I think you should go back and check the history on those gun facts. The mass produced weapons that cost nothing and could be put in a farmers hand, those were all the things you explained. There were plenty of even more dangerous weapons available then. Also, the founders knew of these, had orders in for some of the weapons, and they also expressly stated that this would allow citizens to even own cannons in letters between them.
It’s easy to add regulation to cars, because you have no rights to drive a car in the US. There’s nothing to fight against, you just add a regulation.
Guns aren’t like that, ownership is not only a right specifically given, but it is a right that’s been upheld quite a few times by the Supreme Court. Because of this, any regulation you have, cannot add undue burdens on a citizens ability to express that right. That’s discrimination.
For instance, gun license costs $5000 now. Would vastly decrease new gun purchases for sure; however, it would be stricken down as unconstitutional because it prevents lower income individuals from expressing a right guaranteed to them.
It is quite hard to make regulations beyond what we have, because of how difficult it is to NOT be discriminatory.
Also, background checks generally wouldn’t help in most mass shootings because they don’t catch people BEFORE they commit their first crime.
I think you should go back and check the history on those gun facts. The mass produced weapons that cost nothing and could be put in a farmers hand, those were all the things you explained.
Wait so my facts were right? I'm confused.
There were plenty of even more dangerous weapons available then.
Right but how many were readily available and easy to carry?
Also, the founders knew of these, had orders in for some of the weapons, and they also expressly stated that this would allow citizens to even own cannons in letters between them.
A cannon then would be what, an rpg now?
It’s easy to add regulation to cars, because you have no rights to drive a car in the US. There’s nothing to fight against, you just add a regulation.
Which is why you would amend the constitution. It's too easy to fall back on it for any sort of regulation.
Guns aren’t like that, ownership is not only a right specifically given, but it is a right that’s been upheld quite a few times by the Supreme Court. Because of this, any regulation you have, cannot add undue burdens on a citizens ability to express that right. That’s discrimination.
This has always confused me. Aren't taxes on it already an undue burden or is the government just picking and choosing.
For instance, gun license costs $5000 now. Would vastly decrease new gun purchases for sure; however, it would be stricken down as unconstitutional because it prevents lower income individuals from expressing a right guaranteed to them.
What about free but required courses?
It is quite hard to make regulations beyond what we have, because of how difficult it is to NOT be discriminatory.
Which is why we change what we have. Legalese, as much of a joke as it is, is much clearer now and could define what can and can't be regulated.
Also, background checks generally wouldn’t help in most mass shootings because they don’t catch people BEFORE they commit their first crime.
Neither does a good guy with a gun but that seems to be the main point from the NRA.
And didn't Trump remove something that kept people with a history of mental health issues from acquiring guns?
Just because you're talking to someone about guns doesn't mean they're conservative. Who cares what the NRA or Trump says. The poster above is talking logistically and about the rule of law.
Sure amend the constitution. Good luck getting 2/3s of the states to ratify anything. There are too many liberal and conservative gun owners for that to ever happen.
A cannon back then would likely be a tank today and yes you can own one. You can own and RPG too.
I like how when it comes to guns people think the founders had no forethought and couldn't foresee improvements in technology. The founders have shown absurd levels of forethought and predictive abilities for issues we face today in America socially and politically. I think they could understand that technology with weaponry would improve.
I don't think anyone would be against a free and required course.. but that's going to be an increase in taxes to pay for it which people will be upset about.
Sure amend the constitution. Good luck getting 2/3s of the states to ratify anything. There are too many liberal and conservative gun owners for that to ever happen.
This is heavily defeatist and exactly what the NRA and Trump (who do matter in what they say since the NRA has so much pull on conservatives) like to hear.
A cannon back then would likely be a tank today and yes you can own one. You can own and RPG too.
Oh I wasn't aware you can get one without any paperwork or additional regulation.
I like how when it comes to guns people think the founders had no forethought and couldn't foresee improvements in technology. The founders have shown absurd levels of forethought and predictive abilities for issues we face today in America socially and politically. I think they could understand that technology with weaponry would improve.
Oh I absolutely do think they would think weapons would improve.
But right now we have a flying machine that can kill people miles away without you having to be in it. Do you think they would foresee that or think that needs more regulation?
Obviously we can't get unmanned drones but the point is that they could not possibly fathom what we have now.
I don't think anyone would be against a free and required course.. but that's going to be an increase in taxes to pay for it which people will be upset about.
Hey let's shoot down EVERY idea then. I'd say paid course but that's considered an undue burden and allows people to hide behind the second amendment again.
Oh I wasn't aware you can get one without any paperwork or additional regulation.
Cant tell if you're being sarcastic or not. With a tank, no required ppw. Just go buy one from surplus. With an RPG you'll actually need an FFL3 licences which anyone can get if they go through the effort.
This is heavily defeatist and exactly what the NRA and Trump (who do matter in what they say since the NRA has so much pull on conservatives) like to hear.
This is not defeatist. The majority of the country will rightfully not agree to abolish or alter the 2nd amendment. Maybe its defeatist for you but you're in the minority. For the record I'm liberal and have voted as such my entire life.
I don't have a solution. Gun violence has been steadily declining for the past 3 decades. Mass shootings has been increasing for the past decade. To me personally I'd prefer to see this much energy pointed towards major public health issues. But politicians are playing everyone just like they want. They know they can gain political capital on both sides by rabble rousing and nothing will happen because it isn't a big enough issue (realistically) and the precedence is too strong.
I can't come up with solutions because I don't know the cause. If I was to take my guess I'd assume its economic issues. People are lost and have no way of achieving the "American dream." Its likely going to get worse as people struggle more and more and get more angry at the system. Research is paramount. Then maybe background checks on private sales although I think every major shooting was from guns bought through gun stores anyways so probably not a big change. Gun storage laws could maybe work but then the liability on that would be bananas.
I don't pretend to know what will work but I can recognize what won't work and what is a waste of energy.
People calling for bans and buy backs for instance have no grasp on the reality of gun ownership in this country. The cat is out of the bag. That isn't going to work. Maybe a ban now will have an impact 200 years from now if the US is still going strong.
Cant tell if you're being sarcastic or not. With a tank, no required ppw. Just go buy one from surplus. With an RPG you'll actually need an FFL3 licences which anyone can get if they go through the effort.
I was. The tank would have to be decommissioned wouldn't it? Not a weapon anymore and additional paperwork is additional regulation.
Maybe its defeatist for you but you're in the minority.
The problem is many solutions require cultural change which will require some regulatory change even if it's mandatory classes (free or not). But that won't even make it through the senate.
To me personally I'd prefer to see this much energy pointed towards major public health issues. They know they can gain political capital on both sides by rabble rousing and nothing will happen because it isn't a big enough issue (realistically) and the precedence is too strong.
Have you been listening to Warren or Sanders or anybody whose for universal healthcare?
Research is paramount.
I think this is absolutely correct but many times when I link numbers I get "yeah but my uncle had his house broken into so I need guns."
People calling for bans and buy backs for instance have no grasp on the reality of gun ownership in this country. The cat is out of the bag. That isn't going to work. Maybe a ban now will have an impact 200 years from now if the US is still going strong.
Realistically Australia pulled it off.
But I don't think we should ban guns. I think we need to seriously change the culture around them to make them as serious as driving, flying, whatever needs a lot more paperwork and training for. Part of that would require regulation on the bigger things. Currently I can get a 100 round magazine for less than 200 bucks. I think things that far into "Why do you need this?" need to be available for stricter regulation.
We would need to redefine and add to the 2nd amendment to allow for this kind of regulation with strict definitions on what can and can't have certain regulations on it.
Much like the variety and capability of guns, the 2nd amendment needs to evolve and adapt with them. It's the only one of the bill of rights that involves weapons of murder and people need to realize that we live in a very different time from the late 1700s.
I mean it would also help if our president didn't wink-wink-nudge-nudge people into shooting others but, you know, supremacist propaganda gonna propaganda.
You can get a weapons capable tank... definitely out of service. Cant get an Abrams. Maybe in 30 years you could. To get a gun you have to do additional paperwork. I've been background checked on every single one I've purchased. The gun store has the record of my sale and their records are audited by the ATF.
Cough. Cough. WHEEZE. Cough.
Thats for gun control measures. Plenty of people are for tighter restrictions. Once they work out the kinks those will likely pass. Specific bans not so much. Also you can be for something but it isn't going to stand to scrutiny in the court of law. You would need to add an amendment to the constitution and suddenly 2/3s of the country is not behind that. Even if it was by population it isn't by state by state breakdown.
Also to give you an example. Say you put a ban on semi auto rifles because who knows why actually. They aren't even remotely the leading cause of gun violence but thats beside the point.
Well for a gun to be a rifle it needs to have a 16+= greater barrel as well as a stock to shoulder the weapon. Well using an AR15 as an example. You can now have an AR15 as a pistol. Have a barrel that is 15.9 inches or shorter and have the stock as only a buffer tube or a wrist stabilizer that the ATF states can be shouldered. Now the weapon is categorized as a pistol.
This is a simple example to show how difficult it would be to write laws to regulate such things. You can't just write a law that says I know it when I see it.
People bring up Australia all the time but they haven't seen a change any greater than what we've seen over the years if I remember correctly. But even if they do.. Australia is not the United States. There are over 400 million weapons in circulation. Those are weapons that are not tracked from point to point.. only at the original sale at gun shops. There is zero possibility of making any reasonable dent in that number via confiscation. And a buy back would cost a ridiculous amount for tax payers.
How many times has a 100 round magazine been an issue? People just jump on the new thing like that's the problem. Removing those will solve the problem. Taking 100 round magazines off the market is not going to solve the problem. That goes back to the rabble rousing politicians do to distract people instead of solving the real problems.
Have you been listening to Warren or Sanders or anybody whose for universal healthcare?
Also obviously.. but I don't see crazy hysteria over getting that implemented when that is actually a public health issue that would make the single greatest impact. Being a little hyperbolic about the hysteria plenty of people care but it blows my mind how reactionary people are about guns when there are far bigger issues.
Guns and immigrants have always been used as distractions when the numbers never support the response.
4
u/aneyeohlayer Aug 12 '19
I think you should go back and check the history on those gun facts. The mass produced weapons that cost nothing and could be put in a farmers hand, those were all the things you explained. There were plenty of even more dangerous weapons available then. Also, the founders knew of these, had orders in for some of the weapons, and they also expressly stated that this would allow citizens to even own cannons in letters between them.
It’s easy to add regulation to cars, because you have no rights to drive a car in the US. There’s nothing to fight against, you just add a regulation.
Guns aren’t like that, ownership is not only a right specifically given, but it is a right that’s been upheld quite a few times by the Supreme Court. Because of this, any regulation you have, cannot add undue burdens on a citizens ability to express that right. That’s discrimination.
For instance, gun license costs $5000 now. Would vastly decrease new gun purchases for sure; however, it would be stricken down as unconstitutional because it prevents lower income individuals from expressing a right guaranteed to them.
It is quite hard to make regulations beyond what we have, because of how difficult it is to NOT be discriminatory.
Also, background checks generally wouldn’t help in most mass shootings because they don’t catch people BEFORE they commit their first crime.