What does it take to get a little gun control

[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.

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.

Well, one person’s dramatic is another person’s reasonable. There’s widespread support for things like background checks and enhanced penalties for criminal firearm use, but these are the type of ideas that have been shot down as government tyranny and unconstitutional for the last 34 pages. It’s kind of hard to have a serious dialogue when everything is perceived as a gun grab.

What would you consider acceptable measures to reduce gun violence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s widespread support for things enhanced penalties for criminal firearm use, but these are the type of ideas that have been shot down as government tyranny and unconstitutional for the last 34 pages.

Where did I miss people characterizing “enhanced penalties for criminal firearm use” as “government tyranny and unconstitutional?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. There is an obvious strategy to put justices on scotus that interpret the second amendment to allow more gun control regulations. Thank you to the GOP for showing us that with long-term patience, commitment and money, this is a viable strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is an obvious strategy to put justices on scotus that interpret the second amendment to allow more gun control regulations. Thank you to the GOP for showing us that with long-term patience, commitment and money, this is a viable strategy.

Wait until Trump expands SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s widespread support for things enhanced penalties for criminal firearm use, but these are the type of ideas that have been shot down as government tyranny and unconstitutional for the last 34 pages.

Where did I miss people characterizing “enhanced penalties for criminal firearm use” as “government tyranny and unconstitutional?”

If you made a word cloud out of this thread, the word “unconstitutional” would be readable from outer space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s widespread support for things enhanced penalties for criminal firearm use, but these are the type of ideas that have been shot down as government tyranny and unconstitutional for the last 34 pages.

Where did I miss people characterizing “enhanced penalties for criminal firearm use” as “government tyranny and unconstitutional?”

If you made a word cloud out of this thread, the word “unconstitutional” would be readable from outer space.

I just need one example where a poster contested enhanced penalties for criminal firearm use because it would be government tyranny and unconstitutional.

I’ll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s widespread support for things enhanced penalties for criminal firearm use, but these are the type of ideas that have been shot down as government tyranny and unconstitutional for the last 34 pages.

Where did I miss people characterizing “enhanced penalties for criminal firearm use” as “government tyranny and unconstitutional?”

If you made a word cloud out of this thread, the word “unconstitutional” would be readable from outer space.

I just need one example where a poster contested enhanced penalties for criminal firearm use because it would be government tyranny and unconstitutional.

I’ll wait.

You missed the phrase “type of” modifying the noun “ideas”. One side is offering solutions, the other side is dismissing them.

Did you have a point, or are you being pedantic because you have nothing else to contribute to the discussion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is an obvious strategy to put justices on scotus that interpret the second amendment to allow more gun control regulations. Thank you to the GOP for showing us that with long-term patience, commitment and money, this is a viable strategy.

Wait until Trump expands SCOTUS.

He can’t do that. Only Congress can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. They’ve proposed several ideas. All you’re doing is shrugging and coming up with excuses for why nothing can ever be done to reduce gun violence.

Other countries have addressed the issue. It’s not impossible like you claim.

If people keep fantasizing about illegal and unconstitutional “solutions” I’ll keep pointing it out. I’ve heard all of these arguments before, yet here we are. That people here think they’re coming with unique solutions is interesting.

There's no such thing as unconstitutional solutions. All we need is a President to take action and SCOTUS to interpret those actions. That's the roadmap Trump has established. It's not going to happen now, but it can happen in the future. There is absolutely nothing sacred about the Second Amendment or permanent with respect to how it's currently interpreted.

It would be great if somebody would do the right thing and propose a constitutional amendment. I feel certain if it was brought to the voters, it would be approved.

That’s not how amending the Constitution works.

what I remember from the equal rights amendment is that each state had its own vote, and if enough ratified it, it would be part of the constitution. I feel certain it could get enough states, if only somebody would be brave enough to start the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s widespread support for things enhanced penalties for criminal firearm use, but these are the type of ideas that have been shot down as government tyranny and unconstitutional for the last 34 pages.

Where did I miss people characterizing “enhanced penalties for criminal firearm use” as “government tyranny and unconstitutional?”

If you made a word cloud out of this thread, the word “unconstitutional” would be readable from outer space.

I just need one example where a poster contested enhanced penalties for criminal firearm use because it would be government tyranny and unconstitutional.

I’ll wait.

You missed the phrase “type of” modifying the noun “ideas”. One side is offering solutions, the other side is dismissing them.

Did you have a point, or are you being pedantic because you have nothing else to contribute to the discussion?

So no one in this topic has done what the poster claimed? If you can’t back things up you shouldn’t throw it out there. Just a thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:what I remember from the equal rights amendment is that each state had its own vote, and if enough ratified it, it would be part of the constitution. I feel certain it could get enough states, if only somebody would be brave enough to start the process.

Thirty four states would need to ratify it. There are currently 29 constitutional carry states, so those wouldn’t vote to ratify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s widespread support for things enhanced penalties for criminal firearm use, but these are the type of ideas that have been shot down as government tyranny and unconstitutional for the last 34 pages.

Where did I miss people characterizing “enhanced penalties for criminal firearm use” as “government tyranny and unconstitutional?”

If you made a word cloud out of this thread, the word “unconstitutional” would be readable from outer space.

I just need one example where a poster contested enhanced penalties for criminal firearm use because it would be government tyranny and unconstitutional.

I’ll wait.

You missed the phrase “type of” modifying the noun “ideas”. One side is offering solutions, the other side is dismissing them.

Did you have a point, or are you being pedantic because you have nothing else to contribute to the discussion?

So no one in this topic has done what the poster claimed? If you can’t back things up you shouldn’t throw it out there. Just a thought.

DP. Nobody cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what I remember from the equal rights amendment is that each state had its own vote, and if enough ratified it, it would be part of the constitution. I feel certain it could get enough states, if only somebody would be brave enough to start the process.

Thirty four states would need to ratify it. There are currently 29 constitutional carry states, so those wouldn’t vote to ratify.

2/3 of Congress would be needed as well. It would have to have broad bipartisan support, which is hard to achieve these days.

[Anonymous]

Gun control won’t stop crime. Morons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gun control won’t stop crime. Morons.

Oh, that’s an eloquent argument. 🙄 I guess we shouldn’t have laws at all then, because criminals gonna crime.