• spyd3r@sh.itjust.works
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Yesterday’s compromise is tomorrow’s loophole…

    We don’t need more gun control, we need ‘criminal control’. If you commit a serious violent crime, you need to go away and not come back out, ever. Taking away the rights of the people who don’t commit crimes is never the answer.

    • ours@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      What kind of distopian nightmare are you wishing for? All crimes come with a life sentence?

      You better hope you never make a mistake in your life and fear as all criminals now have everything to lose if they get caught.

      A simple robbery? Might as well turn it into multiple homicide. Can’t leave witnesses behind and risk life.

    • UnpluggedFridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      We do not give people the right to own nuclear warheads, despite the plain text of the 2nd amendment suggesting we have that right (the right to arms, not just guns). Compelling public interest requires a limit on this right. I don’t think any reasonable person would disagree with this premise. The question comes down to what level of potential body count/property damage constitutes a compelling public interest? Focusing on guns specifically is a distraction. If we invented a firearm that could level a city would everyone have a right to own one?