If it's a law that actually passes, then yes until overturned by the SCOTUS. But that is absurd, it won't happen.
The gun regs are already in place. Apples to oranges here.
Actually it already has. As @Lawman pointed out it happened with the Japanese during world war 2, and with many minorities up and till fairly recently. So based on your logic the Japanese should just accept that a bad law was passed and show up for incarceration. How about if we bring back segregation? Those were law on the books and supported by the Supreme court for a long time.
Were those good laws or bad laws?
No one thought that all these anti gun laws would pop up either. Never say never.
As for marching down to the police station to register, I'd call you an idiot, and tell you to get behind me and all the others protesting. Just because it's a law doesn't mean a bad law has to be blindly followed.
No... No they aren't.
A crappy gun control law was passed after the fact effectively taking away a right. And they knew before hand what they were doing was at best questionable in constitutionality (kinda like Japanese internment). It now has to go to the Supreme Court to be overturned, but don't let that stop enforcement until then because even an injunction takes time.
The moral equivalency is exactly the same. After all, "if it saves one life," that's justification enough for you right? Well if we round up all the Muslims that will prevent the next Boston Bombing. There's absolutely no evidence proving it would but our feelings so it must be ok right?
False equivalency. Boston bombings was a one time thing by a bunch of teenagers who weren't even that religious. Do you really want to compare terrorist shooting deaths in the United States to supposed-would-have-been-law-abiding citizen mass shooter and their deaths? It's not even close. The country has a gun culture problem. There is no terrorist problem in the 50 states.
Muslim terrorists killed more people in 1 day in this country than all the "assault style rifles" have killed over the last 6 years....
Again, lock up/deport all the Muslims. Or the Black people. Either one would result in a greater reduction in criminal violence to the general population than California's new gun laws. Your measurement for fairness is the rights of the general population to not live in fear, well it would result in less deaths by homicide in general not just guns. They wouldn't be constitutional either but hey "if it saves one life."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Guess what we've done about preventing mass shootings...... diddly squat.
19 foreign terrorists did that, not Americans. Lock up Muslims here will result in a greater reduction in criminal violence compared to CA's gun laws? What's your source/evidence?
And since you seem to be wrapped over the Muslim/terrorist issue, lets talk about what we did AFTER 9/11 to prevent it from happening again.... formed TSA, formed DHS, hired a lot more air marshals, armed pilots / FFDO program, airline "strategy" changed, behavioral-based profiling at airports, body check scanners and machines. That's just off the top of my head.
Guess what we've done about preventing mass shootings...... diddly squat.
Look at all the the EU has done to prevent mass shootings. Guns are near completely outlawed for the common public and yet look at what happened. All those laws did "diddly squat". All you got was a bunch of unarmed citizens who could only cower in fear as they were shot by people who were not supposed to have guns.
Chattanooga... San Bernardino... Orlando... Ft Hood... Boston Bombing....
Every one of those mass shootings involved Muslims. In fact not all of them involved assault weapons but they all involved Muslims. So if your problem is mass shootings and murder committed against civilians just trying to live there lives....
You don't get to pick and choose when we decide to honor our commitment to freedom and the constitution and when we don't. You sit here trying to rationalize a national strategy of disarmament similar to Europes... Well that didn't stop any of the attacks in France this year.
In fact our "strategy" for defending another 9/11 involved arming pilots. DHS was merely putting existing agency's under one house. The TSA is theatre and has been demonstrated time and time again to be a failure (kinda like signs saying "no guns") but armed pilots and air marshals carrying guns... That's a strategy apparently.
Wonder why you keep demanding we do the opposite by creating more and more places where people cannot defend themselves or preventing movements to fund and expand armed responders in those areas.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Terrorists have been an exception. Other than that, most EU countries don't have a gun problem like we do.
You're actually making my point. Did the religion kill the people? Or did the gun? It was the gun, in the hands of nutbags. Islamic terrorist, or mentally sick, whichever label you'd like to describe someone in the United States who uses a gun and commits a mass shooting.
Europe hasn't completely disarmed. Plenty of countries allow responsible ownership and people have guns there.
Really? Are you just picking and choosing the facts you use? Ignoring all the ones that don't fit your objective?
How about all the bombings in the middle east. Almost on a daily basis. So how legal is it for the public to get explosives. Yet still happens every....single.....day. With scores killed. Explosives are outlawed for just about everyone. Yet still people get access to them to take innocent lives.
How about the recent knife attacks all over. How about the one in June in Japan, 19 killed. Or Kunming with 29 civilians dead and over 130 injured. Or London 1 dead 5 seriously injured. Should we ban assault knives? Anything longer than 3 inches? Anything with a serrated edge.
These laws you ask for only make people defenseless. It isn't the tool, its the person. That gun doesn't go off on its own. A nut bag is going to kill regardless of the tool he/she has at hand.
19 foreign terrorists did that, not Americans.
So then, if we don't allow foreign Muslims into the country, no problem right?
So then, if we don't allow foreign Muslims into the country, no problem right?
I'm not saying take your gun away. I'm saying lets find a way and stop the nutjobs (mental sick problem) people from getting guns legally. There's got to be a way to work that in the legal framework that keeps both sides relatively at peace.
There's no perfect solution though. Much like keeping those with DUIs from driving a car. You can suspend or revoke their drivers license, so they legally can't drive a car. But that won't physically prevent them from driving a car if they so desire and get the keys or possibly even steal one. Laws will only do so much against someone hell bent on breaking them or with no respect for them.
And here's how you know we have a gun culture problem:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mp-40-cent-soaring-demand-mass-shootings.html
Smith Wesson sales up 40% after a shooting.
" In the wake of the massacre at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, sales of high-powered automatic rifles soared.
One Georgia gun seller saw 35 AR-15s - the semi-automatic weapon used in the Orlando shooting- fly off the shelf in a span of three hours. Typically, the store sells just two per day. "
THAT is a gun culture problem. It's no longer self defense, or hunting, or target shooting, or even hobby purpose. This is an out-of-spite purchase because "OMG! Obama is gonna come in a black helicopter and take our guns!" Or, "I better get that AR before the state bans it." Really?
This is a gun culture problem. Obama was right, people really do cling to guns and religion.