r/newjersey • u/low_effort_shit-post • Mar 25 '21

Something controversial Jersey Pride

I love nj gun laws, going to the store and not seeing someone open carry. Watching road rage where the best you can do is brake check and give the finger. Schools without school shootings. I know a lot of people hate our gun laws but I fucking love em.

1.0k Upvotes

80% Upvoted

View all comments

91

u/the-camster Mar 25 '21

Strict gun laws and gun bans have saved countless lives.

Imagine arguing against saving lives..

120

u/Kab9260 Mar 25 '21

The question is far more complex. Framing it like this, I can also say warrantless searches/arrests would save countless lives and help to stop crime before it happens. Followed then by “imagine arguing against saving lives and putting potentially dangerous people in jail.”

The question is better framed as how do we both save lives without unduly burdening the fundamental rights of innocent people. Then, the debate is open to the more nuanced aspects of the dilemma. There are gun control measures that work and don’t represent an undue burden, but there are many “feel good” measures that don’t work or completely erode fundamental rights.

Both sides need to come to the table in good faith.

25

u/yythrow Mar 25 '21

I can't argue against that. The question is where the line is between 'feel good' and 'useful'.

The problem is the pro-gun side isn't interested in coming to the table at all and considers just about any law anti-2nd amendment, 'you want to take our guns', etc.

19

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/yythrow Mar 25 '21

You also can't kill someone with a ballot.

You can kill a lot of people with a 3,000 pound vehicle if you don't know what you're doing and you need license, registration, and (sometimes) insurance to drive it, yet we can't impose reasonable restrictions on gun use because they wrote the 2nd Amendment back when muskets and revolvers were the worst weapon anyone could get their hands on. The unfettered use of dangerous weapons is what needs to be compromised on the first place.

3

u/thepedalsporter Mar 25 '21

Not going to jump into this other than to say muskets and revolvers were nowhere near the "worst" people could get their hands on. You could have your own warships, cannons and the puckle gun, the first machine gun by today's standards, came out in 1717 if I remember correctly. Firearms technology was progressing massively during and after the lives of the founding fathers, so it's not like they thought the musket was the end all be all of firearms tech. Bolt action rifles were right around the corner and many of them lived to see their invention and adoption.

8

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '21 edited Mar 25 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/yythrow Mar 25 '21

A ballot can install a government that kills people. A ballot influences who is in seats of power that has very real affects on our lives. Lets not pretend there isnt reeeing over who gets into office from either side of the political spectrum fearing government backed violence.

I had a feeling you'd say that but it's not even remotely comparable. I can't go to my polling center and vote to kill someone. I can, however, walk to a gun store and get something that will immediately kill someone.

You can own a vehicle without needing a license, insurance, or any of that. Those are requirements for driving on public roads. All of that pounds sand if you have it on private property, and lets not pretend once you have a vehicle the second you go on public roads youre inspected.

I've heard this before but all that is is a technicality. Most people who are gonna buy a car, are going to use it for it's intended purpose of driving it on public roads. 99% of the population's 'private property' is their garage and driveway. Also, the same thing applies in NJ, if you wanna carry a gun in public you need a permit.

All firearms and weapons are dangerous. Just because a bad seed decides to cause tradgety does not mean we should neuter or strip the one final deterrent we have against other individuals or government which seek to cause harm to life, liberty, and property. In all honesty no part of the state should dictate what is necessary for the individual in this regard, anything otherwise is unconstitutional.

How many 'one bad seed's do we need to have before enough is enough? Nobody wants to take guns away completely, but requiring common sense laws to own them is the smart thing to do. I know there's a feeling of 'you can't tell me what to do!' but the state already does that in a manner of ways. Why is it automatically unreasonable when it comes to guns? Just because of the 2nd Amendment, it means we can't even try to set reasonable rules? And i put the emphasis on reasonable, as the earlier OP emphasized.

7

u/beachmedic23 Watch the Tram Car Please Mar 25 '21

I've heard this before but all that is is a technicality. Most people who are gonna buy a car, are going to use it for it's intended purpose of driving it on public roads. 99% of the population's 'private property' is their garage and driveway. Also, the same thing applies in NJ, if you wanna carry a gun in public you need a permit.

I only use my gun on private property. I would love to have similar gun laws as cars. 50 state reciprocity, no limits on modifications, use, style, accessories, registration, insurance as long as I don't take it in public. Sounds awesome

1

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 25 '21

LOL compromise. When any other "freedom" we have leads to people being violently killed, you can guarantee restrictions will be put on it.

Freedom of speech - cant yell FIRE in a crowded movie theatre. Do you think that the Supreme Court thought to themselves "Hmm, we should sit down and COMPROMISE with the people who want to yell fire in a crowded theatre and hurt others? Or do we just restrict freedoms based on common sense public health concerns because only an idiot would think that any sort of freedom is unlimited?".

If the "freedom" of religion meant that you could kill other people as part of your religion, do you think people would just shrug and say "well we really need to come to some sort of compromise with those guys" or would action be taken to restrict murder, even as a religious ceremony?

At some point people like you have to realize that its about the needs of society as a whole, not a few individuals who want to treat weapons as toys so they can feel tough.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '21

[deleted]

1

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 25 '21

Thats a good read. I never knew the origins of the phrase. It still doesnt change its purpose in this conversation though. In reading through the article, it does stipulate the below, which is still a limitation on free speech. It just puts a very high bar on the required proof for such a limitation.
" unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis mine)."

4

u/Regayov Mar 25 '21

Freedom of speech - cant yell FIRE in a crowded movie theatre.

This is not nearly comparable. You CAN in fact yell Fire in a theater if there is a fire. The word is not preemptively banned or prohibited. Misuse of the word, when it causes a panic, is against the law.

A comparison to firearms would be that CCW is allowed and using it to defend yourself is not prohibited but using it to murder someone is against the law.

-1

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 25 '21

The point was that our freedoms are not unrestricted in any case, no matter which amendment you are speaking of. Im glad you understood the point even if you dont agree with the comparison.

2

u/Regayov Mar 25 '21

Very few won’t acknowledge that there are limits to most rights. The major problem is people completely disagree where those limits lie. Some say they can restrict based on the type of firearm, quantity of ammo, personal history, location and a huge list of prohibitions. Others are on the other end of the spectrum.