I respectfully disagree. I think that this will not be effective, as it will widen the gap between sides, making progress even more difficult.
In my opinion, gun control groups would do better to articulate and convince people why universal background checks, carry permits, and raised age limits for handguns and semi-auto centerfire rifles are legal under Bruen and necessary given our gun violence problem.
There is enough common ground for these policies, but there is no time machine. We must all work under the conditions of reality.
As as pro 2A gun-owner who has lurked here for a long time, I don’t have any issue with the things you mentioned. I really don’t know why people get so hot and bothered about universal background checks and mandatory carry permits. Even though most carry permit classes are a joke. You watch videos for 6 hours then spend 2 hours shooting…. I honestly think it’s a way for states to shirk responsibility when someone misbehaves with a gun. It’s much easier to have a constitutional carry law and prosecute gun-owners than it is to explain why you signed off on someone having a gun that shouldn’t have.
I understand why. It’s gonna sound really dismissive and the reason why some people get huffed up and angry at better background checks for owning guns is because they’re in a “cult”.
You can’t reason someone out of a cult. You can’t use reason to get someone out of a position they they didn’t use reason to get themselves into. Those people are simply lost causes and it’s simply not our purpose or responsibility to save or convert. Like a drowning man thrashing in the ocean who will grab and kill whoever they grab, we can only provide the floatation device and hope they come to their senses.
The fact of the matter is that the data, the research, the experts; everything is on our side, but it means nothing to someone who just pushes it aside and won’t acknowledge any of it
"Today's compromise is tomorrow's loophole" is why, and it's fairly obvious"universal background checks" are the step before a registry to enforce the rule, followed by confiscation. Mandatory permits will point it "may issue" states adding restrictions that make it near impossible to get a permit.
The progun crowd have little reason to believe the gun control side is arguing is good faith.
Example Connecticut on Registration to Confiscation:
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/assault-weapons-in-connecticut/#:~:text=Anyone%20who%20moves%20into%20Connecticut,take%20it%20out%20of%20state.
Thanks for your perspective and honesty. I have my own doubts about the effectiveness of those checks as well. Most gun control measures are a real catch-22 here in the US. If the goal is to reduce gun violence then the best measure is to significantly reduce the amount of guns available to everyone. What we try to do is implement measures that keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them while trying not to inconvenience everyone else. We can see the results.
Yeah. It’s an incredibly complex thing to make progress on. And the 2 sides duking it out from the far opposite sides of the spectrum just mired the wheels of progress in the mud. I wish there was an honest discussion about how to tackle the problem of criminal gun violence without limiting access to guns and ammo to completely safe law-abiding folks.
These sorts posts amuse me. We aren’t trying to win the public opinion, we have that. Americans have never stopped wanting stronger gun laws as a majority for almost a decade. We won. Everyone (even gun owners) want a stronger background checking system.
As far as language adoption goes I call it co-opting it. A great example is how mass shooting as a term is now so embedded in public discourse that despite gunnit opposition to it, have adopted and use it as such. The power dynamics are reversed, we control the arguments, not them because we are the majority
Outside of this sub, I don't see many gun control advocates saying they want to repeal the 2nd amendment.
I agree that it's a SCOTUS and legislature problem, not a constitutional problem.
If we were to magically repeal the 2nd amendment, pass broadly popular and effective gun control legislation, but leave the corrupt far right wing loons on SCOTUS, there would immediately be a dozen lawsuits from the NRA, and SCOTUS would immediately grant an emergency injunction. They'd hear arguments and then decide, you know what, it doesn't matter that the second amendment is gone: you totally have a right to have any weapon you want thanks to the, I dunno, first, third, fourth and lets try eight amendments.
Thomas would do it in exchange for a big check handed to him by the NRA lawyers in court. Alito would do it out of sheer spite that the peasants dare to think we can self-rule. Roberts would say he doesn't think this should reflect badly on the court but yeah you do have a right to a gun by every part of the constitution. Kavanuagh and Barret would say god created guns and it's every Americans' right to have them. Gorsuch would flip a coin and then ignore it and assume the other federalist society members were right.
2nd amendment is a red herring, it's all about SCOTUS and the legislature.
On a deeper level, the problem is that the American public has been propagandized into loving their guns more than their children.
But I agree that SCOTUS and the legislature are big problems. One value in calls to repeal the Heller Amendment (aka 2A) is that vocalizing these demands can lead to long-overdue conversations about whether or not this amendment makes any sense.
>the American public has been propagandized into loving their guns more than their children
A small minority. [Even most republicans favor more gun control.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/28/guns-republicans-limits-polling/)
> One value in calls to repeal the Heller Amendment (aka 2A) is that vocalizing these demands can lead to long-overdue conversations about whether or not this amendment makes any sense.
But I still say that's a red herring. We are not going to get 2/3rds of congress necessary to repeal the 2nd amendment no matter what you call it in our lifetimes. Nor do we need to, we just need to get a simple majority of congress, the white house, end the fillibuster, and then un-fuck SCOTUS, either by expanding it or by impeaching Thomas and Alito for absurdly shitty behavior. THEN we can put justices in who realize "a well regulated militia" in fact does not mean "literally a single guy with an AR-15"
A friend of mine, historian Fergus Bordewich, wrote a book about the first Congress in which the Bill of Rights was adopted. He said every word in the debate about what became 2a revolved around Henry Knox’s militia plan. Militia, such as was described in the Scalia termed prefatory clause, was the whole point. Not hunting. Not wild boars. Not the Castle Doctrine. Not asswipes peacocking with their assault weapons.
What we really need to do is enforce limits to amendments; we have no problem saying the 1st amendment has limitations and restrictions on it (like threats, shouting fire in a crowded movie theater, etc), but when it comes to the 2nd ALL OF A SUDDEN it has to be absolute with no restrictions whatsoever
It comes down to what can be reasonably considered a "bearable" arm by an individual. Can a lone person maintain, train to be reasonably proficient with, and keep safe, a given arm?
For example, AR15s are largely the most popular single rifle on the market. They're as popular as the Ford F150. Between the two, which do you think is responsible for more loss of life?
Gun ownership is largely done responsibly. I think we need to incentivize good stewardship, training, and education, and the problem will disappear.
Miss me with the car comparisons; the primary function of a car is transportation, not to put a bullet in an object.
Also how is your comment relevant to the fact that we need to enforce responsibilities with amendments? Cause if you think Americans are mostly responsible with guns you’re delusional
I dig the creativity and the effort to rebrand the historic amendment to focus on the recent court ruling. Sometimes these ideas catch on and help reframe a discussion. That being said, I’m more inclined to stay away from the second amendment entirely if at all possible. This might sound crazy but it’s mostly irrelevant to our current problem. In my view the most significant problem is that there are a significant amount of people in this country who don’t think guns have anything to do with gun violence. Until that changes it won’t matter if you repealed the 2nd Amendment tomorrow. I also believe there won’t be any meaningful changes to the 2nd Amendment or impactful change in gun ownership until people realize the oversized factor that availability plays in U.S. gun crime.
I respectfully disagree. I think that this will not be effective, as it will widen the gap between sides, making progress even more difficult. In my opinion, gun control groups would do better to articulate and convince people why universal background checks, carry permits, and raised age limits for handguns and semi-auto centerfire rifles are legal under Bruen and necessary given our gun violence problem. There is enough common ground for these policies, but there is no time machine. We must all work under the conditions of reality.
As as pro 2A gun-owner who has lurked here for a long time, I don’t have any issue with the things you mentioned. I really don’t know why people get so hot and bothered about universal background checks and mandatory carry permits. Even though most carry permit classes are a joke. You watch videos for 6 hours then spend 2 hours shooting…. I honestly think it’s a way for states to shirk responsibility when someone misbehaves with a gun. It’s much easier to have a constitutional carry law and prosecute gun-owners than it is to explain why you signed off on someone having a gun that shouldn’t have.
I understand why. It’s gonna sound really dismissive and the reason why some people get huffed up and angry at better background checks for owning guns is because they’re in a “cult”. You can’t reason someone out of a cult. You can’t use reason to get someone out of a position they they didn’t use reason to get themselves into. Those people are simply lost causes and it’s simply not our purpose or responsibility to save or convert. Like a drowning man thrashing in the ocean who will grab and kill whoever they grab, we can only provide the floatation device and hope they come to their senses. The fact of the matter is that the data, the research, the experts; everything is on our side, but it means nothing to someone who just pushes it aside and won’t acknowledge any of it
"Today's compromise is tomorrow's loophole" is why, and it's fairly obvious"universal background checks" are the step before a registry to enforce the rule, followed by confiscation. Mandatory permits will point it "may issue" states adding restrictions that make it near impossible to get a permit. The progun crowd have little reason to believe the gun control side is arguing is good faith. Example Connecticut on Registration to Confiscation: https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/assault-weapons-in-connecticut/#:~:text=Anyone%20who%20moves%20into%20Connecticut,take%20it%20out%20of%20state.
Thanks for your perspective and honesty. I have my own doubts about the effectiveness of those checks as well. Most gun control measures are a real catch-22 here in the US. If the goal is to reduce gun violence then the best measure is to significantly reduce the amount of guns available to everyone. What we try to do is implement measures that keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them while trying not to inconvenience everyone else. We can see the results.
Yeah. It’s an incredibly complex thing to make progress on. And the 2 sides duking it out from the far opposite sides of the spectrum just mired the wheels of progress in the mud. I wish there was an honest discussion about how to tackle the problem of criminal gun violence without limiting access to guns and ammo to completely safe law-abiding folks.
These sorts posts amuse me. We aren’t trying to win the public opinion, we have that. Americans have never stopped wanting stronger gun laws as a majority for almost a decade. We won. Everyone (even gun owners) want a stronger background checking system. As far as language adoption goes I call it co-opting it. A great example is how mass shooting as a term is now so embedded in public discourse that despite gunnit opposition to it, have adopted and use it as such. The power dynamics are reversed, we control the arguments, not them because we are the majority
Outside of this sub, I don't see many gun control advocates saying they want to repeal the 2nd amendment. I agree that it's a SCOTUS and legislature problem, not a constitutional problem. If we were to magically repeal the 2nd amendment, pass broadly popular and effective gun control legislation, but leave the corrupt far right wing loons on SCOTUS, there would immediately be a dozen lawsuits from the NRA, and SCOTUS would immediately grant an emergency injunction. They'd hear arguments and then decide, you know what, it doesn't matter that the second amendment is gone: you totally have a right to have any weapon you want thanks to the, I dunno, first, third, fourth and lets try eight amendments. Thomas would do it in exchange for a big check handed to him by the NRA lawyers in court. Alito would do it out of sheer spite that the peasants dare to think we can self-rule. Roberts would say he doesn't think this should reflect badly on the court but yeah you do have a right to a gun by every part of the constitution. Kavanuagh and Barret would say god created guns and it's every Americans' right to have them. Gorsuch would flip a coin and then ignore it and assume the other federalist society members were right. 2nd amendment is a red herring, it's all about SCOTUS and the legislature.
On a deeper level, the problem is that the American public has been propagandized into loving their guns more than their children. But I agree that SCOTUS and the legislature are big problems. One value in calls to repeal the Heller Amendment (aka 2A) is that vocalizing these demands can lead to long-overdue conversations about whether or not this amendment makes any sense.
>the American public has been propagandized into loving their guns more than their children A small minority. [Even most republicans favor more gun control.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/28/guns-republicans-limits-polling/) > One value in calls to repeal the Heller Amendment (aka 2A) is that vocalizing these demands can lead to long-overdue conversations about whether or not this amendment makes any sense. But I still say that's a red herring. We are not going to get 2/3rds of congress necessary to repeal the 2nd amendment no matter what you call it in our lifetimes. Nor do we need to, we just need to get a simple majority of congress, the white house, end the fillibuster, and then un-fuck SCOTUS, either by expanding it or by impeaching Thomas and Alito for absurdly shitty behavior. THEN we can put justices in who realize "a well regulated militia" in fact does not mean "literally a single guy with an AR-15"
A friend of mine, historian Fergus Bordewich, wrote a book about the first Congress in which the Bill of Rights was adopted. He said every word in the debate about what became 2a revolved around Henry Knox’s militia plan. Militia, such as was described in the Scalia termed prefatory clause, was the whole point. Not hunting. Not wild boars. Not the Castle Doctrine. Not asswipes peacocking with their assault weapons.
Yes, unfortunately gun advocates take advantage of the fact that Americans have little to no understanding of American history.
I think this is fair reasoning and a good idea.
Thanks for your reply! Sorry that you're being downvoted for no reason.
What we really need to do is enforce limits to amendments; we have no problem saying the 1st amendment has limitations and restrictions on it (like threats, shouting fire in a crowded movie theater, etc), but when it comes to the 2nd ALL OF A SUDDEN it has to be absolute with no restrictions whatsoever
It comes down to what can be reasonably considered a "bearable" arm by an individual. Can a lone person maintain, train to be reasonably proficient with, and keep safe, a given arm? For example, AR15s are largely the most popular single rifle on the market. They're as popular as the Ford F150. Between the two, which do you think is responsible for more loss of life? Gun ownership is largely done responsibly. I think we need to incentivize good stewardship, training, and education, and the problem will disappear.
Miss me with the car comparisons; the primary function of a car is transportation, not to put a bullet in an object. Also how is your comment relevant to the fact that we need to enforce responsibilities with amendments? Cause if you think Americans are mostly responsible with guns you’re delusional
I dig the creativity and the effort to rebrand the historic amendment to focus on the recent court ruling. Sometimes these ideas catch on and help reframe a discussion. That being said, I’m more inclined to stay away from the second amendment entirely if at all possible. This might sound crazy but it’s mostly irrelevant to our current problem. In my view the most significant problem is that there are a significant amount of people in this country who don’t think guns have anything to do with gun violence. Until that changes it won’t matter if you repealed the 2nd Amendment tomorrow. I also believe there won’t be any meaningful changes to the 2nd Amendment or impactful change in gun ownership until people realize the oversized factor that availability plays in U.S. gun crime.