This is the kind of person who should not own a gun, let alone be in the military or be hired for any kind of law enforcement.
That he was hired for those at all is a clear indication of a seriously deranged culture in both.
This is the kind of person who should not own a gun, let alone be in the military or be hired for any kind of law enforcement.
That he was hired for those at all is a clear indication of a seriously deranged culture in both.
It often feels like the US just considers owning a gun to be the default position in life. Gun reform doesn’t require banning of guns it’s simply requires the implementation of laws that most people would assume were already in existence, I.e. the most basic of background checks.
When I bought my first gun I had just moved at the time so my I.D. had my old address on it. I told the dude behind the counter this and he told me to go to the customer service desk and get a fishing license for like $10, but make sure to put my new address, and he’ll use that to run the background check instead of my I.D. so it won’t get flagged.
There are rules and laws already, but people will always figure out ways to skirt them.
I mean, background checks are already a thing for most sales. All sales from a store, and several states have a requirement for one during private sales.
And everyone knows there are zero loopholes
The most common “loophole” is direct transfers between immediate family members, aka someone can give their spouse/child/parent a gun without a check. But let’s be real if you live with someone they already have some level of access to any guns in the home.
The often cited “gun show loophole” is just a misnomer and is talking about private sales which still require a background check in several states. Even when it’s not required many will opt for it since knowingly selling a gun to someone who is not allowed to posses it is a felony.
If you press a US “second amendment enthusiast” about gun reform, at one point they will inevitably reply angrily with something like “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?”
There are other parts of the Bill of Rights that, while written in an absolute manner, have been found to have some limits. The First Amendment is rather demonstrative that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech”. Yet, we recognize limits on speech, the most famous one being yelling “fire” in a theater (when there is none) Yes, you have the right to speech, but if your speech unnecessarily created panic the government can punish you on that basis.
It seems quite clear to me that gun ownership here, even with the 2nd amendment, should come with responsibilities too. Gun owners still have a moral duty to be responsible about it, and not just carelessly put others in danger. Yet, the 2nd Amendment is presented as an absolute, with no strings attached, as if God sent them Himself on stone tablets. It’s like the 2nd Amendment is the only one that matters…
Just the fact that the FCC can issue fines for “bad” language on broadcasts has always perplexed me about the 1st.