06-10-2016, 12:37 PM
(06-10-2016, 11:49 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:(06-10-2016, 08:22 AM)Bronco80 Wrote: DC v. Heller is looking more to me as a vanity project from the right wing of the Court. They were so intent on making a landmark decision with the Second Amendment, but they haven't bothered with extrapolating upon it at all. I certainly wouldn't mind if Heller was overturned but I have to admit that that case has become pretty low on my list as a practical matter.
Certain state and local jurisdictions, as well as pro-armament groups, as well as haters of individual armaments, have engaged in overreach. All camps are knee jerking against each other, outwith reason. A reasoned approach leads to a conclusion that there is no inherent evil to an individual right to armaments for law abiding and sane individuals, and it also leads to the acceptability of reasonable restrictions. The word reasonable can become a can of worms, however, most people probably agree that for law abiding people, having a magazine that happens to exceed 10 or whatever arbitrary number of rounds is not an actual problem. Meanwhile, most people agree that law abiding people don't need full auto, howitzers, motor driven ammunition feeds, radar assisted aiming, advanced fire control systems, or any other number of typically "military" technologies. Conversely, most people agree that for a jurisdiction to effectively ban most or all individual armaments is severe overreach as well (hence, Heller). Yes, we CAN all get along!
I think we can, if we choose to. I can recognize the fact that in America, some people want guns and are not ready for a ban, and that to impose one by force is folly. I can hold to my ideal of a gun-less society, and still get along with those who want their "rights" and are also willing to understand the need for reasonable restrictions. I do hope Heller is overturned. But such disagreements can be lived with.