Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ta0987 2392 days ago
Because, unlike with guns, nobody is trying to ban cars.

And to the most common objection: yes they are. Gun control proponents often bring up and praise the UK (near total ban) and Australia (significant limitations compared to the U.S.) as examples to emulate.

And in Chicago and DC, before the Supreme Court cases, there were effectively total bans. And when the plaintiffs sued, they didn't say, "well I guess we went a little too far, let's establish a regulated framework under which responsible, qualified and trained citizens can own guns". Instead, they went all the way to the Supreme Court to try to defend their bans.

So, even if a gun owner agrees with a particular piece of proposed regulation (and I'm sure plenty do), they would be acting against their own long term interests giving the block trying to ban guns political momentum and capital.
2 comments
ajuc 2392 days ago
> Because, unlike with guns, nobody is trying to ban cars.

That's actually wrong. Gun control isn't banning guns, and if you consider background checks a "ban" - then driving licence requirement is a "ban on cars" :)

If someone had the bright idea to put the right to drive a car in constitution - Americans would be now arguing whether countrywide requirement to have a driving licence to drive a car is ok or not :)

link
ta0987 2392 days ago
Not sure how to reply if you just ignore everything I wrote that addresses that.
link
ajuc 2391 days ago
Your first assumption (that cars are less regulated than guns) is wrong, why refer to the rest of the post if I can just show it's wrong.
link
ta09876 2391 days ago
Where did I assume that?

I said that there is a large political block trying to ban guns. Not that they are banned, or that they are more regulated than cars. Is that what you're referring to?

link
CompanionCuuube 2392 days ago
> Instead, they went all the way to the Supreme Court to try to defend their bans.

Their current tactic is to revoke a law that makes it too far into the judicial system to avoid having it receive constitutional review by the Supreme Court and thereby invalidate it nationally.

It speaks volumes to the underhandedness of the gun control proponents.

link