this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
133 points (97.2% liked)
Not The Onion
12273 readers
2104 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Isn't it like that in a lot of countries? Not only do you need to apply to get a gun permit in the first place and there's only a handful of valid reasons (like being a forester) and you also have to renew it every X years so that if the reason no longer applies, you can no longer own a gun.
yeah but those countries have managed to update their laws within the last 233 years
I think about how if personal cars had been a thing when the bill of rights was written, if they would have written an amendment like "the right to travel being a vital part of the state, the right to drive a vehicle shall not be infringed ".
Today we'd have all sorts of problems. People would say driver's licenses were unconditional. Requiring corrective lenses would be thrown out. Any vehicle inspections for safety or efficiency would be gone. People would be driving tanks around and destroying roads while screaming about their 2nd-prime amendment rights.
So I have two points. One: unbounded rules are a bad idea. Two: just because the constitution says something doesn't mean it's a good idea.