U.S. Senate Republicans moved to block a ban on assault-style weapons put forward by Democrats on Wednesday, as the United States recorded the highest number of mass shootings for the second year in a row.
I just wish Dems would stop trying to ban any guns, and not because I’m against gun control, but because it’s a losing issue. It’s never passing through this Congress, and if it ever did, the Supreme Court would strike it down. Given that that’s fairly undeniable, why lose the people who organize and vote on this issue alone?
This has been said about many issues in the past. Effecting change isn’t easy but giving up doesn’t help. Americans support gun control. Only our crappy political system stands in the way.
Americans support gun control. Only our crappy political system stands in the way.
What do you think the other person meant when they said, “It’s never passing through this Congress, and if it ever did, the Supreme Court would strike it down.”?
I disagree on giving up on a political issue only because it wouldn’t pass right now. Politics is compromise. If you only take positions which are already on the line of compromise you’ve already lost.
Those are issues in which the American people were opposed, and then societal views changed. As you pointed out, that isn’t the case here. Americans already favor reform, but they aren’t going to vote these people out based on the status quo.
Newtown was the wake up call, if nothing changes after a bunch of small children get massacred, you’re not getting change. Not without wholesale changes. Proposing an AWB is political theater, nothing more.
The solution is for law enforcement to properly enforce the existing laws that could have stopped countless shootings already.
My personal solution is not to worry about gun violence because it’s extremely rare and highly unlikely to affect me. America is quite safe to live in for the majority of us.
That’s really a bad comparison, because you’re arguing for the point of taking away rights from Americans, by making reference to a right that was taken away (since it was never properly added to the Constitution). I support all rights for all Americans - we should all have the rights to bear arms and to privacy + bodily autonomy.
So instead of arguing to take away more rights, you should be arguing to add more rights. Lobby for the rights to privacy and bodily autonomy instead.
I’m afraid at this point there’s no legislation that will survive the Supreme Court. The next realistic move is to mirror the federalist society. Get enough judges appointed with the idea that the second does not protect personal gun ownership and reach a critical state.
If I could waive a magic wand without breaking the character of the US, we’d ban external magazines, have universal background checks, and stop federal funds from going to states that don’t send information to the National Instant Check System. There’s so much low hanging fruit. But even when SCOTUS wasn’t busy boofing beers the Brady Campaign gave us shit laws designed to harass people, not reduce violence.
Frustrating the reload slows down active shooters. Solidifying the NICS means criminals can’t just go to the next state over. And Universal background checks takes away the secondhand market from criminals as well.
A program to groom judges on this just like the conservatives did with Roe V Wade will do the most in the long term because we’ll be able to have laws based on the actual amendment, not just a few words of it.
Yes…because no active shooters have ever made plans…and no active shooters have ever not been flagged correctly when they were prohibited already…and no one buys drugs on the black market cause that’s illegal…and no one makes straw purchases which are already illegal.
RvW needs to be signed into a law, not used as a bargaining chip for votes for Democrats. They need to use their political capital to make it a federal law.
That’s the opposite situation. Pro-life voters and pro-gin voters are the 2 largest single-issue voting groups in the country.
Look at it this way. If you swapped Trump and Biden’s positions on abortion but changed nothing else, how many pro-choice Democrats would have voted for Trump?
Basically zero, right. Meanwhile, millions of pro-life Republicans would have flipped because abortion is the singular issue upon which they base their vote.
Guns are in the same boat. Hundreds of thousands of voters vote strictly based on their love of guns. There’s no political advantage in the general election for being anti-gun, and the Dems are sacrificing a whole lot of seats to fight this losing battle.
Yeah nevermind that the constitution says “shall not be infringed”’
If abortion rights were in the constitution there would be no way of banning it, just as it is with firearms.
Actually it says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.*
It says nothing about procuring them. Banning gun sales is totally on the table. Plus, “arms” is kinda a funny word. It doesn’t mean just guns. Yet most people would agree that I shouldn’t be allowed to build bombs in my basement. Isn’t that a violation of the second amendment?
Not to mention that whole well regulated militia part.
A reasonable interpretation would at the very least take that to mean a requirement to be eligible for the national guard and to consistently pass training and inspection with each action class of weapon you want to buy.
Hence the asterix on my paraphrasing of the Second Amendment. Ultimately, I think the founding fathers laid out general principles of society that we should adhere to, but that they expected us to care more about the intent of the Constitution than the actual exact words.
Throw out the whole constitution then. Human history is rife with suffering and hypocrisy. My ancestors chased people off this land at the point of a sword. Right now, we’re overlooking the horrible exploitation of other human beings in China, Africa, India and others, to make luxury goods. The lens of history should acknowledge the status quo at the time, but not excuse it, and celebrate those who worked to advance human rights and conditions before their time.
The article says guns should be ownable because they’re necessary in a militia. The language never implies that guns should only be owned by militia members. The militia line is a justification not a requirement.
You seemed to have missed the part where that’s the generous interpretation, the real interpretation is that since a militia is no longer necessary for the defense of our free state, civilian firearms ownership can just be banned entirely and that’s perfectly constitutional.
Unless you want to argue that the strongest military in human history is insufficient defense of this free state.
Militias are still necessary for free states, especially since the Army is federal in nature, not a state organization. Now the militia helps ensure the security of the states from federal forces that would otherwise be left unchecked without so much as a means to stop a military dictatorship, which is the reason they didn’t form a standing army when they wrote the constitution. The only thing that changed was who the militia would be fighting against, and that’s a common interpretation. It very much aligns with the spirit of the law, preventing military dictatorship, for it to continue to exist.
That why right now independent militias are one of the greatest threats of domestic terrorism in this country, like that time those militias defended the free state by forming the more organized portions of the J6 riots that explicitly set out to end our free state and replace it with a militia dictatorship?
The well regulated part means functional and effective.
The reasonable interpretation is that the founders didn’t want a federal standing army because of the temptation towards tyranny such federal power would create, and instead expected the states to draft their citizens into militias in response to threats. These citizens were expected to arrive self-armed, knowing how to use their gun, with ammunition, and with initial rations. Citing the militia acts for this, you can verify that the government saw everyone of able body as members of the militia. The militias could then slot into a temporary federal army when needed, and then sent home after the threat has passed. The “shall not be infringed” was to prevent the federal and state governments from disarming their citizens, and the temptation of tyranny over a helpless population.
We have since become the world’s largest military power through constitutional amendment and stretching of interpretation, but there has been no update to the 2nd. It doesn’t matter that a citizen militia can’t match the US military today like everyone likes to argue, we shouldn’t selectively enforce constitutional rights. Full stop. If you want to change it, get a constitutional amendment passed modifying the 2nd. If you can’t pass that threshold, then you don’t have the support you think you do. If you want to guarantee people trained, offer free training and make it attractive to do this training or include it in our compulsory education system so everyone gets it by default. By the way, everyone is already eligible for the national guard, it is essentially the current active volunteer militia. What you can’t do is make people join the national guard to be able to keep and bear arms.
If you want to just scrap the country like your later comments on this thread indicate, go find uninhabited land and found your own country that doesn’t have a constitution and can be completely redesigned at your will. Or steal some from any current inhabitants if you can, and if you find that palatable or find a group you don’t think deserve their country.
No it’s not, everything the founders wrote about was directly designed to keep people armed and under no situation shall they be disarmed. Go read some of their papers. This has been chewed a million times and the anti-2a crowd still thinks regulated is the same meaning today as it was back then.
What the fuck are you talking about…do you just make shit up in your head? They wanted everyone armed because they just fought and defeated the world’s strongest military at the time…
If that was genuinely the reason a significant faction of them wouldn’t have been arguing in favor of trade deals with them instead of France, the country that basically won the war for us at sea.
Imagine just for a second, that they drop the issue and gain control of all 3 branches and then actually do something about it rather than constantly struggling to win because of single policy voters.
The only thing tougher to imagine than dems winning supermajorities and all three branches is the dems doing something with it. Hard to imagine the people who fund splinter dems like Manchin wont just do the same thing to a dozen dems instead of two.
Roe had good results, but it wasn’t a good decision.
Casual observers of the Supreme Court who came to the Law School to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak about Roe v. Wade likely expected a simple message from the longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights: Roe was a good decision.
Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her thoughtful, nuanced approach to difficult legal questions were not surprised, however, to hear her say just the opposite, that Roe was a faulty decision. For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since.
Ginsburg and Professor Geoffrey Stone, a longtime scholar of reproductive rights and constitutional law, spoke for 90 minutes before a capacity crowd in the Law School auditorium on May 11 on “Roe v. Wade at 40.”
“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.
“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”
Yes, there’s no way Roe would have been overturned by that Congress or that Supreme Court (50 years ago). Just like this Congress and Court will not allow significant gun control. Republicans gerrymandered districts and refused to seat a justice, thereby changing those things. Thank you for proving my point.
Well, Democrats have been pushing the AWB in Congress for about 30 years now, the first 10 it was law, then it sunset, and they kept pushing…and they have lost a ton of ground in that fight, just like abortion. Because while they were introducing bills, Republicans were remaking Congress and the judiciary. But sure, let’s propose more pointless legislation… it’ll work this time.
That’s how politics generally works, you push for the issue for decades and if you’re relentless enough you either finally push through it or you die. You also can and probably need to do all other things but you never stop pushing.
Seriously. Pivot to mental health funding or something. At least that has a chance of passing and even if it doesn’t cut down on shootings it will still help people.
It’s also a lightning rod issue that turns more voters away than it attracts.
Sure there are staunch anti-gun people under the Democrats’ tent but they’re not the kind of people who will vote Republican if the party suddenly scaled back or ended its decades long futile efforts at gun bans.
On the other hand there are a ton of white working class voters on the suburban-rural fringes of swing states who would absolutely at least consider a Democrat if the party wasn’t so easily cast as “gun grabbers and job killers who only care about minorities”.
You get a pro-union, pro-legal-gun Democrat on a ticket who speaks on issues affecting rural whites as much as they do urban non-white voters (who are equally important), and you’d have a winner in many of these areas where they’ve been quite red, but not so rabidly Trumpy as other areas.
Even moreso if that’s a change that happened at the party/platform level.
I feel like from a campaign strategy standpoint, guns are just a lose-lose for the Democratic party. Playing to a base that would be loyal anyway for other reasons, even if the party dropped that position completely (which would not only eliminate a deal breaker issue for rural Democrats but also eliminate a cornerstone of the GOP platform in “protecting the second amendment”). Unless they did a complete about face and suddenly became as cozy with the NRA as Republicans, anti-gun voters might be upset, but they’re still voting blue.
After all there’s still abortion, electoral reform, racial justice, the environment, education, foreign policy, infrastructure, legal weed, LGBT rights, healthcare, and a host of other issues where the Dems are still their people.
“Oh if only the Democrats stopped talking about abortion, electoral reform, racial justice, the environment, education, etc. they’d be more appealing to certain voters!”
Capitulating on a widely supported issue just to possibly attract a minority group of voters is a show of weakness.
Plus if they focused on mental health and preventive measures they could maybe bring over some fire arms enthusiasts, who otherwise vote republican or atleast get them to not vote.
Mind you the effectiveness may be scattershot at times since its alot easier to get the guy going postal than it is to get the an ideologically motivated shitbag.
It’s not a mental health issue. There are people with mental health issues all over the civilized world and those countries don’t deal with mass shootings weekly, even if the citizens are allowed access to guns. It’s the relatively unrestricted access to firearms with minimal to no oversight of gun owners, and no rules to secure said firearms.
Okay and? This was my point, ya aint gonna get a solid backing for any type of gun control due to the courts. I support firearms licensing, so long as its about as easy/hard as getting a drivers licence. The thing is though that going “its the guns” while technically true is about as helpful as going “its cause of capitalism” great youve found the problem now what practical solution do you have?
My point was moreso to give an example of what the Dems could do to syphon votes from the republicans. The current “lets ban guns” shtick clearly aint working so come up with a better solution. I think folks who make their identity all about firearms are stupid, but that also means they should be easy to be made apathetic on voting at minimum.
You’re both right. We can’t put the genie back in the bottle. There are more guns than people in the US so to reduce gun suicide we must work both sides of the issue.
“minimal oversight and rules” he says. Tell us you’ve never bought a gun without telling us.
Please don’t speak about things you have no clue on. There are plenty of rules and restrictions. The fact that our federal government can’t or doesn’t enforce them properly means the law abiding citizen should suffer?
Yeah. You don’t know anything about my firearms knowledge, and that’s fine with me. I don’t give a damn about some dick measuring contest over whatever is in someone’s arsenal.
What oversight? Most rural places you pass a nominal background check at best. Buy your gun, and nobody bothers you about it again. Urban areas? Yeah, more rules; but again, fill out the paperwork, pass the background checks, buy your gun and that’s it. The majority of rules apply to handguns. I can head on down to my local gun shop and pick up a deer rifle with almost no hassle at all. Or maybe you mean a tax stamp? Same story. Fill out the paperwork, pass the check, pay the money, get the gun.
Yet again, nobody pays attention to what you do with the gun once you have it. That’s the oversight part I’m talking about. Nobody is making you re-test for anything. There’s no license to maintain to own a long gun or even a handgun in the vast majority of places.
I’m not even going to touch CCW because that’s not buying a gun or owning a gun, that’s how you carry it.
What is apparent is that you haven’t a clue what real oversight is. Gun ownership in the rest of the civilized world is highly regulated, licensed, tested, and monitored. So is how the firearm is stored, where and when it can be transported and used.
So “get outta here with that nonsense” when you consider a single background check or a tax stamp “monitoring” your ownership.
This is the other side of the argument that I don’t really understand. There shouldn’t be “monitoring” of your ownership. A law abiding citizen going in, filling out a background check and proving they aren’t prohibited from owning a gun and then buying said gun and ending their involvement with the government from that point on is just normal. We are innocent until proven guilty. We have a right to privacy. We have a right against unwarranted searches. Exercising one of your other constitutional rights shouldn’t and doesn’t mean you give up others.
The government shouldn’t be monitoring it’s citizens with regular check-ins, making sure they are good worker drones. I don’t understand the desire for the government to dictate or arbitrate every action you take, because the government doesn’t care about you as an individual. Allowing the government to monitor your personal life is a distopian trope for a reason. I don’t want to live in a police state like the UK or China, and our own police state is already bad enough.
Well, law abiding citizens shouldn’t shoot up schools, concerts, or businesses. But that doesn’t matter when it’s a right to own guns, because somehow magically a law abiding citizen with guns suddenly isn’t so law abiding, but gun owners never really want to deal with that. Wash their hands and walk away.
Just dropping the whole basis of our legal system because lives could be in jeopardy, just throw out innocent until proven guilty and your right to privacy. Let me guess, you also disagree that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be convicted, especially if the crime is severe enough?
Law abiding citizens shouldn’t steal, use illegal substances, or assault people either, but that doesn’t matter because a statistically significant percentage of people suddenly aren’t so law abiding. Are you prepared to allow law enforcement to regularly enter your home and inventory your property to match with receipts backed up by your pay stubs to make sure your not stealing anything or committing fraud, while also ensuring you don’t have any drugs? How about regular interviews with your friends, family, and coworkers to make sure you always conduct yourself in a upstanding manner? Having to get evidence and/or reasonable articulable suspicion to search your person or property prevents police from stopping you from commiting crime before you do it.
You want to buy whipped cream? People can use those cannisters illegally. You need to go to a drug counselor for an evaluation, and pass a drug screen proving you aren’t a drug user of any kind, then you can get a permit. It needs to be renewed every year to make sure you remain sober.
A guy down the block broke the law by driving drunk, but you law abiding drivers never really want to deal with that by putting interlock systems in all motor vehicles and requiring the cops to do a blood draw, breathalyzer and field sobriety test before you are allowed to drive anywhere. Just wash their hands and walk away as if they couldn’t prevent people they don’t know from driving drunk.
Enforce our ban on domestic abusers owning firearms. We already passed it, but no one enforces it. It would eliminate a huge chunk of gun violence in the nation, but its not as appealing to the mob as the “assault style” ban.
One is favored by both sides of the aisle and has already been passed. There are yet more measures that are favored by a vast majority of the population and have data to support their effectiveness. We should start with the low hanging fruit before we start climbing the tree.
Apparently so since we are currently focusing on laws that won’t pass when we could instead be focusing on the ones that will be easy to pass.
If you want to eat now then reach for the low hanging fruit. If you want to proceed to see people getting shot with no changes, then pursue a law that will get held up in the house for months or years before most likely not passing. No single one of these laws will fix the problem, but a collection of them will, there’s a long road ahead for gun control advocates and they need to atleast start building momentum
I guess I’d ask you the same question. I don’t have a proposal because I don’t think any of it will make it through Congress. And if it somehow made it through Congress, the Supreme Court would strike it as unconstitutional.
Short of voting out these members of Congress and balancing the court, there’s no hope of reform. So drop the issue to appeal to more voters. Win more elections, balance the court, then you’re in a position to effect change.
Also, AWBs are pretty useless. They tend to grandfather in existing weapons and they exclude handguns, which are the weapon used most often to commit murder. Magazine limits, which were in the 1994 law, were the only piece to show a genuine reduction in violent crimes.
I strongly disagree with you, but I definitely give you credit for at least actually saying it.
Most that I’ve had this discussion with insist they don’t want to touch the second amendment and revoke the rights of law abiding gun owners… then most of their ideas both won’t solve gun violence while also stripping millions of people who’ve never broken a gun law of their rights without due process.
Guns are one issue where I strongly break with the Typical American Left™, but if you’re going to be anti-gun, I absolutely give you credit for having the wherewithal to just say what you really want.
Well, I also said “replace.” Something that’s clearer and won’t be misinterpreted like the “well-regulated militia.”
Something that’s under control like they have in most other developed countries where you can still own a weapon in many instances, but it’s much safer and gun-related crime is way down.
I’m just, under no circumstance, willing to accept the massacres of children or other innocent people. And pretending it has nothing to do with the weapons is just disingenuous.
Some variation on this is the inevitable outcome. It’s same story as with say, universal health care. We already know the solution, we just have assholes and people stuck in the past preventing it. At some point, most of them will die off and society moves on.
How many countries have pulled it off? It’s laughable to think it is impossible here. Everything I’ve suggested has already been implemented elsewhere. It’s pretty logical to assume it can happen here too.
I assume you’ve pivoted now to universal healthcare…but I’m not sure. No one said it’s impossible, for that matter, no one said gun control is impossible. Just that it won’t pass a Republican controlled legislative body, and I assume it would be struck down by the Supreme Court…same as gun control. Change both of those (Congress & Court) and you’ve got a chance.
A well stocked library, being necessary and proper for the literacy of a nation, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
That wouldn’t limit the ownership of books to just librarians or people with library cards, it clearly applies to all people.
What if libraries stopped existing because they were completely replaced by something else? Militias stopped existing when we created a standing army. Or, if you want to be charitable, they’ve evolved into “National Guard” who are often armed. They are also well-regulated, as the amendment requires.
Also, this analogy is shit, you can’t take someone’s life in a split second, without a thought, with a fucking book. Give me a break.
The American/English language is awesome. We’ve got these great rules with sentence structure and grammar that makes things super easy once you learn the tricks.
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.
Little English trick for you. Remove the words between the commas and see if the sentence makes sense.
“A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.” - Looks pretty good.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.” - Still looks good and justifies the reason.
“A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” - Still looking good and provides context as to WHO the Militia is.
We put it all together and get
A well regulated Militia (which is needed for security) (made up of people with guns) is a right granted to the State.
If we add the missing comma to your initial statement before the word ‘shall’.
Yes, the way your statement is written it would contain books to libraries and would not EXPLICITY provide such protections (book ownership) to individuals. It does not limit individuals, but it does not grant them special rights either.
If “the founders” had wanted everyone to be able to buy a gun they would not have included the word Militia. They’re authorizing States the rights to form their own National Guard. Keep in mind, they are NOT saying the average person cannot have a gun. It is my belief that during these times of ‘unrest’ that they wanted at least some form of local army to defend against invasion. Folks that get training on weapon use and military tactics.
Also some food for thought, nowhere in the 2A or Constitution is the word “ammunition”. So if the government so wished, they could simply make possession of primers illegal.
Read your statement again and now it makes sense why you think what you think. It’s the comma you either left off intentionally or conveniently. Commas matter.
Edit: The 2A does not GRANT or DIMINISH an individuals’ right to arms as it never addresses the subject. It only GRANTS the right to those members of the Militia.
A well regulated militia shall not be infringed sounds pretty meaningless to me. Can a well regulated militia take my car since they can’t be infringed? Can they openly kill anyone not in the militia? Can you not get speeding tickets if you join a militia? Adding being necessary to the security of a free state, does not clarify anything.
The actual subject in the sentence is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” If the Founders wanted it to be only members of a militia, they could have said members, militias, their, or almost anything other than the people.
Just because you do not comprehend the statement, does not make it untrue.
The SUBJECT of that statement is “Militia”. The statement self-justifies, then defines, then acts upon it.
Your question response goes on to further expose your misunderstanding. Don’t get me wrong, this is not an attack on you. If there’s any blame to your misunderstanding, it lies in the school system.
The Second Amendment grants members of the Militia, the right to keep their guns in their home. AS noted by another commenter, that would be the National Guard in today’s terms. In Founders terms, it was minutemen.
All the 2A does is exempt Militia members from State or Federal Laws if those laws prohibit gun possession. It also exempts them if they require the discharge of that weapon in duty of preserving the Free State. This means if the Chinese military drops a paratrooper over a National Guardsman’s home, they are exempt from prosecution for shooting at them.
Here’s the best part. If we repealed the second amendment, nothing would change. It never granted an individual rights to begin with so revoking it would not take those rights away.
As ass backwards as your understanding of sentence structure is and as intentionally obtuse an interpretation of the words “the people” as “the militia” instead of as “the people” like every other use of those words in the Bill of Rights, it doesn’t matter even if we agree with your assertion
The 2A does not GRANT or DIMINISH an individuals’ right to arms as it never addresses the subject. It only GRANTS the right to those members of the Militia.
10 USC: 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.
Basically you are saying disarm only women and the elderly. That seems a little discriminatory, but you do you. Broadly speaking here, everyone is part of the militia. The militia is the citizens of the country. And if you want to argue that this doesn’t mean the people get to keep their arms when not actively participating in militia action like everyone seems to do when this is pointed out, please see the relevant legislation from the same time period as the 2nd Amendment.
Second Militia Act of 1792: How to be armed and accoutred. provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
Clear intention that every citizen should arm themselves with military hardware, ammunition, and know how to use it. You didn’t use bayonets for hunting, this was “modern military hardware” for the day. This was not authorization to be allowed to arm militias. The US was not even allowed to have a standing army, only a permanent navy was allowed, the armed citizenry was the army as needed. And all this is moot because the premise of the 2nd being only for militia members is, again, faulty.
While I agree with all of those things, let’s remember that the same party that wants to do nothing about gun control will also not provide universal healthcare, a living wage, will provide no regulation of the labor market that could provide improved work-life balance, no family leave, no funding for universal college-level education.
All things that make it possible to live rather than just survive. And maybe people would be less desperate. Republicans say no.
Are you under the impression the politics of 1994 are remotely similar to 2023? Have you read the Supreme Court cases of Heller (2008) or Bruen (2022)?
Name call all you want, but you’re the one tragically out of touch. This Congress, especially the Republican majority in the house would NEVER pass this bill. SCOTUS has completely changed gun rights in this country since 2008. First finding an individual right to gun ownership, then drastically reducing those gun limitations that are allowable under the 2nd amendment.
I suggest you do some reading before spouting nonsense. Your comment somehow states the bill is simultaneously “entirely new” and also the “same damn thing”. Muppet.
Those things will all vanish eventually. We currently have the most conservative SCOTUS in basically a century, and the Republican party is near-fascist politically. These are not sturdy foundations for a legal concept. The truth is, society has never accepted murder and cruelty as a necessary part of society. It’s always just a handful of elitists or bigoted fanatics holding society back.
Eventually, many of our current laws and customs will become viewed as the next version of Jim Crow or anti-LGBT laws, and become so unpopular they get repealed. Some take decades to go down, but they always go down. The concept of gun rights will be one of them.
This is anti-progress thinking. It’s laughable that you actually think basic legal reforms can’t happen.
No one said basic legal reforms can’t happen, you’re creating a strawman. I said that this Congress and this Supreme Court will not allow gun control. If you disagree, by all means let me know where my error lies.
Also, let me know the path to passage rather than vague statements about eventually. Eventually is weasel language that means you have no confidence in what you’re saying; if you did, you’d tell me when and how that can be accomplished.
No one said otherwise. But you won’t have this congress and this SCOTUS forever.
And again, it is basic legal reform. It is not some hard problem. And since nearly every Western country has both universal health care and gun control, it is pretty feasible for those ideas to spread to the US at some point. All your doing is apologizing for the modern incarnation of racist violence.
The court’s opinion swung one way in 15 years. It can swing back in another 15. Three of the 4 oldest justices are Republicans and it only takes 2 being replaced with Democrats to flip the court. Totally within the realm of possibility.
You have to change Congress too. But you’re still talking about 15+ years, and multiple conservative justices dying, and being replaced by liberal justices, and the reverse not happening.
So can we agree that we can hold off on the AWB for like 20 years?
No, we can’t even agree on that unfortunately. This country is divided in several ways where there is no acceptable compromise and gun control is one of them.
Scalia’s vote in Heller (singled him out because it was openly against his so-called “originalist” school of thought) undid far more than just fifteen years of precedent.
Disagree. The solution is to push for as much gun control as possible, until eventually the dam breaks and the 2A dies. In the long run, gun ownership in the US will resemble how it works in other Western countries, which is to say not much at all.
Disagree. The solution is to push for as much gun control as possible,
That’s essentially nothing.
…until eventually the dam breaks and the 2A dies.
And I think elephants should fart rainbows, but both of our proposals lack any consideration of how we make that happen.
In the long run, gun ownership in the US will resemble how it works in other Western countries, which is to say not much at all.
Eventually? There are roughly 400 million guns in this country…how many generations is “eventually”?
I’m not even disagreeing with you, but hoping doesn’t make it happen. How do we get there? What are the steps? Does your projected path take into account the systemic impediments?
It’s the same story as every other form of cruelty or injustice in American history. People look abroad, realize that such a problem never existed or was solved elsewhere, and eventually will push for the same type of reform in the US.
It doesn’t matter how long it takes or how hard it is. It’s the same story as every other big accomplish of the past, whether it’s ending slavery or women’s voting rights. They took decades to happen, but they all eventually happened.
Again, that’s all great, but how does it happen? What are the steps to take? Saying it will eventually happen seems even more dismissive than saying it can’t happen given current conditions.
When half the country is literally fascist, sure you can admit it isn’t going to happen anytime soon. But that is a temporary phenomenon. Eventually, all of them will die. At some point, the US will be a country run by normal people. You’re going to have large-scale agreement for major reforms.
The US is getting more stupid and polarised as school funding is diverted and people sign their heels in against civil discourse. It will be a long time before it is run by normal people.
I wouldn’t cry if guns were banned entirely, but given the culture the US population has been sold for generations, common sense gun control that works handily in other countries simply won’t work in the US. We’re not wired that way.
The best chance we have is pulling the tug o’ war rope as hard as possible just to maintain the status quo. We’re not fighting for reform, we’re fighting not to backslide.
That saying depends on the just world fallacy. Unfortunately, no, all things don’t necessarily pass.
I’ve got a saying for you that’s famously used to describe every moment in Russian history: “…then it got worse.”
It’s foolish to think things will just fix themselves. We’re hurtling full speed into climate apocalypse. Like you realize that isn’t just going to “pass” right?
And now you have lost anyone who like me would be open to voting Democrat more often instead of third party, because I don’t want to flat out lose my 2A rights. I don’t want to vote Republican because I don’t want to lose other rights in the slide towards religious fascism either. If every side is running on a platform of pick which rights you least want to lose, at least I’ll have my guns for protection when the fascists do successfully pull a coup and society collapses.
Let me know how your Democrat recruiting pans out when you call everyone who disagrees with abolishing the 2nd amendment pro-fascist. Really winning hearts and minds, and doing that “big tent” proud. Worked great in 2016, definitely didn’t need any of those “deplorables” to join up and there were no lasting consequences.
God I hate our 2 party system. Can’t get universal modern healthcare and universal basic income while also keeping gun rights.
Ok, this a a good reminder not to give possible trolling the benefit of the doubt. Even though it’s feeding the troll: gun rights are not only for the far right. Marx realized the need for robust gun rights, this is nothing new. “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.” Don’t trust the state and the police to protect you, especially if you are a minority or revolutionary. The police have no legal duty to protect you.
We are not obligated to believe in Marx either. In fact, last I check nearly everyone agreed he was wrong on a lot of things. It’s all outdated extremist rhetoric, regardless of where it came from.
I just wish Dems would stop trying to ban any guns, and not because I’m against gun control, but because it’s a losing issue. It’s never passing through this Congress, and if it ever did, the Supreme Court would strike it down. Given that that’s fairly undeniable, why lose the people who organize and vote on this issue alone?
This has been said about many issues in the past. Effecting change isn’t easy but giving up doesn’t help. Americans support gun control. Only our crappy political system stands in the way.
On both sides, Republicans block any gun control, and Democrats only propose useless legislation
What do you think the other person meant when they said, “It’s never passing through this Congress, and if it ever did, the Supreme Court would strike it down.”?
I disagree on giving up on a political issue only because it wouldn’t pass right now. Politics is compromise. If you only take positions which are already on the line of compromise you’ve already lost.
Which issues? Civil Rights? Gay marriage?
Those are issues in which the American people were opposed, and then societal views changed. As you pointed out, that isn’t the case here. Americans already favor reform, but they aren’t going to vote these people out based on the status quo.
Newtown was the wake up call, if nothing changes after a bunch of small children get massacred, you’re not getting change. Not without wholesale changes. Proposing an AWB is political theater, nothing more.
If it’s popular, why wouldn’t the Democrats keep fighting for it?
Whether it will realistically happen anytime soon, yeah I’d say the odds are very low.
But let’s not just give up as it can’t ever happen.
Also “political theater” is like half of actual politics, so don’t knock it too easily :P
It’s the worst political theater. It makes it look like something is being done when it isn’t. Gun sales go up and liberals feel good. More kids die.
So the solution is what?
We could start prosecuting people for breaking laws.
https://www.newsweek.com/42-rejected-gun-background-checks-2020-had-felony-convictions-1603064
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/19/gun-buyers-lie-and-try-only-12-prosecuted-editorials-debates/1288699002/
The solution is for law enforcement to properly enforce the existing laws that could have stopped countless shootings already.
My personal solution is not to worry about gun violence because it’s extremely rare and highly unlikely to affect me. America is quite safe to live in for the majority of us.
Oh, well as long as it is unlikely to affect you…
I mean illegal abortion is unlikely to affect me, so why should I give a shit, am I right?
That’s really a bad comparison, because you’re arguing for the point of taking away rights from Americans, by making reference to a right that was taken away (since it was never properly added to the Constitution). I support all rights for all Americans - we should all have the rights to bear arms and to privacy + bodily autonomy.
So instead of arguing to take away more rights, you should be arguing to add more rights. Lobby for the rights to privacy and bodily autonomy instead.
Make up your mind. Do you care about things that don’t affect you or not?
I’m afraid at this point there’s no legislation that will survive the Supreme Court. The next realistic move is to mirror the federalist society. Get enough judges appointed with the idea that the second does not protect personal gun ownership and reach a critical state.
If I could waive a magic wand without breaking the character of the US, we’d ban external magazines, have universal background checks, and stop federal funds from going to states that don’t send information to the National Instant Check System. There’s so much low hanging fruit. But even when SCOTUS wasn’t busy boofing beers the Brady Campaign gave us shit laws designed to harass people, not reduce violence.
None of what you just proposed would reduce violence…
Frustrating the reload slows down active shooters. Solidifying the NICS means criminals can’t just go to the next state over. And Universal background checks takes away the secondhand market from criminals as well.
A program to groom judges on this just like the conservatives did with Roe V Wade will do the most in the long term because we’ll be able to have laws based on the actual amendment, not just a few words of it.
Yes…because no active shooters have ever made plans…and no active shooters have ever not been flagged correctly when they were prohibited already…and no one buys drugs on the black market cause that’s illegal…and no one makes straw purchases which are already illegal.
RvW needs to be signed into a law, not used as a bargaining chip for votes for Democrats. They need to use their political capital to make it a federal law.
You know, that’s exactly what people said about Roe v. Wade and about banning abortion.
Turns out that you can keep losing on an issue for 50 years, yet winning only once will drastically change the trajectory of the entire issue.
That’s the opposite situation. Pro-life voters and pro-gin voters are the 2 largest single-issue voting groups in the country.
Look at it this way. If you swapped Trump and Biden’s positions on abortion but changed nothing else, how many pro-choice Democrats would have voted for Trump?
Basically zero, right. Meanwhile, millions of pro-life Republicans would have flipped because abortion is the singular issue upon which they base their vote.
Guns are in the same boat. Hundreds of thousands of voters vote strictly based on their love of guns. There’s no political advantage in the general election for being anti-gun, and the Dems are sacrificing a whole lot of seats to fight this losing battle.
I thought we resolved that with the end of Prohibition?
No he misspelled pro-gyn voters
Yeah nevermind that the constitution says “shall not be infringed”’ If abortion rights were in the constitution there would be no way of banning it, just as it is with firearms.
Actually it says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.* It says nothing about procuring them. Banning gun sales is totally on the table. Plus, “arms” is kinda a funny word. It doesn’t mean just guns. Yet most people would agree that I shouldn’t be allowed to build bombs in my basement. Isn’t that a violation of the second amendment?
Not to mention that whole well regulated militia part.
A reasonable interpretation would at the very least take that to mean a requirement to be eligible for the national guard and to consistently pass training and inspection with each action class of weapon you want to buy.
Hence the asterix on my paraphrasing of the Second Amendment. Ultimately, I think the founding fathers laid out general principles of society that we should adhere to, but that they expected us to care more about the intent of the Constitution than the actual exact words.
The founding fathers were slave oligarchs, fuck their opinions on anything to do with our country today
Throw out the whole constitution then. Human history is rife with suffering and hypocrisy. My ancestors chased people off this land at the point of a sword. Right now, we’re overlooking the horrible exploitation of other human beings in China, Africa, India and others, to make luxury goods. The lens of history should acknowledge the status quo at the time, but not excuse it, and celebrate those who worked to advance human rights and conditions before their time.
Man imagine going to bat for the opinions of slave oligarchs.
The article says guns should be ownable because they’re necessary in a militia. The language never implies that guns should only be owned by militia members. The militia line is a justification not a requirement.
You seemed to have missed the part where that’s the generous interpretation, the real interpretation is that since a militia is no longer necessary for the defense of our free state, civilian firearms ownership can just be banned entirely and that’s perfectly constitutional.
Unless you want to argue that the strongest military in human history is insufficient defense of this free state.
Militias are still necessary for free states, especially since the Army is federal in nature, not a state organization. Now the militia helps ensure the security of the states from federal forces that would otherwise be left unchecked without so much as a means to stop a military dictatorship, which is the reason they didn’t form a standing army when they wrote the constitution. The only thing that changed was who the militia would be fighting against, and that’s a common interpretation. It very much aligns with the spirit of the law, preventing military dictatorship, for it to continue to exist.
That why right now independent militias are one of the greatest threats of domestic terrorism in this country, like that time those militias defended the free state by forming the more organized portions of the J6 riots that explicitly set out to end our free state and replace it with a militia dictatorship?
The well regulated part means functional and effective.
The reasonable interpretation is that the founders didn’t want a federal standing army because of the temptation towards tyranny such federal power would create, and instead expected the states to draft their citizens into militias in response to threats. These citizens were expected to arrive self-armed, knowing how to use their gun, with ammunition, and with initial rations. Citing the militia acts for this, you can verify that the government saw everyone of able body as members of the militia. The militias could then slot into a temporary federal army when needed, and then sent home after the threat has passed. The “shall not be infringed” was to prevent the federal and state governments from disarming their citizens, and the temptation of tyranny over a helpless population.
We have since become the world’s largest military power through constitutional amendment and stretching of interpretation, but there has been no update to the 2nd. It doesn’t matter that a citizen militia can’t match the US military today like everyone likes to argue, we shouldn’t selectively enforce constitutional rights. Full stop. If you want to change it, get a constitutional amendment passed modifying the 2nd. If you can’t pass that threshold, then you don’t have the support you think you do. If you want to guarantee people trained, offer free training and make it attractive to do this training or include it in our compulsory education system so everyone gets it by default. By the way, everyone is already eligible for the national guard, it is essentially the current active volunteer militia. What you can’t do is make people join the national guard to be able to keep and bear arms.
If you want to just scrap the country like your later comments on this thread indicate, go find uninhabited land and found your own country that doesn’t have a constitution and can be completely redesigned at your will. Or steal some from any current inhabitants if you can, and if you find that palatable or find a group you don’t think deserve their country.
No it’s not, everything the founders wrote about was directly designed to keep people armed and under no situation shall they be disarmed. Go read some of their papers. This has been chewed a million times and the anti-2a crowd still thinks regulated is the same meaning today as it was back then.
The founders were slave oligarchs, the tyranny they were keeping the citizens armed to defend against was Haiti.
What the fuck are you talking about…do you just make shit up in your head? They wanted everyone armed because they just fought and defeated the world’s strongest military at the time…
If that was genuinely the reason a significant faction of them wouldn’t have been arguing in favor of trade deals with them instead of France, the country that basically won the war for us at sea.
Imagine just for a second, that they drop the issue and gain control of all 3 branches and then actually do something about it rather than constantly struggling to win because of single policy voters.
The only thing tougher to imagine than dems winning supermajorities and all three branches is the dems doing something with it. Hard to imagine the people who fund splinter dems like Manchin wont just do the same thing to a dozen dems instead of two.
Roe had good results, but it wasn’t a good decision.
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit
Yes, there’s no way Roe would have been overturned by that Congress or that Supreme Court (50 years ago). Just like this Congress and Court will not allow significant gun control. Republicans gerrymandered districts and refused to seat a justice, thereby changing those things. Thank you for proving my point.
They kept pushing it as an issue they care about, and eventually they got through. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t.
Well, Democrats have been pushing the AWB in Congress for about 30 years now, the first 10 it was law, then it sunset, and they kept pushing…and they have lost a ton of ground in that fight, just like abortion. Because while they were introducing bills, Republicans were remaking Congress and the judiciary. But sure, let’s propose more pointless legislation… it’ll work this time.
That’s how politics generally works, you push for the issue for decades and if you’re relentless enough you either finally push through it or you die. You also can and probably need to do all other things but you never stop pushing.
Seriously. Pivot to mental health funding or something. At least that has a chance of passing and even if it doesn’t cut down on shootings it will still help people.
It’s also a lightning rod issue that turns more voters away than it attracts.
Sure there are staunch anti-gun people under the Democrats’ tent but they’re not the kind of people who will vote Republican if the party suddenly scaled back or ended its decades long futile efforts at gun bans.
On the other hand there are a ton of white working class voters on the suburban-rural fringes of swing states who would absolutely at least consider a Democrat if the party wasn’t so easily cast as “gun grabbers and job killers who only care about minorities”.
You get a pro-union, pro-legal-gun Democrat on a ticket who speaks on issues affecting rural whites as much as they do urban non-white voters (who are equally important), and you’d have a winner in many of these areas where they’ve been quite red, but not so rabidly Trumpy as other areas.
Even moreso if that’s a change that happened at the party/platform level.
I feel like from a campaign strategy standpoint, guns are just a lose-lose for the Democratic party. Playing to a base that would be loyal anyway for other reasons, even if the party dropped that position completely (which would not only eliminate a deal breaker issue for rural Democrats but also eliminate a cornerstone of the GOP platform in “protecting the second amendment”). Unless they did a complete about face and suddenly became as cozy with the NRA as Republicans, anti-gun voters might be upset, but they’re still voting blue.
After all there’s still abortion, electoral reform, racial justice, the environment, education, foreign policy, infrastructure, legal weed, LGBT rights, healthcare, and a host of other issues where the Dems are still their people.
Same thing with abortion and marijuana on the other side. If Republicans could lighten up on that stuff Democrats would never win an election again.
It cuts both ways.
The same can be said for literally every issue.
“Oh if only the Democrats stopped talking about abortion, electoral reform, racial justice, the environment, education, etc. they’d be more appealing to certain voters!”
Capitulating on a widely supported issue just to possibly attract a minority group of voters is a show of weakness.
It’s also known as Appeasement. Liberals that always compromise on everything, especial their core beliefs, are basically part of the problem.
I’d be fine with changes to all manner of healthcare and insurance coverage, including single payer.
Plus if they focused on mental health and preventive measures they could maybe bring over some fire arms enthusiasts, who otherwise vote republican or atleast get them to not vote.
Mind you the effectiveness may be scattershot at times since its alot easier to get the guy going postal than it is to get the an ideologically motivated shitbag.
Republicans block efforts for increased healthcare of any kind let alone mental health. They also block preventative measures like red flag laws.
It’s not a mental health issue. There are people with mental health issues all over the civilized world and those countries don’t deal with mass shootings weekly, even if the citizens are allowed access to guns. It’s the relatively unrestricted access to firearms with minimal to no oversight of gun owners, and no rules to secure said firearms.
Edit: well, here we go again.
https://abc7.com/unlv-active-shooter/14148302/
Okay and? This was my point, ya aint gonna get a solid backing for any type of gun control due to the courts. I support firearms licensing, so long as its about as easy/hard as getting a drivers licence. The thing is though that going “its the guns” while technically true is about as helpful as going “its cause of capitalism” great youve found the problem now what practical solution do you have?
My point was moreso to give an example of what the Dems could do to syphon votes from the republicans. The current “lets ban guns” shtick clearly aint working so come up with a better solution. I think folks who make their identity all about firearms are stupid, but that also means they should be easy to be made apathetic on voting at minimum.
You’re both right. We can’t put the genie back in the bottle. There are more guns than people in the US so to reduce gun suicide we must work both sides of the issue.
“minimal oversight and rules” he says. Tell us you’ve never bought a gun without telling us.
Please don’t speak about things you have no clue on. There are plenty of rules and restrictions. The fact that our federal government can’t or doesn’t enforce them properly means the law abiding citizen should suffer?
The fuck outta here with that nonsense.
Yeah. You don’t know anything about my firearms knowledge, and that’s fine with me. I don’t give a damn about some dick measuring contest over whatever is in someone’s arsenal.
What oversight? Most rural places you pass a nominal background check at best. Buy your gun, and nobody bothers you about it again. Urban areas? Yeah, more rules; but again, fill out the paperwork, pass the background checks, buy your gun and that’s it. The majority of rules apply to handguns. I can head on down to my local gun shop and pick up a deer rifle with almost no hassle at all. Or maybe you mean a tax stamp? Same story. Fill out the paperwork, pass the check, pay the money, get the gun.
Yet again, nobody pays attention to what you do with the gun once you have it. That’s the oversight part I’m talking about. Nobody is making you re-test for anything. There’s no license to maintain to own a long gun or even a handgun in the vast majority of places.
I’m not even going to touch CCW because that’s not buying a gun or owning a gun, that’s how you carry it.
What is apparent is that you haven’t a clue what real oversight is. Gun ownership in the rest of the civilized world is highly regulated, licensed, tested, and monitored. So is how the firearm is stored, where and when it can be transported and used.
So “get outta here with that nonsense” when you consider a single background check or a tax stamp “monitoring” your ownership.
This is the other side of the argument that I don’t really understand. There shouldn’t be “monitoring” of your ownership. A law abiding citizen going in, filling out a background check and proving they aren’t prohibited from owning a gun and then buying said gun and ending their involvement with the government from that point on is just normal. We are innocent until proven guilty. We have a right to privacy. We have a right against unwarranted searches. Exercising one of your other constitutional rights shouldn’t and doesn’t mean you give up others.
The government shouldn’t be monitoring it’s citizens with regular check-ins, making sure they are good worker drones. I don’t understand the desire for the government to dictate or arbitrate every action you take, because the government doesn’t care about you as an individual. Allowing the government to monitor your personal life is a distopian trope for a reason. I don’t want to live in a police state like the UK or China, and our own police state is already bad enough.
Well, law abiding citizens shouldn’t shoot up schools, concerts, or businesses. But that doesn’t matter when it’s a right to own guns, because somehow magically a law abiding citizen with guns suddenly isn’t so law abiding, but gun owners never really want to deal with that. Wash their hands and walk away.
Just dropping the whole basis of our legal system because lives could be in jeopardy, just throw out innocent until proven guilty and your right to privacy. Let me guess, you also disagree that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be convicted, especially if the crime is severe enough?
Law abiding citizens shouldn’t steal, use illegal substances, or assault people either, but that doesn’t matter because a statistically significant percentage of people suddenly aren’t so law abiding. Are you prepared to allow law enforcement to regularly enter your home and inventory your property to match with receipts backed up by your pay stubs to make sure your not stealing anything or committing fraud, while also ensuring you don’t have any drugs? How about regular interviews with your friends, family, and coworkers to make sure you always conduct yourself in a upstanding manner? Having to get evidence and/or reasonable articulable suspicion to search your person or property prevents police from stopping you from commiting crime before you do it.
You want to buy whipped cream? People can use those cannisters illegally. You need to go to a drug counselor for an evaluation, and pass a drug screen proving you aren’t a drug user of any kind, then you can get a permit. It needs to be renewed every year to make sure you remain sober.
A guy down the block broke the law by driving drunk, but you law abiding drivers never really want to deal with that by putting interlock systems in all motor vehicles and requiring the cops to do a blood draw, breathalyzer and field sobriety test before you are allowed to drive anywhere. Just wash their hands and walk away as if they couldn’t prevent people they don’t know from driving drunk.
What do you propose? Just accept the massacres?
Advocate for shit that would actually change things.
Enforce our ban on domestic abusers owning firearms. We already passed it, but no one enforces it. It would eliminate a huge chunk of gun violence in the nation, but its not as appealing to the mob as the “assault style” ban.
Or both?
One is favored by both sides of the aisle and has already been passed. There are yet more measures that are favored by a vast majority of the population and have data to support their effectiveness. We should start with the low hanging fruit before we start climbing the tree.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
deleted by creator
Apparently so since we are currently focusing on laws that won’t pass when we could instead be focusing on the ones that will be easy to pass.
If you want to eat now then reach for the low hanging fruit. If you want to proceed to see people getting shot with no changes, then pursue a law that will get held up in the house for months or years before most likely not passing. No single one of these laws will fix the problem, but a collection of them will, there’s a long road ahead for gun control advocates and they need to atleast start building momentum
I guess I’d ask you the same question. I don’t have a proposal because I don’t think any of it will make it through Congress. And if it somehow made it through Congress, the Supreme Court would strike it as unconstitutional.
Short of voting out these members of Congress and balancing the court, there’s no hope of reform. So drop the issue to appeal to more voters. Win more elections, balance the court, then you’re in a position to effect change.
Also, AWBs are pretty useless. They tend to grandfather in existing weapons and they exclude handguns, which are the weapon used most often to commit murder. Magazine limits, which were in the 1994 law, were the only piece to show a genuine reduction in violent crimes.
I guess my proposal would be to repeal and replace 2a. Probably won’t happen until the silent gen and the boomers are gone.
I strongly disagree with you, but I definitely give you credit for at least actually saying it.
Most that I’ve had this discussion with insist they don’t want to touch the second amendment and revoke the rights of law abiding gun owners… then most of their ideas both won’t solve gun violence while also stripping millions of people who’ve never broken a gun law of their rights without due process.
Guns are one issue where I strongly break with the Typical American Left™, but if you’re going to be anti-gun, I absolutely give you credit for having the wherewithal to just say what you really want.
deleted by creator
Well, I also said “replace.” Something that’s clearer and won’t be misinterpreted like the “well-regulated militia.”
Something that’s under control like they have in most other developed countries where you can still own a weapon in many instances, but it’s much safer and gun-related crime is way down.
I’m just, under no circumstance, willing to accept the massacres of children or other innocent people. And pretending it has nothing to do with the weapons is just disingenuous.
Your virtue signaling aside, I feel it’s disingenuous to pretend it does come down to the weapons.
Americans have owned millions of guns throughout its entire existence. Why all the shootings in the news now?
I guess the guns finally got serious about their mind control plot to wipe out all the humans.
Mental illness and easy access to weapons is a toxic combination not found in other developed countries. That’s why.
Some variation on this is the inevitable outcome. It’s same story as with say, universal health care. We already know the solution, we just have assholes and people stuck in the past preventing it. At some point, most of them will die off and society moves on.
Universal health care has been on the national stage since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Over a century and not much to show for it.
The problem with eventually is that there’s no measure of success, since you can never be wrong, it’s just not eventually yet.
How many countries have pulled it off? It’s laughable to think it is impossible here. Everything I’ve suggested has already been implemented elsewhere. It’s pretty logical to assume it can happen here too.
I assume you’ve pivoted now to universal healthcare…but I’m not sure. No one said it’s impossible, for that matter, no one said gun control is impossible. Just that it won’t pass a Republican controlled legislative body, and I assume it would be struck down by the Supreme Court…same as gun control. Change both of those (Congress & Court) and you’ve got a chance.
The point is that opposition to both is not some permanent feature of the US government. Nor will the SCOTUS always be far right.
I don’t think any generation of 3/4 of the states is ratifying that.
Maybe, maybe not.
Or you know, actually interpret the way it was written. Most “gun enthusiasts” are not part of a “well regulated militia”.
A well stocked library, being necessary and proper for the literacy of a nation, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
That wouldn’t limit the ownership of books to just librarians or people with library cards, it clearly applies to all people.
What if libraries stopped existing because they were completely replaced by something else? Militias stopped existing when we created a standing army. Or, if you want to be charitable, they’ve evolved into “National Guard” who are often armed. They are also well-regulated, as the amendment requires.
Also, this analogy is shit, you can’t take someone’s life in a split second, without a thought, with a fucking book. Give me a break.
The American/English language is awesome. We’ve got these great rules with sentence structure and grammar that makes things super easy once you learn the tricks.
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.
Little English trick for you. Remove the words between the commas and see if the sentence makes sense.
“A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.” - Looks pretty good.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.” - Still looks good and justifies the reason.
“A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” - Still looking good and provides context as to WHO the Militia is.
We put it all together and get
A well regulated Militia (which is needed for security) (made up of people with guns) is a right granted to the State.
If we add the missing comma to your initial statement before the word ‘shall’.
Yes, the way your statement is written it would contain books to libraries and would not EXPLICITY provide such protections (book ownership) to individuals. It does not limit individuals, but it does not grant them special rights either.
If “the founders” had wanted everyone to be able to buy a gun they would not have included the word Militia. They’re authorizing States the rights to form their own National Guard. Keep in mind, they are NOT saying the average person cannot have a gun. It is my belief that during these times of ‘unrest’ that they wanted at least some form of local army to defend against invasion. Folks that get training on weapon use and military tactics.
Also some food for thought, nowhere in the 2A or Constitution is the word “ammunition”. So if the government so wished, they could simply make possession of primers illegal.
Read your statement again and now it makes sense why you think what you think. It’s the comma you either left off intentionally or conveniently. Commas matter.
Edit: The 2A does not GRANT or DIMINISH an individuals’ right to arms as it never addresses the subject. It only GRANTS the right to those members of the Militia.
A well regulated militia shall not be infringed sounds pretty meaningless to me. Can a well regulated militia take my car since they can’t be infringed? Can they openly kill anyone not in the militia? Can you not get speeding tickets if you join a militia? Adding being necessary to the security of a free state, does not clarify anything.
The actual subject in the sentence is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” If the Founders wanted it to be only members of a militia, they could have said members, militias, their, or almost anything other than the people.
Just because you do not comprehend the statement, does not make it untrue.
The SUBJECT of that statement is “Militia”. The statement self-justifies, then defines, then acts upon it.
Your question response goes on to further expose your misunderstanding. Don’t get me wrong, this is not an attack on you. If there’s any blame to your misunderstanding, it lies in the school system.
The Second Amendment grants members of the Militia, the right to keep their guns in their home. AS noted by another commenter, that would be the National Guard in today’s terms. In Founders terms, it was minutemen.
All the 2A does is exempt Militia members from State or Federal Laws if those laws prohibit gun possession. It also exempts them if they require the discharge of that weapon in duty of preserving the Free State. This means if the Chinese military drops a paratrooper over a National Guardsman’s home, they are exempt from prosecution for shooting at them.
Here’s the best part. If we repealed the second amendment, nothing would change. It never granted an individual rights to begin with so revoking it would not take those rights away.
As ass backwards as your understanding of sentence structure is and as intentionally obtuse an interpretation of the words “the people” as “the militia” instead of as “the people” like every other use of those words in the Bill of Rights, it doesn’t matter even if we agree with your assertion
10 USC: 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.
Basically you are saying disarm only women and the elderly. That seems a little discriminatory, but you do you. Broadly speaking here, everyone is part of the militia. The militia is the citizens of the country. And if you want to argue that this doesn’t mean the people get to keep their arms when not actively participating in militia action like everyone seems to do when this is pointed out, please see the relevant legislation from the same time period as the 2nd Amendment.
Second Militia Act of 1792: How to be armed and accoutred. provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
Clear intention that every citizen should arm themselves with military hardware, ammunition, and know how to use it. You didn’t use bayonets for hunting, this was “modern military hardware” for the day. This was not authorization to be allowed to arm militias. The US was not even allowed to have a standing army, only a permanent navy was allowed, the armed citizenry was the army as needed. And all this is moot because the premise of the 2nd being only for militia members is, again, faulty.
Sure but we’ve proven incapable of that. Repeal it and replace it with something that cannot be misinterpreted.
deleted by creator
Exactly.
Say it with me, “The State should not have a monopoly on violence.”
So, no suggestion other than just accepting the massacres?
deleted by creator
While I agree with all of those things, let’s remember that the same party that wants to do nothing about gun control will also not provide universal healthcare, a living wage, will provide no regulation of the labor market that could provide improved work-life balance, no family leave, no funding for universal college-level education.
All things that make it possible to live rather than just survive. And maybe people would be less desperate. Republicans say no.
Because it wasn’t the reauthorizing of the assault weapons ban, it was an entirely new version of… The same measures we had 2 decades ago…
The fuck are you talking about it would never pass Congress or the supreme Court, it’s the same damn thing we already had you muppet.
Are you under the impression the politics of 1994 are remotely similar to 2023? Have you read the Supreme Court cases of Heller (2008) or Bruen (2022)?
Name call all you want, but you’re the one tragically out of touch. This Congress, especially the Republican majority in the house would NEVER pass this bill. SCOTUS has completely changed gun rights in this country since 2008. First finding an individual right to gun ownership, then drastically reducing those gun limitations that are allowable under the 2nd amendment.
I suggest you do some reading before spouting nonsense. Your comment somehow states the bill is simultaneously “entirely new” and also the “same damn thing”. Muppet.
Those things will all vanish eventually. We currently have the most conservative SCOTUS in basically a century, and the Republican party is near-fascist politically. These are not sturdy foundations for a legal concept. The truth is, society has never accepted murder and cruelty as a necessary part of society. It’s always just a handful of elitists or bigoted fanatics holding society back.
Eventually, many of our current laws and customs will become viewed as the next version of Jim Crow or anti-LGBT laws, and become so unpopular they get repealed. Some take decades to go down, but they always go down. The concept of gun rights will be one of them.
Eventually, eventually, eventually…
Eventually a space alien from over 100 light years away will be named Steve and be president of Earth. You can’t prove me wrong, because… eventually!
Because everything today is exactly as it was when the US constitution was first ratified…
This is anti-progress thinking. It’s laughable that you actually think basic legal reforms can’t happen.
No one said basic legal reforms can’t happen, you’re creating a strawman. I said that this Congress and this Supreme Court will not allow gun control. If you disagree, by all means let me know where my error lies.
Also, let me know the path to passage rather than vague statements about eventually. Eventually is weasel language that means you have no confidence in what you’re saying; if you did, you’d tell me when and how that can be accomplished.
No one said otherwise. But you won’t have this congress and this SCOTUS forever.
And again, it is basic legal reform. It is not some hard problem. And since nearly every Western country has both universal health care and gun control, it is pretty feasible for those ideas to spread to the US at some point. All your doing is apologizing for the modern incarnation of racist violence.
How? Eventually! When? Eventually! Why? Eventually! Who? Eventually! What? Eventually!
The court’s opinion swung one way in 15 years. It can swing back in another 15. Three of the 4 oldest justices are Republicans and it only takes 2 being replaced with Democrats to flip the court. Totally within the realm of possibility.
You have to change Congress too. But you’re still talking about 15+ years, and multiple conservative justices dying, and being replaced by liberal justices, and the reverse not happening.
So can we agree that we can hold off on the AWB for like 20 years?
No, we can’t even agree on that unfortunately. This country is divided in several ways where there is no acceptable compromise and gun control is one of them.
Scalia’s vote in Heller (singled him out because it was openly against his so-called “originalist” school of thought) undid far more than just fifteen years of precedent.
Oh absolutely. Heller was exceptional in its stupidity. My point was just what the current court does, a future court can always undo.
Disagree. The solution is to push for as much gun control as possible, until eventually the dam breaks and the 2A dies. In the long run, gun ownership in the US will resemble how it works in other Western countries, which is to say not much at all.
That’s essentially nothing.
And I think elephants should fart rainbows, but both of our proposals lack any consideration of how we make that happen.
Eventually? There are roughly 400 million guns in this country…how many generations is “eventually”?
I’m not even disagreeing with you, but hoping doesn’t make it happen. How do we get there? What are the steps? Does your projected path take into account the systemic impediments?
It’s the same story as every other form of cruelty or injustice in American history. People look abroad, realize that such a problem never existed or was solved elsewhere, and eventually will push for the same type of reform in the US.
It doesn’t matter how long it takes or how hard it is. It’s the same story as every other big accomplish of the past, whether it’s ending slavery or women’s voting rights. They took decades to happen, but they all eventually happened.
Again, that’s all great, but how does it happen? What are the steps to take? Saying it will eventually happen seems even more dismissive than saying it can’t happen given current conditions.
When half the country is literally fascist, sure you can admit it isn’t going to happen anytime soon. But that is a temporary phenomenon. Eventually, all of them will die. At some point, the US will be a country run by normal people. You’re going to have large-scale agreement for major reforms.
The US is getting more stupid and polarised as school funding is diverted and people sign their heels in against civil discourse. It will be a long time before it is run by normal people.
I wouldn’t cry if guns were banned entirely, but given the culture the US population has been sold for generations, common sense gun control that works handily in other countries simply won’t work in the US. We’re not wired that way.
The best chance we have is pulling the tug o’ war rope as hard as possible just to maintain the status quo. We’re not fighting for reform, we’re fighting not to backslide.
As the saying goes, “this too shall pass.” No one can say when, but major political shifts always happen after a while.
That saying depends on the just world fallacy. Unfortunately, no, all things don’t necessarily pass.
I’ve got a saying for you that’s famously used to describe every moment in Russian history: “…then it got worse.”
It’s foolish to think things will just fix themselves. We’re hurtling full speed into climate apocalypse. Like you realize that isn’t just going to “pass” right?
Hopefully soon. Probably not without help.
And now you have lost anyone who like me would be open to voting Democrat more often instead of third party, because I don’t want to flat out lose my 2A rights. I don’t want to vote Republican because I don’t want to lose other rights in the slide towards religious fascism either. If every side is running on a platform of pick which rights you least want to lose, at least I’ll have my guns for protection when the fascists do successfully pull a coup and society collapses.
Yeah, same pro-fascist shit as always. Seen your type a thousands times now.
Let me know how your Democrat recruiting pans out when you call everyone who disagrees with abolishing the 2nd amendment pro-fascist. Really winning hearts and minds, and doing that “big tent” proud. Worked great in 2016, definitely didn’t need any of those “deplorables” to join up and there were no lasting consequences.
God I hate our 2 party system. Can’t get universal modern healthcare and universal basic income while also keeping gun rights.
Same-old closet fascist shit you always hear. It’s pretty obvious you don’t care how many people die. So none of your rhetoric holds up to scrutiny.
Ok, this a a good reminder not to give possible trolling the benefit of the doubt. Even though it’s feeding the troll: gun rights are not only for the far right. Marx realized the need for robust gun rights, this is nothing new. “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.” Don’t trust the state and the police to protect you, especially if you are a minority or revolutionary. The police have no legal duty to protect you.
We are not obligated to believe in Marx either. In fact, last I check nearly everyone agreed he was wrong on a lot of things. It’s all outdated extremist rhetoric, regardless of where it came from.