rather silly, in fact), so I’d oppose it on that basis. A ban on ALL semi-automatic firearms may well be efficacious, but then I’d need to address the argument whether such a ban would deny the Second Amendment right and would therefore be Constitutional. I understand the reasoning in Heller - a handgun is essential to self-defense in an urban environment. I’m not so sure why a semi-automatic is an essential component of the right of self defense, but I’m willing to listen.

More generally, I’m not particularly disposed to advocating more “gun control”. I’ve never understood gun culture, and as I’ve said on many occasions that last thing I’d ever want in my own house is a gun. But I am not the sort of conservative who seeks to deny you your rights simply because I wouldn’t choose to exercise the right myself.


#19

What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?


#20

Fine, Jazz. Don’t obtain a gun if they scare you so much. That is your right as a free citizen–just as I have the right to own as many as I want and can afford for the same reason. NONE of my guns have killed anyone…well except for a 9mm Browning Hi-Power that someone else once used to kill another guy which I bought from the chattel mortgage holder when the trial was over. None of my guns have ever killed (or even wounded) another human being, either intentionally or accidentally otherwise. Starting 4 years after my marriage, we’ve ALWAYS had kids around and had some of my guns on display in a gun-rack in my den for the past 30+ years now. The very FIRST thing my kids, grandkids and even great-grandkids are taught in my home is that touching any of my guns is strictly verboten unless it’s with my help and approval. If they are “curious” about them, I take them down, unload them (if they ARE loaded to begin with) and explain how they work, including which end is the dangerous end and allow them to HOLD them to demonstrate how heavy they are and how to keep their fingers away from the triggers. Curiosity satisfied, none of my kids, grandkids or great-grandkids have ever touched any of them again, though I gave my eldest grandson a single-shot .22 when he turned 16 to take to a range to “plink” with his father’s supervision.

Secondarily, I don’t view ALL “regulation” as an infringement. I agree with the concept of keeping firearms OUT of the hands of the mentally ill or those convicted of violent felonies…primarily because a case can be made that such folks have forfeited some of their rights as “free citizens.” However, I don’t agree that the government needs to keep a “list” of gun owners, the firearms they own and where they are stored. Nor do I believe that the governments have the slightest business in trying to require “trigger locks” or demanding how guns are to be stored in one’s own home. As John Wayne once said in “True Grit,” “A pistol that’s UNloaded and cocked isn’t good for anything.” To which I’d only add, unless you were in need of a small club with which to beat someone over the head.