At least the guns are okay

JimLes said:

Well, then work on a constitutional amendment. And reforming the system so you don't have ridiculous things like the Senate or the Electoral College.

I'm a grandson of a man who went into the forest with a stolen rifle to simultaneously overthrow a ****** monarchy and a Nazi-puppet state, so I guess I just don't believe in half-measures.

Guns are killing people. I don't know why or even if this wasn't like that in the past, but trying to figure out a solution while making sure that everyone still has as many guns as they want seems ridiculous. In fact, it seems like people are more concerned about guns than human lives, but I suppose that's the title of this thread, so why should I be surprised.

Click to expand...

We can do better across the board, but only the favorable political topics get traction. As I said quite a while ago in this thread, if it was only about human lives, we'd be doing a lot more in other areas as well. We have over 10,000 drunk driving related deaths per year (most are innocent victims), and people (in this thread included) seem to think we are doing a good job, yet a much smaller 103 people died in mass shootings. Apart from Utah, which lowered the drinking limit, other states don't seem to give a ****. People seem to accept drunk driving death.

And that 10,000 number is just the deaths, not the large number of people that end up injured and disabled from drunk drivers or those that die from simply drinking. I had a cousin killed on a bike by a drunk driver and my uncle was horribly injured by a drunk driver and was not the same mentally until his death. Like guns, alcohol is now protected under the Constitution, but we can do a lot more to prevent deaths. Instead we are seeing the opposite, as more and more states are passing laws allowing alcoholic beverages to-go.

How about smoking? Over 480,000 deaths per year, of which at least 41,000 are due to second-hand smoking. Second hand smoking kills basically double those that are murdered by guns in this country (encompassing all non-suicide related gun deaths including accidents, gang shootings, mass shootings, etc.).

Many people say we should do was Australia did with guns. How about we do what New Zealand did with smoking. Phase out so people can't do it. If you are 14 or 15 in NZ, you can never legally buy cigarettes in your life.

JimLes said:

And no, you wouldn't even need a constitutional amendment. The second amendment simply says:

"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."

Nothing here says that a private citizen has the right to purchase weapons at will.

Click to expand...

Common law before the 2nd Amendment basically every document surrounding the discussion through 1949 and current case law (read Heller and Bruen) disagreea. The only way around it is a progressive Supreme Court that makes its own law which scares me more than guns tbh or a Constitutional amendment.

Imagine if the new republic told all the minutemen that after we defeat the british they need to turn all their guns in to be controlled by the state. That would have gone over well. We are in a different environment now and as such should push to amend to what we want the law of the land to be, not reconstrue the written law as to what we want it to be.

Common use under Heller may reverse laws on assault weapon bans and mag limitations. Lots of cases currently pending.

JimLes said:

And no, you wouldn't even need a constitutional amendment. The second amendment simply says:

"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."

Nothing here says that a private citizen has the right to purchase weapons at will.

Click to expand...

Wrong. It says the exact opposite. The first thing you need to understand is that the "Militia" is the mass of private citizens. It is not the Army or some other fighting force as the word "militia" is used today. Where the US Constitution give the power to the President to "call forth the Militia", it is referring to the power to compel conscription of citizens. Secondly, "well regulated" means "functional" a.k.a 'able to bring the tools of defense and being skilled in their use'. The term "regulated" does not refer to laws or controls. Lastly, the prefatory clause was never intended to convey or restrict any right, only to give the reason for the right. The actual dictate of the 2nd Amendment is: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The prefatory clause in modern terminology would read: "As a skilled and armed population is necessary for the self defense of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear the weapons of war shall not be infringed."

Keep in mind, the Founding Fathers were revolutionaries who didn't trust government.

I’m scared at what this reactionary Supreme Court is actually doing with regards to abortion, contraception, privacy, minority and voting rights, and guns than the hypothetical scary progressive court. Oh noes, health care might be declared a universal right and guns might have severe restrictions so we’re not having mass shootings several times a day ohhhh noooeesss!!!

I think one thing that cannot be overlooked is how guns reinforce for patriarchal and white supremacist systems that republicans are desperately trying to maintain. They know women’s empowerment, minority rights, demographics, and multi-cultural democracy threatens the status quo so they’re entrenching themselves in this toxic gun culture. As their party shrinks, they’re going to dig themselves even deeper in minority rule and gun extremism. The fear, paranoia, and chaos that they create with mass shootings and gun extremism reinforces their worldview that multiculturalism is scary and that’s why we need to abandon our quest for multicultural democracy and reinforce white supremacy and authoritarianism. Republican Fascists like Rufo and Vermule, DeSantis, Thiel, and Mike Lee have admitted such.

It doesn’t have to be this way and it probably won’t (in time). One can envision a healthy conservative Party that debates real issues like adults instead of merely grunting, “guns, immigrants, books, blacks, drag queens! Be afraid!” One can imagine a Conservative Party being constructive with emphasizing individualism and sane gun laws, more in alignment with our fellow European and Asian industrialized allies.

We’re going to get there with millennials and Gen Z. The only question is how many more innocent people will have their heads blown off before republicans finally lose this fight?

It doesn’t have to be this way. We can have similar laws to the rest of the world without having to amend the 2nd. We just have to put some of this toxic culture and identity crap behind us.

TheGoldStandard said:

Republicans flaunt guns for money and votes. Democrats flaunt banning the same guns pictured for money and votes. 103 people died in "mass shootings" in 2001 using FBI definitions or 706 if you include Gun Violence Archive's definition (shootings with no deaths included) of the 48,830 deaths (more than half are suicides). Most of these shootings did involve rifles. However, these are a sliver of gun homicides each year, but are the most publicized.

Basically these ARs that Republicans celebrate and Democrats abhor are responsible for less than 3% of all deaths by gun (shotguns were 1%). Handguns are responsible for approximately 60% of firearm homicides. The number is much higher as 36% don't list the type of guns, but many estimate that handguns truly account for closer to 90% of firearm related deaths.

Click to expand...

But AR 15's are so scary! No one will think this is scary enough to ban, it has to be something scary! Hell my aunt has one of these, how bad can it be!

See this is something that has to change, among many many others. The military saw this guy was a "problem" and instead of helping him get help they, of course, kicked him out. He was a problem for the military so he was kicked out and let loose on the civilian population. So among the hundreds of billions we spend on the military we can't earmark some of that for mental health care when it's warranted? That's the sickening joke here.

Al-O-Meter said:

Wrong. It says the exact opposite. The first thing you need to understand is that the "Militia" is the mass of private citizens. It is not the Army or some other fighting force as the word "militia" is used today.

Click to expand...

The fourth sentence is true, the third is not. Militias weren't just masses of private citizens, they were organized, loose affiliations with government control.

Al-O-Meter said:

Secondly, "well regulated" means "functional" a.k.a 'able to bring the tools of defense and being skilled in their use'. The term "regulated" does not refer to laws or controls.

Click to expand...

However, it does refer to having an organizational structure and a chain of command.

Al-O-Meter said:

Lastly, the prefatory clause was never intended to convey or restrict any right, only to give the reason for the right.

Click to expand...

Since the founding fathers themselves disagreed on the meaning of these clauses, there is no good way to say what was intended or not intended.

Al-O-Meter said:

Keep in mind, the Founding Fathers were revolutionaries who didn't trust government.

Click to expand...

They did not trust a specific government that wanted to interfere in their profitable enterprises. They certainly trusted government to keep poor people in line.