inb4 gunheads seeth over their right to carry murder tools is better than a childs right to not be shot
As long as the 2nd amendment is in place it’s not possible to ban guns. It will not happen.
Now, that being said, if you don’t like that, there is a process to fix it:
-
Get two thirds of the House to agree on a new amendment. 290 votes out of 435. The problem with that is the House is currently struggling to get a 218 vote simple majority on basic things, like “Who is the House leader?” or “Can we fund the government?”
-
Once you get that, then you need 67 votes in the Senate, the same body incapacitated by a 60 vote majority to overcome the filibuster placed on, well, everything. The Republicans in the Senate block everything.
-
Assuming you get enough people for 1 and 2, now it goes to the states for ratification. You need 38 out of 50. To put that in perspective, in 2020 Joe Biden won 25 states + Washington DC. Donald Trump won 25 states. To pass a new gun amendment, you would need ALL 25 Biden states + 13 Trump states. Any Biden state that refuses to ratify means you need an extra Trump state. There are only 19 states with Democratic controlled state legislatures, which means a likelyhood of needing 19 Trump states instead of 13.
Most people are not asking to “ban guns.” Most people are asking for restrictions that keep people safe, not least our school children, and a ban on military-style weapons like AR-15s. That’s not unreasonable nor impossible.
No no, you see, we can’t do that because of -insert bullshit here-
they’ll argue their critics don’t understand firearms, or the difference between semi and full auto, or that AR describes armalite rifle not assault rifle… because they have no response to the actual issue - we’re a country of 330 million that possesses 400 million + firearms. Too many people with ready access to firearms is the problem, but they can’t address that so they’ll change the subject to apocrypha.
Not impossible with any other Supreme Court, but this one is vastly different from the one that ruled during the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004.
Since then, ruling after ruling, the court has re-enforced and expanded gun rights. It’s going to get ugly when they hear the AWB and high capacity bans out of California.
Here’s a primer on how things have changed, I’ll need to save this because it will come up again:
D.C. Vs. Heller - 2008:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller“The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”
You can’t ban an entire class of weapon, in this case handguns. But that would apply to ANY class, such as banning rifles, shotguns, and, yes, semi-automatic rifles.
McDonald vs. City of Chicago - 2010
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago"the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right”
Needed re-stating because D.C. is a unique legal entity and not a state. McDonald exists to say “Yes, states too.”
Caetano v. Massachusetts - 2016
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._MassachusettsThis is actually my favorite one of these because it goes in an unusual direction. Woman was being threatened by an abusive ex and bought a taser for protection.
MA charged her saying that tasers didn’t exist at the time of the 2nd amendment, so she had no right to own one.
Enter the court:
“the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” and that “the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States”.[6] The term “bearable arms” was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any “”[w]eapo[n] of offence" or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[10]
Anything you take into your hands for defense is allowed under the 2nd amendment. So, no, you don’t have the right to a cruise missile or a tactical nuke, but if you can carry it, it’s yours.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen - 2022
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._BruenThis is the recent ruling that has everyone in a tizzy. First, because for concealed carry, it converted New York from a “may issue” state to a “shall issue” state:
“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”[26]
And second, it sets a new standard by which all gun laws will now be measured:
"When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “‘unqualified command.’”
Sure, so go vote for people who want reasonable restrictions. The SC will eventually follow. It’s not impossible, but people have to remember to go vote on election day. Even when it seems impossible.
Huh. I remember some laws in my state about knuckledusters and switchblades changing around 2017. Do you think courts would apply the logic from Caetano v Massachusetts to some of the oft-prohibited items, like ‘clubs’ and such?
Good question, no clue.
Those fall under “destructive devices”, and with the exception of grenades aren’t “bearable” arms as defined by the court.
deleted by creator
LOL - try that in court and see how far you get. “I don’t need a lawyer, man, laws aren’t real…”
I’m picking up some sovereign citizen vibes there!
I mean, banning military-style guns is a ban though.
Realistically we need regulation on who can own guns, not what guns they can own.
That’s semantics. Banning specific people from owning guns is still a ban by your same logic?
We already ban people from using guns. Felons, drug users, spousal abusers, etc. That’s all part and parcel of filling out the purchase form.
Fucking bullshit that holding a medical card prevents me legally owning a firearm but Cletus next door owns an arsenal and HAS TO DRINK TO STAY ALIVE BECAUSE HES AN ENDSTAGE ALCOHOLIC WETBRAIN WITH NO IMPULSE CONTROL.
It’s going to be interesting to see the lawyers challenge that for Hunter Biden’s coke habit.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/09/hunter-biden-second-amendment-legal-defense.html
If you want a real, actually solution, then you must go all the way.
In your eyes, what makes the AR-15 more dangerous than a Glock 19 handgun? They are both semi-auto in functionality. In fact, most handguns are semi-auto, along with quite a few shotguns. Both can have a magazine loaded with 30 rounds. The AR is a civilian produced weapon that the military sought to use with multiple modifications. The AR does not have these modifications.
You say no one wants to ban guns but then your very next sentence states banning a model of gun. If you can factually answer what makes it more dangerous, I just might agree with you.
Yeah, you could have just said you have no idea what you’re talking about. Step one, realize that the rifle the military uses and the rifle you’re so scared of are not the same. They look very similar, so I can see why you would think so. You want to talk disingenuous, why don’t you have any rebuttal to the things I mentioned but instead want to go on to your own diatribe? Come back with something intelligent and then we’ll talk.
2nd Amendment wasn’t a big thing until the Supreme Court decided in Heller that the whole ‘well-regulated militia’ part was a nothingburger. Then the floodgates opened.
All you need is for another Supreme Court to put that part back in and restrict gun use to ‘well-regulated militias.’
It’s a lower bar than a constitutional amendment, but good luck putting the genie back in the bottle.
Oh, absolutely agreed, but keep in mind that Heller was in 2008 and the court has only gotten MORE conservative since then, not less.
Here’s a fun stat:
Looking just at the Supreme Court in my lifetime (have to start somewhere!), we have had 8 Republican Presidential terms and 6 Democratic ones. Not a dramatic difference, right? Now look at the Justices placed on the court:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx
Nixon - 3
Nixon/Ford - 1
Reagan - 1
Reagan - 2
Bush Sr. - 2
Bush Jr. - 0
Bush Jr. - 2
Trump - 3Carter - 0
Clinton - 2
Clinton - 0
Obama - 2
Obama - 0*
Biden - 154 years, 14 Republican Justices to 5 Democratic ones.
I’ve never heard a single politician propose banning guns. I’ve only ever heard Republican pundits SAY that Democrats want to take away your guns.
Sensible gun regulation can be enacted without banning all guns. It’s only the extreme right that interprets the 2nd amendment as disallowing ANY regulations.
The right uses the 2nd amendment to cut off ANY discussion of gun reforms, and the eventual result COULD be that the 2nd amendment is eliminated using the methods you described, since it could be seen as the only way to enact sensible restrictions.
I don’t want to lose the second amendment, do you? I’d rather see sensible regulations put in place while still largely retaining the right to bear arms. If those of us who are interested in gun ownership fight tooth-and-nail against ANY regulations, then it will make efforts to eliminate gun ownership entirely more likely to eventually succeed.
I’d prefer be part of the conversation to determine where the right line is on gun rights, rather than trying to cut off the conversation entirely by invoking the 2nd amendment.
Beto O’Rourke is probably the most notable:
Biden too:
https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
Which has since been taken offline and now has the best 404 ever… CNN archived parts of it here:
https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_b584f336-923d-49d9-98c5-d82883116eb4
“Along with banning the “manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” Biden’s plan includes mandating that people who own assault weapons either sell theirs to the federal government or properly register them with the authorities.”
Of course I’m aware of the calls for banning assault weapons and that we had an assault weapon ban for many years. Certainly a reasonable discussion should be had about where the line is. I’m not sure whether I agree with the assault weapon bans or whether they have a good classification, but either way they aren’t calling for banning ALL guns, they’re calling for banning certain types of guns.
This just proves my point that the 2A crowd is shooting themselves in the foot by not being willing to discuss reasonable reforms.
If you insist that the 2A allows you to have a gun that can shoot up a football stadium, then people are eventually just going to eliminate the 2A altogether, which would be harmful IMO.
Instead we should acknowledge that there IS room for sensible reforms. For example, people should not be able to have nuclear missiles. Seems like common sense to me, maybe that’s a good place to start? Maybe there we can work our way down through artillery and figure out where the line is on guns that can shoot up massive crowds of people.
Instead of insisting that a sentence written hundreds of years ago means you can do whatever you want with no restrictions, maybe come up with a reasonable argument as to why it is important for our democracy for you to bear those particular arms.
Also, if you’re going to take on the tyrannical government, you’d probably need those nuclear missiles.
they aren’t calling for banning ALL guns, they’re calling for banning certain types of guns.
From a rights oriented perspective “that’s how it starts”. Especially for the folks online calling for an Australia style ban.
people are eventually just going to eliminate the 2A altogether, which would be harmful IMO.
That would require a new amendment and that’s just not possible given the current governmental dysfunction. You’d have to start by getting 290 votes in the House, the same folks who needed 15 tries to get the 218 votes needed to decide who their own leader would be. :(
Instead of insisting that a sentence written hundreds of years ago means you can do whatever you want with no restrictions, maybe come up with a reasonable argument as to why it is important for our democracy for you to bear those particular arms.
People confuse semi-automatic rifles for fully automatic rifles. I was uneducated myself, until I went out and bought an AR-15 myself and ran through a training class with it. I felt I needed that experience to speak intelligently about it.
Like any other semi-automatic, it fires one time every time you pull the trigger. It’s not dramatically different from other kinds of rifles, other than it automatically ejects the shell and loads the next round instead of the shooter having to do it manually with a lever, pump or bolt.
But man, have you SEEN some of those non semi-auto shooters?
Pump:
https://youtube.com/shorts/TUSjkwGopdw
Bolt:
Unfortunately this argument is another can of worms with the hardliners, but it also highlights their hypocrisy.
It goes something like this:
Me, a moderate: “You always conveniently leave out the ‘well regulated’ part when you use the 2A as a shield that prevents all gun regulation”
Hardliner: “Well actually the phrase ‘well-regulated’ meant something different at the time it was written, and it was not intended to refer to restrictions. Generally, well regulated meant “in good working order” so we interpret that as referring to the militia itself being functional, and not that restrictions would be placed on individual gun owners.”
So now you can start to see the hypocrisy with these constitutional literalists, because they insist that the text should be strictly interpreted based on what it meant at the time… but at the time, the only “arms” were single shot muskets that weren’t accurate at all. So they are trying to burn the candle at both ends by at the same time applying a modern and historical interpretation of the text. Clearly the founders did not anticipate modern weapons.
The whole idea that the 2A precludes ALL restrictions is bullshit. Should individuals be able to own nuclear warheads? Obviously not. I’m personally really tired of people who (instead of engaging in a rational argument about which restrictions are appropriate) just use the 2A as a shield so that they don’t have to justify their views.
Oh, yeah, but as the court veers more conservative, that’s not going to change any time soon.
Maybe once Thomas and Alito are gone, assuming that happens under a Democratic President and they don’t have their picks blockaded the way McConnell did to Merrick Garland.
You are correct, but it’s all about the interpretation of the law. Remember that the assault weapons ban, federal legislation on all the various tchotchkes, and the state laws on weapons and licenses have all been found constitutional. And while it won’t happen in this court, this court did establish the principle that they can reverse a decision that has historically guided laws and interpretations in this country for decades as being fundamentally flawed. The path to getting 50 votes in the senate to kill the filibuster, then expand the court with new appointees to turn the balance, then wait for the firearms cases to come in is easier than changing the constitution. I mean, we can’t even do that much at this point, but the math is easier.
They were found Constitutional before Heller in 2008… that’s the problem. The court has only veered harder right since then.
California’s AWB and magazine size restrictions are being challenged, I don’t expect them to survive. The magazine limit has already been struck down by lower courts, I don’t see the current Supremes being more favorable to it.
So you saying your governmental structure is shit?
And intentionally so. :)
Good, long live the second amendment
Long live the school shooters that don’t get shot down by the cops! They used the second amendment too.
I’m not going to say it’s “good” or “bad”. It’s the law, and the law is the law. It’s a separate axis from good or bad. :)
The law is not just the law. The law is very much up for interpretation. Which is why it has been McConnell’s main objective throughout his career to get the SC to sway conservative.
Maybe we should think about the morality of them before implementing laws rather than doing it because we can.
-
Removed by mod
I mean, we’re the ones with the dead kids.
Removed by mod
Bless your little ol’ soul
deleted by creator
Of course we seethe that, once again, someone got access to a murder weapon that really shouldn’t have. Like all the fucking times people used “mah self defense amendment gun” offensively. Like all the other times that show just why a centuries-old amendment is outdated in the modern age. Like all the other times PEOPLE FUCKING DIED YOU HEARTLESS PIECE OF-
Seriously? Smug emoji on a post about kids getting shot?
Removed by mod
You have no right to own a gun. As long as any cop can get away with killing you in self defense in your own home because you’re armed (just happened again this month), you have no right.
let’s dodge the argument by changing the subject!
Removed by mod
Is it still a right if a cop can justify killing you for doing it?
Maybe I don’t understand what a “right” is. I thought it was something you were free to do without government stopping you. Being dead is pretty stopped, and the cops are an arm of the government. So…
Removed by mod
If it’s legal to drink beer, but you get thrown in jail when you drink beer, then it’s effectively not legal to drink beer, even if the law says you can.
You have a right to own a gun. But when a cop can kill you for exercising that right, effectively, you don’t have that right.
Removed by mod
Did Philando Castile have that right?
The fact that ‘families upended by school shootings’ is a significant enough demographic to be relevant in us politics, is saying something of itself.
Getting murdered by guns is the number one cause of children’s deaths in the United States of America.
Just sad, isn’t it? Even more sad that we don’t do anything about it.
Did we stop the thoughts and prayers?
Guns are just too ingrained in the core of American culture for this ever to be fixed. It would probably be easier to just abolish the entire school system than it would be to implement any meaningful gun control policy.
The rest of the Western world doesn’t have the same issue because we view guns totally differently.
deleted by creator
Non-American here.
Have you tried giving free guns to minorities? I seem to remember people suddenly change their minds on gun control when the Black Panthers armed themselves in California.
American here.
I’m all for minorities and other groups struggling for equality arming themselves. It is a lot harder for the government to stomp on your rights when they have to worry about you fighting back.
It wasn’t that long ago the government used airplanes to bomb its own citizens…
Until America addresses it’s police problem, which I propose stems from an ongoing inequality problem, the American public needs a way to defend itself.
I think that’s not a reasonable argument, though. If you kill a cop, you will likely not survive it. You will likely not be arrested. If you manage to flee the scene, you will be hunted down with the cooperation of law enforcement from around the country. Right there in New Mexico, they just had a situation with a guy who answered his door with a gun and got blown away, cowboy style, by the cops who knocked on the wrong door. And it’s being considered a justified shooting. And the guys son happens to be a NM cop, iirc. People buy guns to protect themselves from other people who bought guns, not from the government.
Funny enough, the majority of people in minority groups are for gun control. Makes sense since, after all, they live with the consequences of letting any dumbass on the street to own one.
Why do think minor drug possession is a felony and police over-patrol minority areas, they aim to make all minorities felons and keep them either in prison or unable to legally obtain firearms
The frustrating thing is the open carry ban would have had ZERO impact on that shooting:
"The young boy was shot and killed in a suspected road rage shooting last Wednesday near Isotopes Park. Police said someone in a Dodge Durango fired 17 shots at the car he was in when leaving the game, killing Froylan and wounding his 24-year-old cousin, Tatiana.
“The vehicle just pulled up on the side of them and started shooting,” Amaro said.
All of it happened with Froylan’s mother and baby brother in the back seat."
You could ban open carry, you could ban concealed carry, that would not have stopped that shooting.
There really isn’t a way to know how it could have been prevented until we know who the shooter is.
Kind of pointless to pick a single particular time and argue that something would or would not have stopped it without any actual data.
If guns were less prevalent and harder to get would it cause there to be less gun fatalities?
If you are harder on people committing gun crimes would there be less gun fatalities?
If it were illegal to carry large amounts of amnition around with you, would there be less gun fatalities?
If it were illegal to carry around lots of weapons without being in a well-regulated militia, hence where police or other people would see you and go in that person’s probably up to no good, would that cause there to be less gun fidelities?
Those statements have a lot more deciding power behind them whether they’re right or wrong are you agree or disagree They actually mean something.
If some kid rolls up and does a school shooting do we hold their families responsible? You lived with that guy, prove reasonable doubt that you didn’t see it happening and not report it.
But this one time it band camp crap doesn’t prove or disprove anything it doesn’t say anything about the general working of gun laws on population.
Kind of pointless to pick a single particular time and argue that something would or would not have stopped it without any actual data.
Agreed, but I’m not the one citing it as an example of why the state needed an open carry ban. Fact of the matter is it was a driveby shooting, not a case of someone open carrying shooting.
If guns were less prevalent and harder to get would it cause there to be less gun fatalities?
Sure, but that can’t happen because of the 2nd amendment. It’s a non-starter.
If you are harder on people committing gun crimes would there be less gun fatalities?
Not really, no. Mass shootings end in either suicide, life in prison, or the death penalty. Hasn’t stopped them.
If it were illegal to carry large amounts of amnition around with you, would there be less gun fatalities?
Nope, because there’s no danger in carrying ammo.
If it were illegal to carry around lots of weapons without being in a well-regulated militia, hence where police or other people would see you and go in that person’s probably up to no good, would that cause there to be less gun fidelities?
That’s not what the founders meant by “well regulated militia”.
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html
“Further, the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of able-bodied men who were available for conscription.15”
If some kid rolls up and does a school shooting do we hold their families responsible?
In the case of the Crumbleys? Yes.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-michigan-high-school-shooter-ethan-crumbley-trial/story?id=98072544We don’t care the least about what the founders meant. Both parties consistently reinterpret the words to mean whatever Will keep them in power.
The things I wrote aren’t yes or no things they’re measures. They need to be investigated, studied, they need to be tried they need to see what effect the actually have. There’s a significant amount of pushback from gun rights advocates to not study those type of things for fear that some of them might actually work. And if you ask them why they say well they might not study it correctly they might just come up with whatever result they actually want to happen.
It’s pretty common for people who are anti-gun law to simply say this won’t work, that won’t work, it’s a pretty low barrier to entry argument. I don’t have any data but I don’t like the outcome so I’m just going to say it won’t work and that’s the whole argument
I would give my personal guarantee that implementing those would have an effect, the question is would any of them have enough of an effect to make it worth it. Hell, we’ve had police on site during shootings and they haven’t done a damn thing about what was going on. You don’t need any more indication than someone walking through a school shooting kids to know that they don’t need to be in there and need to be stopped.
They can’t be implemented because the Supreme Court has already made multiple key rulings o the topic since 2008 and have a few more in their case load for this year and next. It’s not going to get better, it will only get worse from here on out.
That used to be the case. But since they recently overturned Row v Wade, nothing is off the table anymore.
Agreed nothing is off the table, but the court has only turned more conservative, not less. So turnimg it back around may take another 50 years or more.
I’m honestly fine with guns being used to commit suicide but I draw the line at being used on anyone else.
Ya, it’s ok for people with mental disorders or extreme stress to have tools to readily available to kill themselves, in what is no doubt an informed, rational decision.
It’s my life partner, I don’t care if it’s, irrational, selfish, destruction of government property, etc.
deleted by creator
Cool.
deleted by creator
I would like an explanation from some of the people here touting the Second Amendment as an end-all and be-all to explain why it is that only in the past couple of decades has there been a huge gun proliferation. Shouldn’t the amount of guns have stayed relative to the population if this is only about the Second Amendment?
deleted by creator
It just bothers me that even so many people on the left are now absolutists when it comes to the Second Amendment.
Do you know where there was a ton of gun control? Back in the Old West. The “Wild West.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/
Somehow there was more gun control back then than there is now.
It’s not about whether or not it checks out logically for you. That’s libtard thinking. It only matters that the 2A nuts get as many phallic objects in their possession as possible so you know that they do manly shit real good.
In my personal opinion, seems like a number of factors are at work. First, the second amendment has become more republican-coded, so republicans are probably more likely to purchase more guns than they would have. Second, the media’s sensationalism has constantly increased, so a lot of people consider a gun to be a prudent option - either viewing many cities to be hellholes, and the only way they would travel there is with a CCW, or seeing crazy people fighting over COVID supplies and thinking “maybe they’re coming for my toilet paper, better get a gun.” Third, a lot of firearm-curious people see the rise of the republicans arming up and feel like they have no choice but to also get a gun.
One concerning element in all of this is that even though there has been an increase in guns, it doesn’t seem like there has been a corresponding increase in gun ranges, so people are likely not achieving competence with their guns.
Im not saying 2a is perfect but when you have actions like we see from CA and NM politicians, it gives more fuel for the crazies to say “Look they are coming to take our guns” Also an extremely large majority of responsible gun owners agree that there needs to be more protections in place but are quickly turned off as soon as someone says certain firearms or accessories will be completely banned.
That in no way explains what I would like explained. Unless you are saying the ridiculous amount of gun proliferation in the last couple of decades are because of those gun regulating politicians, which I find hard to buy.
I does actually. What drives people to hoard things when they see headlines that an item is in limited supply? See the similarity? FOMO for the American consumer is a heluva drug.
Except people aren’t buying and hoarding a specific type or brand of gun. They’re just buying tons of guns overall. So that doesn’t make sense. If they were only buying AR-15s or something, that argument would work, but it doesn’t track.
They didn’t come for just a particular style of gun when they had the opportunity to come for guns. Look at New Orleans during Katrina, and you’ll be looking at the image that every person is picturing when they think of the government and its pursuit of guns.
They’ve been told for years that the government is going to take their guns. The carnival barkers on talk radio or other right wing platforms continue to rant about government overreach taking their guns and how there’s criminals around every corner needing to be defended against.
deleted by creator
In my opinion, it isn’t even valid.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”
Back then, a standing professional military was not expected. Militias were the expectation, be risen in times of need. This clearly is not true anymore, so the premise of the second amendment isn’t true, which should invidate the rest, right?
I’m not anti-gun. I enjoy shooting them. I’m pro-regulation though. There should be requirements for training in their usage, proper storage and handling, and the legality of their use before anyone can purchase them. This should be funded by taxes to ensure poor people aren’t less able to be armed than wealthier people.
I don’t care HOW MANY kids have to die NO ONE is coming after my gun that I hang on my wall loaded and never use but when people come to my house I can pretend my penis is big! Fuck your kids! I need my penis enlarger!
Here’s the trick… the Nashville shooter had no criminal record and bought the guns 100% legally. There is no gun restriction that would block someone who passes the background check from buying a gun.
BUT:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting
“Hale was under care for an emotional disorder and had legally purchased seven firearms, including three recovered from the shooting scene, between October 2020 and June 2022.[1]”
If someone is under psychological care, should that be allowed to pop up on a background check? Maybe not as an instant disqualification the way a court ordered commitment or conviction would, but as an advisory note? Leave it to the discretion of the firearms seller? “By the way, this person is undergoing psych care, you could be held liable if they use this firearm in a crime.” That kind of thing?
Because right now, the only stuff that shows up on the background check are things that were ruled on by a judge, and sometimes not even all of those.
For example:
The guy who shot up Michigan State University:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Michigan_State_University_shooting
“McRae was arrested in June 2019 for carrying a weapon without a concealed pistol license.[38] Initially charged with a felony, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor unlawful possession of a loaded firearm as part of a plea agreement in November 2019.[39] He was originally sentenced to twelve months’ probation, which was later extended to 18 months, and in May 2021, he was discharged from probation.[35] Because McRae was not convicted of a felony, his ban on possessing weapons ended with the end of his probation.[40]”
Arrested for a felony gun charge, pled out to a misdemeanor, did his time, did his probation, was allowed to buy guns again.
Had he been convicted of the felony, he would have been blocked from owning a gun. The misdemeanor was not a barrier and did not appear on the background check.
Maybe it should have? Maybe ANY gun charges, felony OR misdemeanor should bar you from gun ownership?
If you stigmatize psychological care by making it a black mark that shows up on your record, people will just avoid getting the help they need and society will be worse off for it.
Absolutely true.
So if we can’t ban guns because of the 2nd amendment, and we can’t report on psych care because that would drive people away from care, then what’s the answer? 🤔 I don’t see a way out of it unless you make mental health care and reporting mandatory.
The way out of it is improving all of the other parts of American life. Improve healthcare so we don’t have so many desperately unhealthy poor people. Tax the rich and regulate white collar noncrimes (and enforce the crimes) so we don’t have as many desperately poor people. Improve the availability of housing, reform the police, fund public schools and pay teachers a decent wage, idfk what to do with the media but that sucks too. Get rid of first past the post voting so people feel like they can actually enact change through their representatives.
Virtually every aspect of non-wealthy American life is currently “in a crisis” as reported by the media. Further reducing the rights that individuals have is not the answer to there being a surplus of people past their breaking point.
Looking at gun violence as a gun problem instead of a violence problem is shortsighted, when people have less access to guns than ever.
That’s actually a less likely scenario than fixing the 2nd Amendment. :)
Well, we already ignore most of the others in the name of “safety” so what’s one more.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The parents who testified spilled their own stories, but also carried the weight of representing and speaking for the six people — including three children — who were killed by a shooter on March 27 inside The Covenant School.
Throughout the corridors of many state Capitols, families are sharing emotionally gutting stories of tragedy caused by mass school shootings with the hope that revealing their trauma will convince lawmakers from either party to reconsider firearm policies.
Lawmakers in Florida’s Republican-controlled Legislature passed a series of gun control laws just three weeks after authorities say a mentally disturbed man killed 17 people in a shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.
The legislation raised the gun-buying age to 21, imposed a three-day waiting period for purchases and let police seek court orders seizing guns from individuals considered a danger to themselves or others — a stronger “red flag” change than a Tennessee proposal that couldn’t even get a hearing.
In April, Kimberly Mata-Rubio waited for more than 12 hours at the Texas Capitol to testify that lawmakers should raise the purchase age for semiautomatic rifles like the one an 18-year-old gunman used to kill her daughter Lexi.
During one committee hearing, parents closely connected to the Covenant shooting audibly gasped, and some fled the room in tears, when Republican Rep. Chris Todd suggested that the shooter “probably would have driven over those kids” if they didn’t have a gun, as a way to dismiss that fewer firearms — rather than more — would have prevented the tragedy.
The original article contains 1,196 words, the summary contains 258 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
