If they were illegal, no they wouldn't maintain their fucking guns after they haven't been able to use them for a decade. And if you're talking about in the now, are you serious? People have guns stolen all the fucking time.
Most guns from crimes are obtained legally, then sold on the 2nd hand market. They aren't coming from Jax Teller and the Sons of Anarchy via Hamas, or organically grown in Columbia, so it is a lame talking point to say "criminals will get guns anyway." A study a few months ago found that the majority of guns in Chicago crimes were bought legally in nearby states like Indiana and resold 2nd hand. They also buy in bulk at gun shows for resale. There are many rational things that can be done to reduce gun violence without taking away guns and becoming a homosexual socialist utopia, but the argument turns into "derp you can't Eliminate all gun violence, so why try? Why do 1st world countries with gun restrictions have exponentially less gun violence? (Well derp they Aint got as many naggers and beaners!) Why do I have to pay tax and register a tag and title for a vehicle, yet there is no requirement for guns in most states? Why do I have to pay car insurance? I've never been in a car accident or received a citation... Why can't people obtain a firearm license and show it in order to purchase Ammo? The NSA already knows who likes to visit ar15.com, so not registering your guns and joining the Michigan militia isn't gonna save you from the impending Obama apocalypse. Ammo supplies collapsed after the freak out after Sandy Hook, there isnt an infinite supply of ammo out there, regardless of handloaders. ammo supplies can be reduced in ways that Dont take away the 2nd amendment. 2nd amendment doesn't say what the price of ammo should be. Government could impose quotas on ammo/gun production which raises the prices but reduces supply. This is how sustainable commercial fishing laws work.... The market cost of guns doesn't account for their social costs. It's a negative externality which economics offers dozens of solutions and real world examples that work to improve the market failure. I have no problem with concealed weapons.But how is having a gun going to prevent you from being taken hostage? It's a hypothetical situation where you assume a gun Will protect you. Pulling out a gun can escalate a situation, maybe a guy that was just going to rob you panics and shoots you, or maybe the guy pointing a gun at you already decided he is going to kill you, and unlike the movies you can't just whip out a concealed weapon when the other guy is already pointing a weapon at you. Concealed weapons are mostly a false sense of security. Take some Krav Maga training if you need to learn how defend against weapons. Gun massacres are a symptom of a larger problem, something that white suburbia doesn't understand. how does owning a gun prevent a stray bullet from killing your 4 year old? Every year black kids gets killed on the south side by stray bullets. That is a world that white suburbia and their "gun rights" can't even begin to understand, the "It's not "my" problem because I live in a white suburb" rational.
Why liberals should love the Second Amendment by Kaili Joy Gray for Daily Kos July 4th, 2010 Liberals love the Constitution. Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization. During the dark days of the Bush Administration, membership doubled because so many Americans feared increasing restrictions on their civil liberties. If you were to ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they would invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus." There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales. And while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them. Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties. Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms. When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as "gun nuts." They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats. And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties. Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with preventing crime. So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights. And this is why: No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights. If you've read the Bill of Rights -- and who among us hasn't? -- you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them: "the people." First Amendment ~ ...the right of the people peaceably to assemble Second Amendment ~ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Fourth Amendment ~ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects... Ninth Amendment ~ ...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people Tenth Amendment ~ ...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government. We would not condone a state-regulated news organization. We certainly would not condone state regulation of religion. We talk about "separation of church and state," although there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment. But we know what they meant. The anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights; they intended for our rights to be interpreted expansively. We believe the Founders intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government. And yet, despite the recent Heller and McDonald decisions, liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right. They take the position that the Founders intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment, even though they are so positively clear about what that phrase means in the First Amendment. If we can agree that the First Amendment protects not only powerful organizations such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but also the individual commenter on the internet, the individual at the anti-war rally, the individual driving the car with the "Fuck Bush" bumper sticker, can we not also agree that the Second Amendment's use of "the people" has the same meaning? But it's different! The Second Amendment is talking about the militia! If you want to "bear arms," join the National Guard! Right? Wrong. The United States Militia Code: (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Aside from the fact that the National Guard did not exist in the 1700s, the term "militia" does not mean "National Guard," even today. The code clearly states that two classes comprise the militia: the National Guard and Naval Militia, and everyone else. Everyone else. Individuals. The People. The Founders well understood that the militia is the people, for it was not only the right but the obligation of all citizens to protect and preserve their liberty and to defend themselves from the tyranny of the government. And fighting against the tyranny of the government is certainly a liberal value. No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties. All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights. But we don't like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that certain restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth. We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment. But when it comes further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms, liberals are not even silent; they are vociferously in favor of such restrictions. Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Chicago and Washington D.C. bans on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable, even though the Supreme Court has said otherwise. Would we tolerate such a sweeping regulation of, say, the Thirteenth Amendment? ~Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. What if a member of Congress -- say, a Republican from a red state in the south -- were to introduce a bill that permits enslaving black women? Would we consider that reasonable? It's not like the law would enslave all people, or even all black people. Just the women. There's no mention of enslaving women in the Thirteenth Amendment. Clearly, when Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, he didn't intend to free all the slaves. And we restrict all the other Amendments, so obviously the Thirteenth Amendment is not supposed to be absolute. What's the big deal? Except that such an argument is ridiculous, of course. Liberals would take to the streets, send angry letters to their representatives in Washington, organize marches, call progressive radio programs to quote, verbatim, the Thirteenth Amendment. Quite bluntly, although not literally, liberals would be up in arms. And yet...A ban on all handguns seems reasonable to many liberals. Never mind that of 192 million firearms in America, 65 million -- about one third -- are handguns. Such a narrow interpretation of this particular right is inconsistent with the otherwise broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights. And just as conservatives weaken their own arguments about protecting the Second Amendment when they will not fight as vigilantly for protecting all the others, so too do liberals weaken their arguments for civil liberties, when they pick and choose which civil liberties they deem worthy of defense. No. 3: It doesn't matter that it's not 1776 anymore. When the Founders drafted the Bill of Rights, they could not have imagined machine guns. Or armor-piercing bullets (which are not available to the public anyway, and are actually less lethal than conventional ammunition). Or handguns that hold 18 rounds. A drive-by shooting, back in 1776, would have been a guy on a horse with a musket. Of course, they couldn't have imagined the internet, either. Or 24-hour cable news networks. Or talk radio. When they drafted the First Amendment, did they really mean to protect the rights of Bill O'Reilly to make incredibly stupid, and frequently inaccurate, statements for an entire hour, five nights a week? Actually, yes. They did. Bill O'Reilly bilious ravings, and Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, and the insipid chatter of the entire cast of the Today show are, and were intended to be, protected by the First Amendment. Liberals are supposed to understand that just because we don't agree with something doesn't mean it is not protected. At least when it comes to the First Amendment. And one's personal dislike of guns should be no better a reason for fighting against the Second Amendment than should one's personal dislike of Bill O'Reilly justify fighting against the First Amendment. And yet, when discussing the Second Amendment, liberals become obtuse in their literalism. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to own all guns. Or all ammunition. It doesn't protect the right of the people as individuals. Liberals will defend the right of Cindy Sheehan to wear an anti-war T-shirt, even though the First Amendment says nothing about T-shirts. They will defend the rights of alleged terrorists to a public trial, even though the Founders certainly could not have imagined a world in which terrorists would plot to blow up building with airplanes. But we do not quibble about the methods by which we practice our First Amendment rights because methodology is not the point. Red herring arguments about types of ammunition or magazine capacity or handguns versus rifles are just that -- red herrings. They distract us from the underlying purpose of that right -- to ensure a free society that can hold its government accountable. The Second Amendment is no more about guns than the First Amendment is about quill pens. No. 4: It doesn't matter if you can use it. Fine, you say. Have your big, scary guns. It's not like you actually stand a chance in fighting against the United States government. The Army has bigger, badder weapons than any private citizen. Your most deadly gun is no match for their tanks, their helicopters, their atom bombs. Maybe two hundred years ago, citizens stood a chance in a fight against government, but not today. The Second Amendment is obsolete. Tell that to the Iraqi "insurgents" who are putting up a pretty good fight against our military might with fairly primitive weapons. The Second Amendment is obsolete? What other rights might be considered obsolete in today's day and age? ~No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. When was the last time a soldier showed up at your door and said, "I'll be staying with you for the indefinite future"? It's probably been a while. But of course, were it to happen, you'd dust off your Third Amendment and say, "I don't think so, pal." And you'd be right. What about the Twenty-Sixth Amendment? How much use does that get? ~The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. We all know the youth vote is typically pretty abysmal. Those lazy kids can barely get out of bed before noon, let alone get themselves to the voting booth. If they're not going to use their Twenty-Sixth Amendment rights, shouldn't we just delete the damn thing altogether? Hell no. And this is why liberals work so hard to get out and rock the vote -- to encourage citizens to exercise their rights. That is our obligation as citizens, to protect against the government infringing upon our rights by making full use of them. And yet, when it comes to the Second Amendment, liberals do not fight to protect that right. Instead them demand more laws. Regulate, regulate, regulate -- until the Second Amendment is nearly regulated out of existence because no one needs to have a gun anyway. And that, sadly, is the biggest mistake of all. No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution. In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night. It is the right of revolution. Let me say that again: It is the right of revolution. ~Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government. To alter or abolish the government. These are not mild words; they are powerful. They are revolutionary. The Founders might never have imagined automatic weapons. But they probably also never imagined a total ban on handguns either. We talk about the First Amendment as a unique and revolutionary concept -- that we have the right to criticize our government. Does it matter whether we do so while standing on a soapbox on the corner of the street or on a blog? No. Because the concept, not the methodology, is what matters. And the Second Amendment is no different. It is not about how much ammunition is "excessive" or what types of guns are and are not permissible. Liberals cling to such minutia at the expense of understanding and appreciating the larger concept that underlies this right. So. What is the point? Is this a rallying cry for liberals to rush right out and purchase a gun? Absolutely not. Guns are dangerous when used by people who are not trained to use them, just as cars are dangerous when driven by people who have not been taught how to drive. No, this is a rallying cry for the Bill of Rights -- for all of our rights. This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "I just don't like guns." This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "No one needs that much ammunition." This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "That's not what the Founders meant." This is an appeal to every liberal who supports the ACLU. This is an appeal to every liberal who has complained about the Bush Administration's trading of our civil liberties for the illusion of greater security. (I believe I’ve seen a T-shirt or two about Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on that.) This is an appeal to every liberal who believes in fighting against the abuses of government, against the infringement of our civil liberties, and for the greater expansion of our rights. This is an appeal to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will not protect their Second Amendment rights. This is an appeal to liberals, not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others. Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights -- for all of our rights, for all people -- is what we do.
I'll have you know that I brought in an awesome haul at the record store this afternoon, and I have spent most the night drinking Topo Chico and listening to my new vinyl. #getonmylevel
Were you serious about being on a state skeet shooting championship team? And I dont beliebe someone would "own" a couple of shotguns and rifles, but be completely freaked out about having a handgun in the house.
I probably own as many firearms as (if not more than) anybody on this website, but that doesn't make me trust other legal gun owners to not lose guns or have them stolen.
Hey guys, gay marriage is legal, so if you could just forget about the whole gun control thing that would be great.
My dad was a county extension agent. I don't know what to tell you dude. I like shooting, I like hunting, but I also wish I didn't have to worry about a random person having a handgun on them at all times. I can see why that causes a lot of unnecessary deadly violence.
So, you made the case that the more strict gun control laws in the Chicago area do not keep people from purchasing and owning guns, yet think gun control laws will improve the situation? I have been thinking about this issue extensively this week. I am not so opposed to gun control laws in a vacuum. I completely see understand the ideology and could possibly even support stricter gun control in theory. I am opposed to additional gun control laws because I do not think that they work in application. I also think that the majority of these mass shootings are committed by individuals that are in desperate need of psychological care. I do not think that a person that is mentally sound kills 10 people at a movie theatre. If I thought that increased gun control would eliminate mass shootings, unnecessary violent deaths, and would allow only responsible gun owners to own a firearm, I would wholeheartedly support these laws. I do not see a way for the government to differentiate between a mentally stable and responsible gun owner and a person with a mental illness or a person prone to violence. Is there a way to determine that a person with certain mental illnesses should not be allowed to own a weapon although that is clearly a discriminatory action? Would controlling access to guns force people with certain issues to hide these issues? Would depression, that is unbelievably common, qualify or do we focus more on bipolar/schizo/etc? Do we allow people that are adequately treated to own a weapon knowing that at any time they could choose not to take medications that stabilize their mental state. I do not think the law should take the rights of responsible citizens because certain people are not capable of making good decisions, but I would support realistic checks and balances if I thought that they would work. Realistic checks and balances are not, "the AR/AK/Uzi sounds like a scary weapon and no one should own one." However, I completely understand why the average citizen should not own a truly automatic weapon.
Quietly, Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violence http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence
This doesn't work because it's just the Chicago area. People can go right outside Chicago, buy guns, then bring them into Chicago. If you control/police them across the entire country this problem is greatly reduced. It's a lot tougher to bring illegal arms across a border than driving 30 minutes away.
Mentioned it in the Staten Island thread and don't want to jam it up, but what do you think the outcome of a hypothetical situation of an Arab dressed in Arab garb walking around in public open carrying? I'm against anyone doing it but seeing that would definitely freak me out.
Come on. There is a reason the only people that do that stupid open carry shit are white dudes. Anyone not white is getting shot.
exactly. The reason you can't get heroin in Chicago is because its illegal nationwide and nobody has figured out a way to get goods or people into the country that don't belong here.
I love that you constantly do shit like this. Then when I ask you (like I will right now) you ignore that. So give me an example of a shitty analogy I've used.
You live in the ghetto or something? A cop stops traffic for me and my dog to walk across the street so I can buy booze in my hood.
And when the "good guys with guns" bring them to work.... http://www.cbs46.com/story/29573194/man-accidentally-shoots-self-at-military-recruiting-office
It's pretty simple to me. I grew up with guns in the house, and I was taught how to shoot and how to use them safely. If your were raised the same, then I have no problem with you also owning guns. The rest of you? No. Sorry. If you are afraid of guns, or you don't respect firearms, then I don't want your any where near them. If you want to get educated and acquire that knowledge, great - welcome to the club of responsible gun owners. Will that stop all gun accidents? No. Will that stop all whack jobs from having guns? No. Will it make sure that the majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners? Yes. Irresponsible gun owners are criminals. Put them in jail, just like with all other criminals. Being a responsible gun owner has nothing to do with guns used in crimes.
Gun Violence: Third Of Global Public Mass Shootings Happen In US, Says Study New analysis has shown that although the U.S. only makes up 5 percent of the global population, the country has seen 31 percent of global public mass shootings between 1966 and 2012. The research, which is set to be presented at the 110th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA), was based on data from the New York City Police Department's 2012 active shooter report, the FBI's 2014 active shooter report, and multiple international sources. The report claims to be the first of its kind to quantify all reported mass public shootings which have resulted in the deaths of at least four people. However, gang related crime, drive-by shootings, hostage situations and robberies have not been taken into consideration. Author Adam Lankford, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Alabama, says: "The United States, Yemen, Switzerland, Finland, and Serbia are ranked as the Top 5 countries in firearms owned per capita, according to the 2007 Small Arms Survey, and my study found that all five are ranked in the Top 15 countries in public mass shooters per capita. That is not a coincidence. http://www.ibtimes.com/gun-violence-third-global-public-mass-shootings-happen-us-says-study-2064534
Houston teen kills himself while taking a selfie with a gun By Ed Payne, CNN Updated 9:40 AM ET, Wed September 2, 2015 CNN affiliate KPRC reported. Family members were shocked. "It's the worst feeling in my life," Eric Douglas, the victim's uncle said. "It's a numb feeling. It's still unbelievable," Smith's grandmother Alma Douglas told the station. "Yesterday was my birthday and he came to wish me happy birthday, and then to hear this kind of news." Investigator's told KPRC that Smith's cousin was in another room at the time the gun went off. The cousin told police they found the gun earlier in the day. They're investigating. http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/02/us/man-selfie-shooting/index.html
We're one of the only advanced countries in the world where you can literally go down the street and buy a gun anytime you want................ We also have many many more mass shootings than any of those other advanced countries............
bumping this. Interesting lawsuit. Cliffs: Amish man wants to buy a gun. Amish man has to show photo ID. Photos are against the Amish religious beliefs. Amish man is denied gun. Sues. The Amish have been involved in several landmark Supreme Court Cases, all involving religion Spoiler Amish man sues to buy firearm without photo ID in gun rights, religious freedom lawsuit Lately, Americans have argued both about their right to bear arms and whether the free exercise of religion allows businesses and state officials to claim exemptions from requirements that conflict with their religious beliefs. It’s not everyday, however, that the two issues, guns and religion, wind up together in a single case. In a suit that brings together the Second Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an Amish man filed a federal lawsuit in Pennsylvania last week because he wants to buy a gun without the required photo ID — and because getting that photo ID would violate his religious beliefs. Andrew Hertzler, according to the suit, is from Lancaster County, Pa., and is an “active and practicing” member of the community; his “parents, grandparents, and siblings are all active and practicing Amish”; and he “has a sincerely held religious belief that prevents him from knowingly and willingly having his photograph taken and stored.” ADVERTISING “The Amish faith prohibits an individual from having his/her photograph taken,” the suit read. “This belief stems from the Biblical passage Exodus 20:4, which mandates that ‘You shall not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth,’ as well as the Christian belief in humility.” But Hertzler’s humility caused a problem when, in June, he tried to buy a gun from a Pennsylvania dealer “using a non-photo, state-issued identification.” This wasn’t enough, according to the dealer — Hertzler was told he needed a picture ID. So Hertzler took it up with his senator. Alas, though Sen. Pat Toomey (R) forwarded Hertzler’s response to the ATF, he could not help his constituent. “As the enclosed response [from the ATF] states, Federal firearm laws require photo identification when purchasing a firearm,” Toomey wrote. “There are no exceptions to this federal requirement.” Hertzler was caught in a Catch-22: To enjoy his rights under the Second Amendment, he would have to violate his faith — or vice-versa. It could not stand. “Mr. Hertzler confronts Hobson’s choice: either forego his constitutional right to keep and bear arms in defense of himself and his home, or violate his religion,” the suit read. Yet: “The exercise of one Constitutional right cannot be contingent upon the violation or waiver of another.” “By knowingly and willingly sitting for a photograph, even for a state-issued identification document, Mr. Hertzler would be violating his religion by taking a graven image of himself,” the suit read. “Thus, Mr. Hertzler’s religious freedom has been substantially burdened — in order to exercise his fundamental right to possess a firearm for defense of himself and his home, the Government is requiring him to violate a major tenet of his sincerely held religious belief.” It was just this outcome, Hertzler’s suit argued, that Congress sought to avoid by passing RFRA in 1993. And it is some states’ versions of this law that are at the center of the Kim Davis controversy over gay marriage in Kentucky, the Memories Pizza stand-off in Indiana, the bakery dust-up in Colorado, and other confrontations between people of faith refusing to provide services to same-sex couples. [When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?] The Amish have been fighting for religious exemptions for decades, losing some cases and winning some, most notably a 1972 landmark in which the Supreme Court held that they could exempt themselves from compulsory education laws on religious grounds. Whether Hertzler can prevail in his case will depend on whether a judge finds that his right to exercise his religion outweighs the government’s interest in requiring photo identification for the issuance of gun permits. While the Supreme Court has not ruled on photo identification religious exemptions for such purposes as drivers’ licenses and voter ID, lower courts have generally “been willing to recognize photo identification as a compelling purpose” that outweighs religious claims, according to a Congressional Research Service study of the issue, provided the photo requirement is “applied uniformly and without exemption.” Unlike in other recent cases, Hertzler wasn’t trying to marry another man — a right the Supreme Court only ruled on this past summer. He was trying to exercise a centuries-old constitutional right. And the path forward is not clear. “At a time when there’s been such a loud clamor to ‘do something’ about guns — and ‘doing something’ always involves more restrictions — if the courts agree with Hertzler, it will ultimately amount to fewer restrictions,” columnist Gil Smart wrote at Lancaster Online. “Although I don’t think we have to worry too much about the Amish and gun crime — unless, maybe, they’re the victims.” Hertzler is not the only Amish man who wants to pack heat, as stories about Amish in several states worried about photo IDs and their gun rights have shown. “A lot of the Amish hunt and they usually use squirrel or rabbit rifles to bring some food back home,” Douglas County Sheriff Charlie McGrew said after a change in Illinois state law required Amish to have photo ID to buy guns in 2011. “Their big concern is this means they won’t be able to purchase guns or ammo.”
You want to live in a world where people have IDs and cars and normal facial hair but you can't because your Giant Ghost Overseer in the sky says you can't? Sounds like your problem, Jebidiah. The camera ain't gonna steal your soul. You can have a picture taken.
Think about the potentially millions of dollars Pennsylvanians are going to pay in this lawsuit because some loon things cameras are the work of the devil.
They live in Amish country, it's probably not hard to avoid cameras. It's not like they are in London.
Those people don't spend every moment of their existence in isolation. I've seen more Amish in fucking Walmart than in "Amish Country"