What does it take to get a little gun control

[Anonymous]

And I’ll bet that as a result of increased vehicle attacks, these countries DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, without a bunch of fuss raised by people who want to preserve their own right to drive vehicles into pedestrians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And I’ll bet that as a result of increased vehicle attacks, these countries DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, without a bunch of fuss raised by people who want to preserve their own right to drive vehicles into pedestrians.

Let's get rid of the guns and let's crack down on dangerous drivers as well. Sounds good to me.

[Anonymous]

How do we remove 400,000,000 guns from America?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do we remove 400,000,000 guns from America?

the same way we eliminate all cars and so ensure no drunk driving vehicular homicides. Which is to say, not happening. Focus on the drivers/shooters, not on the mechanical devices they use.

[Anonymous]

People claim they want to focus on the shooters instead of the guns, but then immediately say no to things like gun licensing, universal background checks, insurance, safety training, and inspections. It always circles back to freedom, infringement, rights, and so on. Individual power. Let’s be honest: you’re not serious about reducing gun violence.

Guns were a tool when the Constitution was written. Now they’re a fetish. The nature of them and our use of them has changed, and our rules need to adapt as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People claim they want to focus on the shooters instead of the guns, but then immediately say no to things like gun licensing, universal background checks, insurance, safety training, and inspections. It always circles back to freedom, infringement, rights, and so on. Individual power. Let’s be honest: you’re not serious about reducing gun violence.

Guns were a tool when the Constitution was written. Now they’re a fetish. The nature of them and our use of them has changed, and our rules need to adapt as well.

All things that are credibly part of a well-regulated militia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People claim they want to focus on the shooters instead of the guns, but then immediately say no to things like gun licensing, universal background checks, insurance, safety training, and inspections. It always circles back to freedom, infringement, rights, and so on. Individual power. Let’s be honest: you’re not serious about reducing gun violence.

Guns were a tool when the Constitution was written. Now they’re a fetish. The nature of them and our use of them has changed, and our rules need to adapt as well.

All things that are credibly part of a well-regulated militia.

“Well regulated” at the time and in the context of the Constitution meant (and continues to mean) well-equipped/prepared, that is to say “well-armed,” not saddled by a bunch of magical thinking and false flag regulations designed to create the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do we remove 400,000,000 guns from America?

the same way we eliminate all cars and so ensure no drunk driving vehicular homicides. Which is to say, not happening. Focus on the drivers/shooters, not on the mechanical devices they use.

That is a minority position. The majority of citizens want increased regulations around guns

[Anonymous]

Remember when New York tried to force citizens to register their assault weapons and next to no one complied. That was a big nothingburger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do we remove 400,000,000 guns from America?

the same way we eliminate all cars and so ensure no drunk driving vehicular homicides. Which is to say, not happening. Focus on the drivers/shooters, not on the mechanical devices they use.

That is a minority position. The majority of citizens want increased regulations around guns

Majority opinions are irrelevant to rights guaranteed under the Constitution, which exist precisely to avoid tyranny by a majority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People claim they want to focus on the shooters instead of the guns, but then immediately say no to things like gun licensing, universal background checks, insurance, safety training, and inspections. It always circles back to freedom, infringement, rights, and so on. Individual power. Let’s be honest: you’re not serious about reducing gun violence.

Guns were a tool when the Constitution was written. Now they’re a fetish. The nature of them and our use of them has changed, and our rules need to adapt as well.

All things that are credibly part of a well-regulated militia.

“Well regulated” at the time and in the context of the Constitution meant (and continues to mean) well-equipped/prepared, that is to say “well-armed,” not saddled by a bunch of magical thinking and false flag regulations designed to create the opposite.

Wow, way to prove the PP right. You demand that we focus on the shooters, then you immediately throw up roadblocks to that as well.

OK, fine. Let’s return to the original implementation of the Second Amendment. All white men ages 16-60 will be enrolled in state regulated militias and train regularly in order to be well prepared (that is what the phrase means, not just well armed). Weapons will be registered with the state and presented for inspection periodically. If your gun is not well maintained, you’ll be fined.

Concealed carry is no longer allowed, except in certain regulated circumstances. And no more stand your ground laws. If they weren’t good enough for the American Colonies, they’re not good enough for us.

You’ll have to store your gun unloaded, outside your house, the way they did in Boston in 1786. The legal principle of health and public safety was perfectly compatible with the 2A back then.

Oh, and don’t forget to swear a loyalty oath to that same government that the Constitution says you’re not allowed to levy war against with your arms. If you refuse the oath, you will be disarmed.

Whoops! Women and black people aren’t part of the militia, so their right to bear arms isn’t covered.

If you want to be really strict and originalist, muskets and 18th century pistols only, because that’s exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote “arms”.

All of this was perfectly legal in the late 1700s. Gun ownership and gun regulation existed side by side, even with the Second Amendment.

If you think all of that is ridiculous and doesn’t take the modern world into account, congratulations, you’ve just acknowledged that the Second Amendment is open to interpretation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do we remove 400,000,000 guns from America?

the same way we eliminate all cars and so ensure no drunk driving vehicular homicides. Which is to say, not happening. Focus on the drivers/shooters, not on the mechanical devices they use.

That is a minority position. The majority of citizens want increased regulations around guns

Majority opinions are irrelevant to rights guaranteed under the Constitution, which exist precisely to avoid tyranny by a majority.

And these are subject to interpretation by the courts. Ask women, who had a Constitutionally protected right to abortion until suddenly they didn’t. Was there a new amendment, or was there a new set of SCOTUS justices?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do we remove 400,000,000 guns from America?

the same way we eliminate all cars and so ensure no drunk driving vehicular homicides. Which is to say, not happening. Focus on the drivers/shooters, not on the mechanical devices they use.

That is a minority position. The majority of citizens want increased regulations around guns

Majority opinions are irrelevant to rights guaranteed under the Constitution, which exist precisely to avoid tyranny by a majority.

The title of this thread includes the phrase "a little gun control," but most posts seem to be asking for "a lot of gun control". Because we have the Second Amendment, dramatic gun control efforts will be no more successful than dramatic changes to any other Constitutional right. Democrats need to work with Republicans on incremental changes where they will do the most good, and more importantly, need to get over the fact that any such effort might be deemed a "win" for Trump. If gun control is that important, then why wait until 2026 or 2028? Even if you want to use it as a campaign issue, you won't be any more successful than you are today, because the Supreme Court will likely strike down any dramatic gun control effort you try to impose at that time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do we remove 400,000,000 guns from America?

the same way we eliminate all cars and so ensure no drunk driving vehicular homicides. Which is to say, not happening. Focus on the drivers/shooters, not on the mechanical devices they use.

That is a minority position. The majority of citizens want increased regulations around guns

Majority opinions are irrelevant to rights guaranteed under the Constitution, which exist precisely to avoid tyranny by a majority.

And these are subject to interpretation by the courts. Ask women, who had a Constitutionally protected right to abortion until suddenly they didn’t. Was there a new amendment, or was there a new set of SCOTUS justices?

Off-topic, but I'll bite. Unlike the 2nd Amendment, there was no formal Amendment granting the right to an abortion. It was a Constitutional interpretation that even Justice Ginsburg thought was weak. Now compare the 2nd Amendment to the 1st Amendment and you'll have a more apples-to-apples situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do we remove 400,000,000 guns from America?

the same way we eliminate all cars and so ensure no drunk driving vehicular homicides. Which is to say, not happening. Focus on the drivers/shooters, not on the mechanical devices they use.

That is a minority position. The majority of citizens want increased regulations around guns

Majority opinions are irrelevant to rights guaranteed under the Constitution, which exist precisely to avoid tyranny by a majority.

And these are subject to interpretation by the courts. Ask women, who had a Constitutionally protected right to abortion until suddenly they didn’t. Was there a new amendment, or was there a new set of SCOTUS justices?

Off-topic, but I'll bite. Unlike the 2nd Amendment, there was no formal Amendment granting the right to an abortion. It was a Constitutional interpretation that even Justice Ginsburg thought was weak. Now compare the 2nd Amendment to the 1st Amendment and you'll have a more apples-to-apples situation.

Exactly. What the courts allow under the Constitution changes. The 2nd Amendment has also had different interpretations throughout its history. If we go back to what was permissible under the original interpretation, the gun control measures of 1790 resemble some of the ideas that gun supporters seem to think are impossible.