Common Sense Gun Laws
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-review-trump-era-ban-gun-bump-stocks-rcna121466 |
Anonymous
Christ, we are so stupid. We can't get out of our way because a poorly-worded amendment written over 200 years ago, for reasons that no longer even exist, is somehow more important than human lives. |
Anonymous
+1 I posted the bump stock post and hit submit too soon - this coming term SCOTUS will/could rule on the bump stock ban, post-Bruen bans in New York and New Jersey on guns in sensitive places, state assault weapons bans, federal bans for domestic abusers, state bans on high capacity magazines, the federal ban keeping people indicted for felonies from getting guns, and state bans on under 21 gun ownership. |
Anonymous
|
For god's sake, don't use soggy, wimpy liberal terms like "common sense gun laws." It's a losing proposition, verging on parody.
A more effective term would be "massacre reduction" measures. It's not saying we won't have massacres, we will (thanks NRA!) but maybe we could take steps that result in, check it out(!) a) fewer massacres with b) fewer victims. and re: Bump Stocks, which help to turn semi-automatics into automatics, that's what the Las Vegas mass shooter used. Thanks to a bump stock, he was able to fire more than 1,000 bullets, killing 60 people and wounding 413 -- many with an eye shot out, or a disfiguring face wound, or decreased mobility due to destroyed joints and bones, etc. Pro-tip: if you want to kill a lot of people quickly, get a bump stock! |
Anonymous
You need to read the whole sentence with an understanding of how grammatical clauses were written in the 18th century. You don't get to just read the phrase you like that seems in a vacuum to support your desire to allow mass murders to continue. |
Anonymous
Trying to use modern usage to support unabridged right to gun ownership, does make it read like bad grammar. But it wasn't considered poorly written 200 years ago, and it doesn't mean what people are trying to make it mean today with modern usage. In the 18th Century usage, it didn't mean everyone gets a gun no matter what and for any reason at any time. The clauses must be read together in 18th century usage, which makes it a very limited right. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-the-second-amendment/ |
Anonymous
Especially that "well regulated" part. The government is well within its rights to regulate bump stocks and glock switches and all of those other things. |
Anonymous
| Place the mentally ill in well regulated institutions and lock up people who commit crimes with guns using existing laws for a couple of decades and you do two important things. First, dramatically reduce gun violence in America and second create good paying jobs needed to build and operate the appropriate institutions. |
Anonymous
If you add a little context, the Founders were terrified that a standing army would result in tyranny. Ideally, we wouldn't have a standing army and the body of the people would be ready to take up arms and defend the nation at a moment's notice. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/02/22/what-the-second-amendment-really-meant-to-the-founders/ Of course, that ideal has gone by the wayside with a permanent standing army. The Founders would likely argue that the 2A is now necessary to defend against a military coup. If you remember any recent history past the last couple of months, quite a few people were very worried about a potential coup by a certain President if he didn't win the election. So, you can see that the 2A still does have a purpose. |
Anonymous
|
More than enough gun laws on the books. Enforce them, put people who commit gun crimes in jail for at least two decades Lock up the mentally ill in compassionate facilities and gun violence will all but disappear.
|
Anonymous
Actually we still have no idea what kind of gun(s) Steven Padock used in Las Vegas. Nearly all details of the investigation, including specific details and photos of the gun(s) are still sealed, six years later. Audio analysis of the rate of fire of the guns shows it to be very consistent and identical to machine gun fire, not a bumpstock, which tend to have rates of fire which are inconsistent and vary from shot to shot. If Padock used a machine gun, I think that’s a detail that should be made known. |
Anonymous
Pro Tip: look up what “well regulated” meant in the context of 18th century prose. Hint: “regulated” doesn’t mean the same thing today as it did then. |
Anonymous
1. What are you charging the mentally ill with in order to lock them up? 2. Given what inpatient mental health facilities charge for accommodations that are hardly compassionate, where are you getting the money to lockup everyone with mental illness |
Anonymous
You are correct that we aren't enforcing existing laws strongly enough. But the current system handcuffs those trying to do the enforcement (for example lack of mandatory universal background checks and lack of a persistent searchable database) and existing laws also don't go far enough. |