npub1kpwlxpzkxfmuxjmzc2wp3rf9vjg0sgydmlhsnrgqr3maf59h86qqdxxzz4 (npub1kpw…xzz4) Firstly, this is from last year, it's not new. Secondly, it's based on some bizarre legal theory, creating a legal principle that did not previously exist and does not make sense: specifically, that the state can pass gun control laws only if there is are "historical roots" for the law in question. So it's (again) the court making up the law it wants, rather than the law it's got.
Thirdly though, and most importantly, why is this a good thing? You're a gun nut, I get it, and that's fine - you're a responsible gun owner and all that.* But why does the fact that responsible owners are responsible mean that it's a good thing for everyone to be given a gun for the asking, even if there is no reason to believe they know what they're doing or will be responsible? We don't give cars to people who haven't demonstrated they can drive safely, for the good and sufficient reason that in incompetent hands they're lethal, and cars aren't even designed to be lethal weapons.
*Personally, I don't get why you would have a need to carry a gun in public, and open carry in particular is physically intimidating to others in the same way that walking around with a large and aggressive dog is. So I must say I think it's particularly anti-social. But that's not a safety issue, merely a courtesy one.
Ben Taylor /
npub1cf…89shx
2023-09-16 09:42:30
in reply to nevent1q…eu3z
Author Public Key
npub1cfsyjejpdzc8tam45nnmuk5gdfnwuqtzc8z6x768adhhcxund0kqx89shxPublished at
2023-09-16 09:42:30Event JSON
{
"id": "458ece5cb12dd058b112af25518ec33f487870597cb6ce4bafd41f11fe1e50be",
"pubkey": "c26049664168b075f775a4e7be5a886a66ee0162c1c5a37b47eb6f7c1b936bec",
"created_at": 1694857350,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"b05df304563277c34b62c29c188d256490f8208ddfef098d001c77d4d0b73e80",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"12da98a3a66fb47b43526b1b241e91df632bfd4058dc5364938dc932fe931118",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"e",
"aa56e8edcd90c81d74dc9ccf985e1280e0f0ce2aaa6e4f192c8267a4bef00a0b",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://qoto.org/users/VoxDei/statuses/111074171308763205",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "nostr:npub1kpwlxpzkxfmuxjmzc2wp3rf9vjg0sgydmlhsnrgqr3maf59h86qqdxxzz4 Firstly, this is from last year, it's not new. Secondly, it's based on some bizarre legal theory, creating a legal principle that did not previously exist and does not make sense: specifically, that the state can pass gun control laws only if there is are \"historical roots\" for the law in question. So it's (again) the court making up the law it wants, rather than the law it's got.\n\nThirdly though, and most importantly, why is this a good thing? You're a gun nut, I get it, and that's fine - you're a responsible gun owner and all that.* But why does the fact that responsible owners are responsible mean that it's a good thing for everyone to be given a gun for the asking, even if there is no reason to believe they know what they're doing or will be responsible? We don't give cars to people who haven't demonstrated they can drive safely, for the good and sufficient reason that in incompetent hands they're lethal, and cars aren't even designed to be lethal weapons.\n\n*Personally, I don't get why you would have a need to carry a gun in public, and open carry in particular is physically intimidating to others in the same way that walking around with a large and aggressive dog is. So I must say I think it's particularly anti-social. But that's not a safety issue, merely a courtesy one.",
"sig": "a5d8a7830a4cea7d7ce5ed04a0ef22430861ae4fc81fc36036af769102d93f07f8122ca480462f64bff4c9c7df71772c73bdb92abefa11a89b9a0ab4b0966ba3"
}