I have to disagree with that statement…at least to an extent. I would venture that it’s a matter of opinion. I’m talking about taking human life with a firearm now … not animals as that would cause the discussion to get too broad.
People who “pull the trigger” can be “good guys” before and remain “good guys” after the fact. I’m thinking about soldiers and toe the line law enforcement officials among some that fit this category.
Most (what they call) mass shooters are not “good guys” before the fact as demonstrated by most of their pasts and/or manifestos or social media activity.
It is questionable as to whether some might be “good guys” before the fact who discharge their weapon or kill in anger. I’m thinking of domestic shootings or gang shootings. I’ll grant that some might be considered “good guys” up to that point but I question that of most who would react in such a way.
My point with this is that trying to catch such people in advance and prohibit them from owning firearms is difficult at best. Do we deny such a right to someone who “might” not be a “good guy?”. What are the limits to what we will allow the government to do?
The only way I see to stop/limit these happenings is the domer approach. I don’t think that’s going to fly any time soon in this country, but I think he and other similar thinking people look at it like eating an elephant.
I think you misunderstand the “domer approach”.
SCOTUS rulings, whether correct interpretations of the Bill of Rights or not, are still law. That we have to live with whether we agree with or not. So, what are we left with legally?
Heller said that firearm possession, transport, sale, etc., all of that can be regulated.
To quote:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..”
“The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
So, the “domer approach” is to make it as difficult as possible to legally manufacture, market, sell, transport, and possess weapons. A “look under your skirt” background check. Restrictions on types of weapons. Federalizing and standardizing gun laws.
