I mean, it's not like people would use bitcoin for *illegal* activities, right?
It goes both ways. The gun rights lobby opposes any and all forms of regulation, even the most common-sense, because they fear exactly the scenario you describe: If the government is allowed any power to regulate guns, that power could be deliberately mis-applied to restrict access.
This is why there has been intense opposition to things like restrictions on high-capacity magazines, or requiring less environmentally-damaging alternatives to lead shot.
The situation is paralleled in abortion, and has a similar effect: It forces political pressure groups to the extremes. Either prohibit entirely, or allow without restriction, both of which are not what the public in general desires.
One of the reasons for this is the gun rights crowd "compromised" in the past. Then, once the dust settled, the gun control crowd start calling those compromises "loopholes" and start trying to close them. As a result, gun rights folk are unwilling to "compromise" because such proposed compromises aren't compromises at all...
Look at the so-called "gunshow loophole". Once upon a time, a carefully-negotiated exemption to the FFL laws was to allow 2 citizens in the same state the ability to transfer guns infrequently among themselves without the red tape of going through a dealer. Nowadays, this scenario is pitched as a loophole because people congregate (either at a fairgrounds or a website) to do exactly what was negotiated as an exemption.
The gun control crowd knows they're not going to lose the FFL system, so nothing stops them from coming after all the exceptions they negotiated in order to get the FFL system passed...
Too late, just turned 59.
Then no second amendment guns for you. Did you have to give them up? Why do you push such an idiotic line when you know it is not true yourself?
it is a separate thing from the 2nd Amendment
... Reading comprehension, dude
Since you are tying them all in together to try to justify an argument you'd better work on that reading comprehension - unless you are deliberately lying like that traitor running the NRA Oliver North.
Because turning 59 just means he's not automatically in the militia. However, did you notice how the 2nd Amendment doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms"?
It's not hard to figure out. Citizen militias are important. Since citizen militias are important, the ability to form them must be protected. Arms are the single most important piece of equipment required to form a citizen militia. Therefore, protecting the citizen's ability to own and operate arms is important.
Quoting from the Militia Acts just strengthens the point that despite the word "militia" being included in the amendment, it's clear that the right belongs to THE PEOPLE, not THE MILITIA. Because when it was written, "the militia" was synonymous to "the people".
And this is before we even get into the 9th and 10th Amendment arguments regarding firearm ownership...
If you were planing on using them against the United States Military when Crooked Hilary gets elected it'll be too late by then. You and your AR-15 don't stand a chance against a modern mechanized army with supply lines and tactical training.
Which perfectly explains why the US Military wasn't stuck dealing with insurgents with small arms and improvised bombs in Iraq for over a decade after defeating the Iraqi military....
This really is similar to the argument about autonomous cars. Will a smart gun result in fewer unintentional fatalities outweighed by the different fatalities it may cause?
No, I'm sorry. Whenever gun owners have brought up cars during the gun control debate, we've been told it's not a valid comparison since GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE.
You have NO IDEA how effective the finger scanner will be. How about we take a look at that first, see what kind of tech they actually put into it, and then make choices based on that? In much the same way you don't buy a car with known faulty brakes, just don't buy a gun with a scanner that is known to be unreliable.
The problem is the people writing laws generally don't want you to have that choice. "Don't want to buy a gun with a known-faulty scanner? Then don't buy a gun."
I'm amazed there's no you-can't-sue-you-have-to-go-to-brinding-arbitration clause.
Per the article: "All eight of the plaintiffs in the suit opted out of the arbitration clause in their contract."
The current population of human beings on this planet is unsustainable.
If that were true, then wouldn't the population be decreasing instead of increasing? It's like saying you are in a plane and you slow down to below stall speed and say the lift generated by the wings cannot sustain the weight of the plane yet the plane continues to fly. Until populations decrease, all the evidence shows that the population is sustainable.
It's been a while since my college biology course, but if I recall correctly, it's not uncommon for a population experiencing exponential growth to shoot right past the carrying capacity for a while. Eventually, the population crashes until numbers fall under the carrying capacity, at which point several outcomes are possible.
The simple fact that population size is not decreasing is NOT evidence that the population size is sustainable. Rather, the fact that population size isn't slowing down might very well be evidence that it ISN'T sustainable...
Ask five economists and you'll get five different explanations (six if one went to Harvard). -- Edgar R. Fiedler