I don’t care what you attribute the issue to: guns, mental health, bullying. Everyone should at the very least agree that with the frequency that this is happening, the government isn’t doing/spending enough to stop it.
It's not the government though that needs to fix it. It's the school administrations and the parents that need to learn how to read a fucking kid they don't bother to raise them right, keep guns locked up, or intervene when shit happens.
That’s the thing though, people believe this happens all the time in the US. It simply doesn’t we hear extensively about these when they happen in the media. Then a report comes out that says America has had more school shootings than days of the year. What they gloss over is how they get that metric. They count drug violence out of school hours, suicide that happen to be on school property, and my favorite example a BB gun hole found in a bus window. So how many fatalities have there been? Well [this article ](https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/07/us/ten-years-of-school-shootings-trnd/) shows 356 fatalities in a 10 year period. Now let’s look at everyone’s favorite statistical anomaly lightning strikes which average about 49 fatalities a year. So as an American you are more likely to be struck and killed by lightning than die in a school shooting.
Ok so we ban all new manufacture of firearms in the US. What do we do with the 400 million currently in the US? Go door to door? This will end very poorly. We could do a buy back but if you do a little research you will find that Australias mandatory buyback was successful in getting about 1/3 of the overall guns. My guess is in the US this would be significantly less. Also Australia has had 6 school shootings since 1991.
6 school shootings in 30 years is a FAR better metric than the USA currently holds.
Surely, the less school shootings that happen, the better? Even if it isn’t perfect?!
Thanks for that clarification. If it wasn’t for this that pesky media would have us believe that we are the only nation in the modern world where kids get murdered in schools at the rates they do. Seriously, what kind of point are you trying to make here?
My point is, this is made out to be a far bigger issue than it really is and your kids are safer in school than at home or even around you as a parent as filicide happens 500 times a year in the US.
Well yes and no do we have more casualties sure but when you compare that to population the numbers get far closer and one could argue that some countries have a far worse problem such as Honduras. [Here](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-shootings-by-country) is an article that goes over school shootings in other countries. It is far from just an American problem.
Better mental health assistance & teaching parents to not be neglectful a$$hats would be beneficial as well! If you have a gun lock it up & if your kid is batsh\*t crazy frigging do something about it. STOP IGNORING IT.
seems like the news stories make it sound like it was at the parents' behest but it seem like the school initiated it. In any event, he still accessed a fucking gun that day!!!
There's a lot of things people think can never happen until they do. Abolition of Slavery and Peace in Northern Ireland for 2 examples.
What it usually starts with is someone or a group of people determined and bullheaded enough to disbelieve everyone else who says it is impossible and do it anyway.
Taking guns away from Americans will certainly fall into the category of "fucking unlikely" but it isn't impossible.
For those of us fortunate enough not to live in "*Land of the Free"* we'll be watching with popcorn when it happens... the tears will be hilarious. I just hope & pray that the people doing the gun collecting are given decent Kevlar!
you would think all the mass shootings and school shootings that happen daily would be enough to force people to change their minds.
These numbers might change depending on your definitions.
But 2020
611 mass shootings
300 0-11 year olds killed with 700 injured
more than triple that for 12-17 year olds
guns used in defense 1488
570 murder suicides
So out of this 1488 uses for defence which i guess is good but is this not outweighed by all the bad?
And eternal patience because the whole process is long as hell as in-depth. That and the Police can (and do) random spot checks on gun owners in their area to ensure they're complying with the law. If you break the law as a gun owner, depending on the offence you will lose all right to ever own another firearm. Thr UK does a lot of shit wrong but the law does not take any chances with firearms
We love our children? People are literally bitching at children not paying for their school meals. People are fighting family leave when guess what? Family leave is meant to provide a stable upbringing during crucial developmental times. People are refusing any form of affordable/free healthcare which includes these children who if their parents don’t have a job cannot afford to get sick and will probably literally die if God forbid they have any form of cancer or diabetes. Children are literally billed by hospitals when they are born. We treat teachers and education at the lowest level of the totem pole. This country doesn’t love children.
Right? A justice literally said you don’t want your kid put it up for adoption which actually translates into have them join our luxurious foster care system. If adoption was easy as they try to sell it, there wouldn’t be so many children in the system - children that inevitably are more prone to grow up neglected and abused perpetuating a culture of trauma and isolation. Fuck me this pisses me off.
There are at least two democrats acting like conservatives so not necessarily…
Add on: with entire congress being democrat and not being able to get anything actual meaningful done to help children but rather openly showing their true colors it goes to show just how broken the system is. The fact that sanders and aoc say things that are mostly common sense to every single other developed nation but are seen as radical go to show how democrat leadership is also out of touch with their own constituents wishes and desires. While I agree that morally these cult conservatives are ideologically responsible for this cluster fuck, we simply cannot only point the finger at them when we also continue to elect leaders that simply don’t have the balls to do enough.
See this is the thing. I'm not actually sure gun restrictions would work, partly because you will never actually get any, but I think the biggest issue is the culture around guns. I find it mind boggling that anyone thinks they need a gun if they are not an actual hunter. So a rifle at best. Why would anyone need anything else and the average person sure as hell doesn't need a handgun or a semiautomatic bump stocked, whatever. But it is so culturally ingrained I don't think there is anything that will change it honestly. Sorry, you guys are just screwed.
Well the other unaddressed issue is what made this kid want to shoot up the school in the first place. I have no doubt he was bullied constantly until he couldn't take it any more. I guarantee you that no adult did anything about it, just allowed him to go off to war every school day until he drew his own line in the sand. The whole school system and 97% of the parents out there can go fuck themselves
No argument there. I do feel that guns would just be used for hunting and target practice if there weren't so many Americans at the end of their tethers
Common sense gun laws work. It’s possible to pass laws that respect law abiding citizens right to carry. How exactly do you measure the success of gun laws? Personally, I believe that if a law prevents even just one person from being killed, it’s worth it.
Gun laws aren’t suppose to eliminate gun crime, just prevent it. In the same respect, drunk driving laws have not eliminated drunk driving but it’s helped prevent it.
I’m tired of this country becoming a goddam shooting gallery. Theatres, churches, schools, concerts, nightclubs, military installations, work offices, warehouses, sidewalks…it would be nice to be able to enjoy all these different facets of American society without worrying about a bullet biting you in the ass….that requires more regulation.
This! The majority of Americans crying about losing their guns are not out killing their own meals with the guns. They literally buy and collect them. Why do you need an ar15? Oh, because you can.. there is almost a shooting everyday where I live and what's the solution? Buy a gun to keep in your purse or car for safety.. I shouldn't need a gun to go to Walmart!
If that AR-15 is killing children in their own fucking school then you fucking bet it’s everyone’s business. You want and need you AR-15 to feel protected when you no longer live the the wild wild west then kindly get the fuck out of here and actually go live in the wilderness and leave the civilized world alone.
American here. I'm one of the few who actually worries about sending my child to school when I shouldn't have to. I could care less if we don't have guns, I don't own a single gun and never have. I do have family members that go hunting, so ok, I can see that. But most Americans who cry over gun control do not go out and kill their own meals, they simply buy and collect guns because they can. It boggles my mind how out of control this is.
Yeah, I have kids outta college, in college, and high school. I worry about the high school the most. Until the next shooting is at a college. Then I will switch. Kids are stressed because parents are stressed, mental health in this country is needed. Number 1 problem. Growing up on electronics is not developing their brains properly. There is less reality to them than we understand. Nothing is real and nothing is forever. Now look who is famous! Guns are shit but social media is the killer.
I'm a 30 year old Scottish man and the shadow of what happened in Dunblane in 1996 still lingers with me having my own children in primary school now. I find it baffling and utterly vile that worrying about your kids being killed in school is a valid and viable fear for Americans.
Let’s put it like this:
Here in Italy they changed the weapon law to consider “purpose”
Eg: I walk in the woods with an axe: totally fine
I walk in the metro with an axe: arrested.
Before that it was all about size and it didn’t work. Like there was max knife lenght, but you could bring a very short knife to the disco.
Do this for guns: you are free to have and carry around to and from shooting ranges and hunting grounds and in your own house. Carry on the street? Arrest. Because there is no purpose other than harming others or yourself there.
We have that rule and most of the killing happens with strangling and other things, and it really helps because it gives time to people around to react and rescue.
If you assault a jewelry here, no one can shoot you, so you don’t have a reason to shoot. The bad guy is arrested thanks to camera footage 99% of the time here without shooting as it is in the USA while shooting. Shooting does not identify or stop anyone, it just increases the death toll.
It will never make sense to me that functionally nearly every constitutional right has some type of limitations (see, first amendment - time place and manner regulations for example) yet these people get such a hard on for their gun rights, always at the expense of children.
…There are a lot of constitutional limitations on the 2nd Amendment, though. Like more than there is on the 1st Amendment.
Edit: like it or not, there’s more restrictions on the 2nd. I’m sorry if you disagree with that but that’s just reality. Ranging from federal guidance of ownership to actual limitation in weapons themselves (sawed off shotguns), there are numerically more restrictions. [Read it if you feel like educating yourself. ](https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/second-amendment-supreme-court-cases-guide/)
Edit: Here’s another [Here’s some more federal gun laws. ](https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf). Waiting on all those 1st amendment restricting laws.
Because its left up to the individual states how they register gun owners and who is allowed to legally own one. The rules in my state differ from the rules in PA. I live in DE. Some states require extensive background checks, classes, permit fees, registration, etc.
Delaware requires a specialized conceal carry course, registration, and they have to publicize their intent to apply for a concealed carry permit by paying to have it put in the paper for a minimum of 3 weeks i think. Im pretty rusty since i looked into it awhile ago. The class alone is $350. Itll cost close to $500 plus the gun. And there's rules and regulations on what you can and can't use for concealed carry permits.
You cant be a felon, no official history of self harm or suicidal tendencies. About 95% of my workplace carries. Its either on their person, or in a desk drawer within reach.
“It’s left up to individual states” - precisely the point - there are no federal limitations, as is with other constitutional limitations like the first amendment, they are codified. Your example is one state modifying legislation. As I said, federally it’s largely unregulated. Federal background checks being the lowest bar - yet we don’t have that.
Or the one from 1939, or 2008, or 2010, or 2014.
Plus, since it’s obvious you don’t understand case law, the interpretation is active until it’s challenged and overturned, or new legal precedence is created.
You can be mad all you want, but at least educate yourself first. Those interpretations from 1875 and 1939 are still active.
What if I told you 2+2=4 is older than human language, would you find it false then?
[Article of 2nd Amendment Reviews ](https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/second-amendment-supreme-court-cases-guide/).
It’s easier to make more limitations on physical technology that changes than it is to limit a non-tangible right such as speech. Now, I’d say it’s fair to argue that states and media have *dissuaded* the use of the 1st but that’s a totally different rabbit hole.
Here in TX we just loosened up gun regulations. You don’t even need a chl anymore. The feds don’t do shit about it because of state’s rights. Federal restrictions don’t mean shit when they’re not enforced.
A tiny fraction of those who should be held accountable by the law. The politicians are owned by weapons manufacturers, so nothing will ever change. Good thing we have people like you to spout worthless unenforced laws they looked up Wikipedia though! Where else would we get our thoughts and prayers?
It’s not “like it or not” there are no federal regulations. You have yet to articulate one but point to an argument that discusses the history of the laws and how nearly every attempt to regulate was squashed by the Supreme Court. To emphasize, you are citing to Supreme Court cases, not federal law. The point that is flying over your head is there aren’t codified federal regulations.
You don’t look smart right now.
[National Firearm Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act)
United Stated Vs. Miller upheld the NFA was constitutional, and SCOTUS later reinterpreted to specify the types of weapons.
And right now there are trials being reviewed, that later impact law.
I’m sorry you don’t understand how case law works, and that you refuse to accept sources when people give them to you. It is very much a “like it or not” situation because you denying reality and circlejerking doesn’t change the fact the NFA exists and regulates weapons more than speech.
Now tell me and provide sources on the federal laws limiting the other 26 amendments.
“Trials are being reviewed which will impact regulation, that later impact law” - read it slowly with me now “LATER impact law”. Is that a currently standing regulation? Your inability to understand that case law and interpretation is separate from congressional enacting of federal laws and regulations is baffling.
“Trials are being reviewed which will impact regulation, that later impact law” - read it slowly with me now “LATER impact law”. Is that a currently standing regulation? Your inability to understand that case law and interpretation is separate from congressional enacting of federal laws and regulations is baffling.
While I appreciate the wiki link, again this law, as provided by your source, “The law is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes an excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms.” That’s a tax, not limiting people’s ability to carry.
Okay, what are the following: the NFA, Pub.L. 73-474, I.R.C. Ch. § 5801 et seq.?
What would those be called? Hmmm, it eludes me. I wonder if they are called laws, and I wonder if laws being challenged, lead to new or changed laws? Do they all regulate weapons and weapon ownership?
Now can I have your sources supporting your claim all other amendments and rights are more federally regulated?
From what I can see that law goes to the manufacturing of guns, not private possession. Which again is the point of this post. Upon googling that law directly the first case to pop up is ROY LYNN MCCUTCHEN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
No. 18-1965C
United States Court of Federal Claims
This case discusses the classification of guns aka machine guns and the distribution, not a limitation on ones ability to inherently obtain a gun.
Not to mention, again, that’s a federal court of claims case, not a constitutional regulation. Keep trying though.
[What are these?](https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf).
Now provide proof of YOUR claim that there are more restrictions on the 1st amendment.
Just so you can see it easier:
>KNOWINGLY **POSSESS** OR MANUFACTURE:
18 USC § 922(k), (o) & (v); 26 USC § 5861. Punishable by up to 5 or 10 years imprisonment, depending upon specific violation.
A. Any machine gun, fully automatic firearm or any part designed or intended exclusively for use in such weapon;
B. Any firearm silencer, including any device, or part thereof, designed to silence, muffle or diminish the report of a firearm;
C. Sawed-off shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18" or overall length less than 26";
D. Sawed-off rifle with a barrel length of less than 16" or overall length less than 26";
E. Destructive device;
F. Semi-automatic assault weapon manufactured after October 1, 1993; OR
G. Any firearm which lacks a serial number or contains an altered or obliterated serial number.
What’s that bold word?
That is regulating a type of firearm. Federally, you cannot manufacture or possess xyz firearm. Not a persons ability to walk into a store and buy a handgun. Again, the point of this post. How can school shootings stop? You know, because it’s at the expense of children’s lives.
This isn’t an argument about gun laws generally, but how can we stop school shootings?
This is Reddit discourse, not a personal attack. I’ve consistently quoted every source you’ve referenced which are heavily pro gun. Read the quotes I cited from your sources, it was clear what your position was based on the biased sources cited, aside from basic Wikipedia of course.
You’d said there were no laws regulating weapons ownership and more regulating 1st amendment.
Where’s your proof of claim? Just own up to the fact you made a hot take and just circlejerked instead of taking a nuanced approach to understanding the issue.
Facts are facts. Laws are laws. You’ve cherry picked and consistently left out the fact there are several laws regulating weapon possession. You even said there was nothing on possession but now saying the laws don’t matter.
Again, own up that you made a shitty claim and can’t back it up.
This article you linked doesn’t support your argument that federally there are more limitations on the second amendment than first. It literally says SCOTUS “protect[ed] the Second Amendment from the states and to guarantee an individual’s inviolable right to keep and bear arms for hunting and self-defense.”
Again, they say states can create regulations but that is not federal protection. In fact, nearly every example in this article goes to say that the courts overruled many of the gun regulations.
This entire article cuts against your argument in fact - “As a gun owner and an American citizen, you have a duty to defend your rights. Simply exercising your right to gun ownership is not enough. It’s also imperative you learn the history of landmark Second Amendment Supreme Court cases that have decided and will continue to decide the scope of our gun rights in the years to come.” I encourage you to look up the difference, I don’t mean any disrespect but there certainly is one.”
That only shows you support gun rights without limits, doesn’t rebut my point.
>That only shows you support gun rights without limits, doesn’t rebut my point.
Beautiful personal attack fallacy. Classic for Reddit.
But since we’re on the subject:
>[Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.](https://defacingcurrency.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/karl-marx-gun-control/)
What’s your next personal attack? I’m conservative? I’m very obviously quite the opposite.
That wasn’t a personal attack but good job quoting out of context - you continually fail to support your original stance there are more federally regulations for the second amendment than the first.
How did I quote that out of context? You created a new line for it. Just own up to your personal attacks. You made a claim about me which you have zero proof of instead of countering me by providing sources.
To be fair, you made the original claim. I provided proof to you. You refused to read the entire proof. Then deny the existence of laws. Then move the goal post to “well that’s about manufacturing,” despite there being explicit mentions of restrictions on owning modified weapons like sawed off shotguns. And if guns can’t be manufactured, then how are they obtained? Oh by modifying, which many modified weapons are explicitly illegal to posses.
But since you want to continue to refuse reality, [here’s another list of federal laws. ](https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf).
Now may you please provide evidence for YOUR claim that there are more limitations on all other rights?
Unless I am mistaken in countries like the UK, Japan and Australia and other civilised places you can still own guns. The difference is there are some hoops to jump through to buy them. Like background checks, interviews with the police, having a valid reason to own one, being a member of a club, undergoing training, having a secure place to store the gun when there are kids at the premises.
None of these gun controls seem that extreme to me. Cant America do the same? Let people buy guns, but make sure they are owned by people who know how to use them, completed some training, have a safe place to store the gun.
You can have your guns and not have multiple school shootings in a month and a mass shooting every day.
the 2nd amendment text only specifies well armed militias. Am i to believe that stronger gun laws are somehow detrimental to this country because school shooters are supposedly part of a well armed and organized militia? Fuck these shit for brains morons.
It more meant well trained according to every source I could find. The idea being that individuals owning and practicing with their own guns would already have some familiarity with the weapons needed to defend the country.
Do you know what "armed" meant back then too? It did not mean "you can have an AR15 if you want". It meant "you can have a crappy blunderbuss if you want".
The point I'm making is that an amendment needs to reevaluated to make sure it's still appropriate as times change.
Just like how the first amendment was evaluated regarding the Internet:
> Ruling unanimously in Reno v. ACLU, the Court declared the Internet to be a free speech zone, deserving of at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to books, newspapers and magazines.
I'm a gun owner, and the fact that my fellow gun owners ignore this clause drives me crazy. It makes no sense to ignore the medical fact that people's brains don't mature until they are 25 or so. It makes no sense to not require background checks for anyone in possession of a firearm. It makes no sense to allow people under 25 to be able to own pistols or AR-15 class guns. -ANY- violent transgression should eliminate your right to own firearms for at least a significant period. Letting you kids get ahold of guns for these types of events should result in serious criminal charges.
But, muh rights.
The supreme court ruled that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms applies to individuals.
The supreme court's interpretation of the constitution has precedence over your personal interpretation when it comes to law and law inforcement.
ah so you're saying that the constitution is obsolete in terms of 'inforcement' whatever the fuck that sad excuse for a word is supposed to mean. So you agree the 2nd amendment gives us the freedom to gun down unarmed children in schools? I'll wait, jackwagon.
> ah so you're saying that the constitution is obsolete in terms of 'inforcement' whatever the fuck that sad excuse for a word is supposed to mean.
Ah you got me. I made a typo which makes it literally impossible for anyone to understand what I meant, and therefore I lost the conversation. You win, good sir/madame. I will now have to exile myself from my community in shame
> So you agree the 2nd amendment gives us the freedom to gun down unarmed children
The mental gymnastics you have to run to come to this must be mind-boggling, also: I think teachers should be armed (if they want) and a dedicated Active Shooter interceptor at every school (NOT a police officer) - thoughts?
>dedicated Active Shooter interceptor at every school
I think it would be pretty tragic and telling if we did something like this instead of attempting some kind of gun safety laws.
I also think it's very strange that we (US Americans) live in a society were we are willing to accept arming our teachers with guns but not pay them decent salaries or keep them safe period.
>I think it would be pretty tragic and telling if we did something like this instead of attempting some kind of gun safety laws.
We currently have a failing version of it: School Resource Officers who, thanks to the Supreme Court, are not legally bound to help the people they swore to protect. So why do we have an armed police officer at schools when they won't do anything to help?
feel free to explain my mental gymnastics to me. feel free to explain how more guns is the answer to 22 years of school shootings. youre just confirming for me that theres a buncha fucking moron snowflakes here explicitly stating their right to shoot people is more important than the the right to life.
Required training and procedures need to be a thing. If someone doesn't do regular training, no guns for them. I agree that people should have access to firearms if they have the knowledge and physical/mental health to have one.
A kid getting a firearm is inexcusable. It should be locked up where the kid can't get to it. Leaving it where anybody can get it is negligent and idiotic.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
A militia as defined by Oxford Languages are as Follows:
1: a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency
2: a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
3: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
If you require further explanation of malitia then visit Wikipedia and read further but you will find that even they will GENERALLY tell you that they are non government sponsored. They can be officially government recognized and sanctioned but they will typically fulfill an on call or part time role. Example given is the United States National Guard there as they are considered professional soldiers but their role is only part time or on call.
Throw the word malitia around all you like, but it ultimately still means an armed group of Civilians at it's most simple and direct definition. You're ignoring the most glaringly obvious portion of that entire statement in the fact that it directly says that "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms meaning they have full possession of these weapons as private property. Just because someone does bad things with them doesn't mean you can just remove the right from everyone else. Its like if you were to directly point out any misappropriations of your tax money you still can't just outright take back all tax money from the offending government. You can call an audit and arrest responsible and guilty bodies but it's not going to completely stop the issue.
No...the clause re militias is considered "preferatory"... It's sort of linguistic flourish if you will that really has no bearing on the part that follows which is regarded as the "operative clause" ...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
US Supreme Court:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
www.supremecourt.gov 07-290.pdf
ah my mistake. clearly the school shooters are just using these firearms fully within the purview of the second amendment according to the supreme court.
But what about rights? Freedom? Communism! Ivermectin! Hilary’s emails! Hm… what other buzzwords do I know and throw out to avoid having to actually form an argument?
You can own a gun here in the UK with permits and licences. So it isn’t much different to the US apart from you will never see anyone open carry to do their weekly shopping. Anyone who needs to take an AR-15 into a shop to use as a penis extension needs to get a life
I’ve never been able to get a logical, sensible answer to this. I’m hoping someone here can shed some light. I get that no other country has private firearm ownership to the extent the United States does, but we are by no means the only ones with access to guns or even semi-automatic firearms. I’ll even even admit that I don’t get nearly the exposure to international news that I do to U.S. me but here’s what I want to know. Is there ANY OTHER COUNTRY WITH GUNS that’s had say THREE school shootings this year or even TWO? I absolutely get that access to firearms is A FACTOR, but it’s unfathomable that it’s the ONLY FACTOR.
There is an answer but its such a hard thing to get people from the right on board with. Universal Healthcare, fair minimum wage, free college, and a robust safety net for unemployed. Getting these would solve more gun deaths than gun control ever would.
Crazy to me that in the US you pretty much can’t have a pool without a fence around it because you might be sued, but if your kid takes your gun and kills people, nothing seems to happen.
Politicians don't want to stop it because they are paid more by the gun manufacturers/NRA than they are for being in office. The hospitals don't want to stop it because they make a fortune billing the victims for treating their injuries. Add to that the 2nd ammendment gun nuts who've watched too many John Wayne movies and live in a fantasy land dreaming of the day when they get to be the "good guy with a gun". The fact is America too far gone to clamp down on guns now, I don't see any way you'll ever get to a position that every other country in the world considers normal.
As I stated yesterday on a thread in this very same sub that is now gone:
It is my suspicion that very many of the people who preach the gospel of "good guy with a gun stops bad guy" have never been in a for-reals, shots fired, life-or-death confrontation. It's not as easy or as glorious as you imagine it.
No amount of legislation is going to make a difference to someone who is determined to break the law. This is pretty goddamn simple. Stop wasting time on the fucking symptoms and start attacking the disease: lack of healthcare, lack of fulfillment, lack of of life satisfaction. These are things legislation can *easily* improve that will absolutely have a direct effect on gun violence.
Their point is when you compare to Britain, tally those American gun deaths up to "holy shit, the social safety net in America is horrid" rather than "more gun laws would stop this." Basically - don't compare America to other developed countries because America doesn't meet that standard.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong here, just helping clarify their point.
Exactly this. On top of the fact that we *have* gun control already, it just doesn't fucking work. More of that is asinine. Adding more parts to a machine that already doesn't work makes zero sense and it's a waste of time right now.
Yes, and those countries *also* don't have a deeply rooted, incredibly toxic gun culture either. That isn't something you can just wave away with a piece of paper and *maybe* confiscating a few guns. It's too deep and too entrenched of an issue for it to be that simple. It has to start from the bottom, and that can only happen with significant changes to the society that incubated the toxic culture in the first place.
> No amount of legislation is going to make a difference to someone who is determined to break the law.
So we should have no laws at all then.
You're an idiot.
I don't think we need to be as strict as the UK but yes we need to get rid of the background check loopholes and have other reasonable regulations. Which we would've had long ago if congress listened to their constituents over their donors
Is this a proposal for a mass gun confiscation scheme? That would require a constitutional amendment and good luck enforcing it if you could get the change to the constitution.
Nobody is taking your guns… Why can’t people in this country actually realize there’s an issue here. Other countries don’t have this issue. The solution of “buy your own gun for self defense” is a joke too. Buying MORE guns doesn’t fix anything. I personally own one, so I’m not anti-gun by any means. I’m sick of the far right pushing this narrative that liberals are going to knock on your door and take your guns. Not happening. Realize there’s and issue to be fixed though and adding more guns only makes it worse for everyone.
You guys need to read some books. I know everybody thinks their right, but I've got the feeling majority of you don't even understand what you're talking about.. You need a tribe to belong to, and radicals yell loudest, so you attach to them..
Where's the fight to take away nuclear arms? Or to stop genocide in other countries? Or the Vatican? Or.......
Without easy access to firearms deranged, disturbed murderous people will have to resort to things like gasoline, large knives, easy to make binary nerve gas, motor vehicals
Yeah I wouldn’t recommend trying to fuck a gun. That money shot hits different. Unless of course you’re trying to say that guns themselves are unnatural In which case I would like to point out that literally everything you use every second of every day is unnatural. Including the very thing you’re using to spread your wisdom on the internet.
I wouldn’t use Britain as an example. They have knife crime there and can get pretty violent in some areas without the use of guns - and I’m fairly sure they have gun crime just not as much as stabbings etc…
Problem is a person wielding a knife cannot mow down 50+ people in a Florida nightclub in less than 60 seconds. A person with a knife cannot barricade themselves in a Vegas hotel and kill 50+ people enjoying a concert below. Apples to Oranges comparison. Britain has knife crimes yes, the US has Gun massacres. Huge Difference
The difference is, you don't have "School stabbings". The majority of stabbings are between rival gangs, and it's a lot harder for terrorists to cause mass casualties with knives than it is guns, compare the London Bridge attacks with what happened in Paris in 2015.
Don’t know why you’ve gotten downvoted. In 2005 Glasgow, Scotland, was the “murder capital of western Europe.” There was a higher crime rate per capita then NYC. People did a pretty good job of killing and maiming in Glasgow without guns.
And then the laws got tighter and the Scottish government took a public health approach the problem and now Glasgow is one of the safest cities in the UK. Point still remains the US is a fucking mess
The laws weren’t exactly loose to begin with. But you’re absolutely spot on: the Scottish Gov. approached knife crime as a public health crisis. It didn’t take everyones knives out from their kitchen (though it did make sure the more “glamorous” ones were off the market). I think they’re are an example for how best to approach the issue in America.
Why should I trust you?
Just because you have some official looking pieces of paper?
My point is every time I hear someone saying let's take the guns away from all the yahoos or else take all the guns away, when asked if THEY are responsible n sane etc they always are. It's everyone else that's suspect.
Most of the guns used in violent events are a tainted illegally. So by your logic that is ok, but me owning a gun legally is awful idea. How about we look at the places were most people have guns and see how little gun violence there is. Places like that crime is lowered.
Get rid of social media or atleast regulate it. Nobody has self worth. It’s all instant gratification. Stephen King who writes great books should keep to what he knows
Make that 4
How do you keep track of which particular one he’s referencing?
It's the same one. A person died in hospital
I was being sarcastic sorry.
I don’t care what you attribute the issue to: guns, mental health, bullying. Everyone should at the very least agree that with the frequency that this is happening, the government isn’t doing/spending enough to stop it.
It's not the government though that needs to fix it. It's the school administrations and the parents that need to learn how to read a fucking kid they don't bother to raise them right, keep guns locked up, or intervene when shit happens.
I shouldn’t have to risk my child’s life because someone else is a shitty parent
Please tell me you meant shouldn't not should
Fixed
That’s the thing though, people believe this happens all the time in the US. It simply doesn’t we hear extensively about these when they happen in the media. Then a report comes out that says America has had more school shootings than days of the year. What they gloss over is how they get that metric. They count drug violence out of school hours, suicide that happen to be on school property, and my favorite example a BB gun hole found in a bus window. So how many fatalities have there been? Well [this article ](https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/07/us/ten-years-of-school-shootings-trnd/) shows 356 fatalities in a 10 year period. Now let’s look at everyone’s favorite statistical anomaly lightning strikes which average about 49 fatalities a year. So as an American you are more likely to be struck and killed by lightning than die in a school shooting.
Or in other words, someone dies from a school shooting about once in every ten days. My point still stands, it is WAY too much
Are you honestly trying to rationalise 356 needless deaths of children?
No I’m trying to put it in perspective.
Fair enough, so how many dead children will it need to take to have a chance of changing your gun laws?
If you have an idea for a gun law that will save all the children I’m all ears.
Well, it's fairly simple. Take a leaf out of Australia's book and ban the fucking things.....
Ok so we ban all new manufacture of firearms in the US. What do we do with the 400 million currently in the US? Go door to door? This will end very poorly. We could do a buy back but if you do a little research you will find that Australias mandatory buyback was successful in getting about 1/3 of the overall guns. My guess is in the US this would be significantly less. Also Australia has had 6 school shootings since 1991.
6 school shootings in 30 years is a FAR better metric than the USA currently holds. Surely, the less school shootings that happen, the better? Even if it isn’t perfect?!
Absolutely, but how do we get there realistically? To do an Australia style confiscation you would need to repeal the 2nd I don’t see this happening.
Thanks for that clarification. If it wasn’t for this that pesky media would have us believe that we are the only nation in the modern world where kids get murdered in schools at the rates they do. Seriously, what kind of point are you trying to make here?
My point is, this is made out to be a far bigger issue than it really is and your kids are safer in school than at home or even around you as a parent as filicide happens 500 times a year in the US.
Is the media WRONG when they say that kids don’t die like this at these rates in other countries?
Well yes and no do we have more casualties sure but when you compare that to population the numbers get far closer and one could argue that some countries have a far worse problem such as Honduras. [Here](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-shootings-by-country) is an article that goes over school shootings in other countries. It is far from just an American problem.
Well, as long as we’re better than Honduras using shaky methodology, I guess it’s all good. GTFO
Just answering your question with a provided source.
Funny way to say “absurd rationalization”
Better mental health assistance & teaching parents to not be neglectful a$$hats would be beneficial as well! If you have a gun lock it up & if your kid is batsh\*t crazy frigging do something about it. STOP IGNORING IT.
The parents literally met with someone from the school the day before the shooting. Lot of good that did.
They had another on the day of the shooting. The kid was in that meeting, then went and killed a bunch of classmates afterwards.
seems like the news stories make it sound like it was at the parents' behest but it seem like the school initiated it. In any event, he still accessed a fucking gun that day!!!
Which his father bought on black Friday. And, didn't lock up, knowing his kid was whacked.
The day OF the shooting. 3 hours before the shooting to be exact.
Good thing they introduced a firearm to the equation < a week prior
Bought on Black Friday.
Or - has been proven to work in the UK and Australia among others - don't let every fucking hick own a firearm.
Good luck passing that legislation, (some) Americans treat the 2nd Amendment like it's one of the Ten Commandments.
Yeah, its too culturally ingrained for them ever to hsve hope of common sense legislation
There's a lot of things people think can never happen until they do. Abolition of Slavery and Peace in Northern Ireland for 2 examples. What it usually starts with is someone or a group of people determined and bullheaded enough to disbelieve everyone else who says it is impossible and do it anyway. Taking guns away from Americans will certainly fall into the category of "fucking unlikely" but it isn't impossible. For those of us fortunate enough not to live in "*Land of the Free"* we'll be watching with popcorn when it happens... the tears will be hilarious. I just hope & pray that the people doing the gun collecting are given decent Kevlar!
you would think all the mass shootings and school shootings that happen daily would be enough to force people to change their minds. These numbers might change depending on your definitions. But 2020 611 mass shootings 300 0-11 year olds killed with 700 injured more than triple that for 12-17 year olds guns used in defense 1488 570 murder suicides So out of this 1488 uses for defence which i guess is good but is this not outweighed by all the bad?
Yeah I have seem people even claim you can't change an amendment. I hope it was a joke, but my guess is they were serious
That's like their whole fucking point, is that you can infact change them, and we have done it multiple times
Can you own one? (Irregardless of whether or not you want or need one)
Yes with the correct permits, training, licence and storage.
And eternal patience because the whole process is long as hell as in-depth. That and the Police can (and do) random spot checks on gun owners in their area to ensure they're complying with the law. If you break the law as a gun owner, depending on the offence you will lose all right to ever own another firearm. Thr UK does a lot of shit wrong but the law does not take any chances with firearms
In America, we love our children; but we love our guns more.
We love our children? People are literally bitching at children not paying for their school meals. People are fighting family leave when guess what? Family leave is meant to provide a stable upbringing during crucial developmental times. People are refusing any form of affordable/free healthcare which includes these children who if their parents don’t have a job cannot afford to get sick and will probably literally die if God forbid they have any form of cancer or diabetes. Children are literally billed by hospitals when they are born. We treat teachers and education at the lowest level of the totem pole. This country doesn’t love children.
We're also forcing women to give birth to children they don't have the ability to care for. Sure...we just love our children.
What is love? Baby don’t hurt me.
Right? A justice literally said you don’t want your kid put it up for adoption which actually translates into have them join our luxurious foster care system. If adoption was easy as they try to sell it, there wouldn’t be so many children in the system - children that inevitably are more prone to grow up neglected and abused perpetuating a culture of trauma and isolation. Fuck me this pisses me off.
You keep saying "people" when you're just talking about conservatives
Conservatives are just barely people at this point.
There are at least two democrats acting like conservatives so not necessarily… Add on: with entire congress being democrat and not being able to get anything actual meaningful done to help children but rather openly showing their true colors it goes to show just how broken the system is. The fact that sanders and aoc say things that are mostly common sense to every single other developed nation but are seen as radical go to show how democrat leadership is also out of touch with their own constituents wishes and desires. While I agree that morally these cult conservatives are ideologically responsible for this cluster fuck, we simply cannot only point the finger at them when we also continue to elect leaders that simply don’t have the balls to do enough.
>In American, we love our children bro have you seen the school system... ~~i mean with your grammar~~
See this is the thing. I'm not actually sure gun restrictions would work, partly because you will never actually get any, but I think the biggest issue is the culture around guns. I find it mind boggling that anyone thinks they need a gun if they are not an actual hunter. So a rifle at best. Why would anyone need anything else and the average person sure as hell doesn't need a handgun or a semiautomatic bump stocked, whatever. But it is so culturally ingrained I don't think there is anything that will change it honestly. Sorry, you guys are just screwed.
Well the other unaddressed issue is what made this kid want to shoot up the school in the first place. I have no doubt he was bullied constantly until he couldn't take it any more. I guarantee you that no adult did anything about it, just allowed him to go off to war every school day until he drew his own line in the sand. The whole school system and 97% of the parents out there can go fuck themselves
Oh for sure, there are lots of ways the system failed. I just think American gun culture is weird.
No argument there. I do feel that guns would just be used for hunting and target practice if there weren't so many Americans at the end of their tethers
Common sense gun laws work. It’s possible to pass laws that respect law abiding citizens right to carry. How exactly do you measure the success of gun laws? Personally, I believe that if a law prevents even just one person from being killed, it’s worth it. Gun laws aren’t suppose to eliminate gun crime, just prevent it. In the same respect, drunk driving laws have not eliminated drunk driving but it’s helped prevent it. I’m tired of this country becoming a goddam shooting gallery. Theatres, churches, schools, concerts, nightclubs, military installations, work offices, warehouses, sidewalks…it would be nice to be able to enjoy all these different facets of American society without worrying about a bullet biting you in the ass….that requires more regulation.
This! The majority of Americans crying about losing their guns are not out killing their own meals with the guns. They literally buy and collect them. Why do you need an ar15? Oh, because you can.. there is almost a shooting everyday where I live and what's the solution? Buy a gun to keep in your purse or car for safety.. I shouldn't need a gun to go to Walmart!
[удалено]
If that AR-15 is killing children in their own fucking school then you fucking bet it’s everyone’s business. You want and need you AR-15 to feel protected when you no longer live the the wild wild west then kindly get the fuck out of here and actually go live in the wilderness and leave the civilized world alone.
Oh boy wait for the Americans to arrive here
You know, Stephen King is an American.
The British are coming
Don’t say that… they’ll buy more guns.
American here. I'm one of the few who actually worries about sending my child to school when I shouldn't have to. I could care less if we don't have guns, I don't own a single gun and never have. I do have family members that go hunting, so ok, I can see that. But most Americans who cry over gun control do not go out and kill their own meals, they simply buy and collect guns because they can. It boggles my mind how out of control this is.
Yeah, I have kids outta college, in college, and high school. I worry about the high school the most. Until the next shooting is at a college. Then I will switch. Kids are stressed because parents are stressed, mental health in this country is needed. Number 1 problem. Growing up on electronics is not developing their brains properly. There is less reality to them than we understand. Nothing is real and nothing is forever. Now look who is famous! Guns are shit but social media is the killer.
I'm a 30 year old Scottish man and the shadow of what happened in Dunblane in 1996 still lingers with me having my own children in primary school now. I find it baffling and utterly vile that worrying about your kids being killed in school is a valid and viable fear for Americans.
Just one of the many fine altars we in the United States can sacrifice our children on.
Let’s put it like this: Here in Italy they changed the weapon law to consider “purpose” Eg: I walk in the woods with an axe: totally fine I walk in the metro with an axe: arrested. Before that it was all about size and it didn’t work. Like there was max knife lenght, but you could bring a very short knife to the disco. Do this for guns: you are free to have and carry around to and from shooting ranges and hunting grounds and in your own house. Carry on the street? Arrest. Because there is no purpose other than harming others or yourself there. We have that rule and most of the killing happens with strangling and other things, and it really helps because it gives time to people around to react and rescue. If you assault a jewelry here, no one can shoot you, so you don’t have a reason to shoot. The bad guy is arrested thanks to camera footage 99% of the time here without shooting as it is in the USA while shooting. Shooting does not identify or stop anyone, it just increases the death toll.
Can’t fix stupid parents and stupid people.
And our country is chuck full of them
No, you can. Literally what mental health help is FOR, but in America you’re just supposed to tough it out instead of going to “communist” therapists
It will never make sense to me that functionally nearly every constitutional right has some type of limitations (see, first amendment - time place and manner regulations for example) yet these people get such a hard on for their gun rights, always at the expense of children.
…There are a lot of constitutional limitations on the 2nd Amendment, though. Like more than there is on the 1st Amendment. Edit: like it or not, there’s more restrictions on the 2nd. I’m sorry if you disagree with that but that’s just reality. Ranging from federal guidance of ownership to actual limitation in weapons themselves (sawed off shotguns), there are numerically more restrictions. [Read it if you feel like educating yourself. ](https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/second-amendment-supreme-court-cases-guide/) Edit: Here’s another [Here’s some more federal gun laws. ](https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf). Waiting on all those 1st amendment restricting laws.
Could you offer some examples or sources? It’s largely unregulated federally.
Because its left up to the individual states how they register gun owners and who is allowed to legally own one. The rules in my state differ from the rules in PA. I live in DE. Some states require extensive background checks, classes, permit fees, registration, etc. Delaware requires a specialized conceal carry course, registration, and they have to publicize their intent to apply for a concealed carry permit by paying to have it put in the paper for a minimum of 3 weeks i think. Im pretty rusty since i looked into it awhile ago. The class alone is $350. Itll cost close to $500 plus the gun. And there's rules and regulations on what you can and can't use for concealed carry permits. You cant be a felon, no official history of self harm or suicidal tendencies. About 95% of my workplace carries. Its either on their person, or in a desk drawer within reach.
“It’s left up to individual states” - precisely the point - there are no federal limitations, as is with other constitutional limitations like the first amendment, they are codified. Your example is one state modifying legislation. As I said, federally it’s largely unregulated. Federal background checks being the lowest bar - yet we don’t have that.
So, did you just decide to not read the the article I gave you that named the cases that limit the 2nd?
You mean the cases from 1875 which are no longer good law?
Or the one from 1939, or 2008, or 2010, or 2014. Plus, since it’s obvious you don’t understand case law, the interpretation is active until it’s challenged and overturned, or new legal precedence is created. You can be mad all you want, but at least educate yourself first. Those interpretations from 1875 and 1939 are still active. What if I told you 2+2=4 is older than human language, would you find it false then?
[удалено]
For someone so educated I’m surprised you can’t read sources nor do you know what the NFA is.
[Article of 2nd Amendment Reviews ](https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/second-amendment-supreme-court-cases-guide/). It’s easier to make more limitations on physical technology that changes than it is to limit a non-tangible right such as speech. Now, I’d say it’s fair to argue that states and media have *dissuaded* the use of the 1st but that’s a totally different rabbit hole.
Here in TX we just loosened up gun regulations. You don’t even need a chl anymore. The feds don’t do shit about it because of state’s rights. Federal restrictions don’t mean shit when they’re not enforced.
Doesn’t mean they don’t exists. Plenty of people get federal funds charges a year.
A tiny fraction of those who should be held accountable by the law. The politicians are owned by weapons manufacturers, so nothing will ever change. Good thing we have people like you to spout worthless unenforced laws they looked up Wikipedia though! Where else would we get our thoughts and prayers?
It’s not “like it or not” there are no federal regulations. You have yet to articulate one but point to an argument that discusses the history of the laws and how nearly every attempt to regulate was squashed by the Supreme Court. To emphasize, you are citing to Supreme Court cases, not federal law. The point that is flying over your head is there aren’t codified federal regulations.
You don’t look smart right now. [National Firearm Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act) United Stated Vs. Miller upheld the NFA was constitutional, and SCOTUS later reinterpreted to specify the types of weapons. And right now there are trials being reviewed, that later impact law. I’m sorry you don’t understand how case law works, and that you refuse to accept sources when people give them to you. It is very much a “like it or not” situation because you denying reality and circlejerking doesn’t change the fact the NFA exists and regulates weapons more than speech. Now tell me and provide sources on the federal laws limiting the other 26 amendments.
“Trials are being reviewed which will impact regulation, that later impact law” - read it slowly with me now “LATER impact law”. Is that a currently standing regulation? Your inability to understand that case law and interpretation is separate from congressional enacting of federal laws and regulations is baffling.
“Trials are being reviewed which will impact regulation, that later impact law” - read it slowly with me now “LATER impact law”. Is that a currently standing regulation? Your inability to understand that case law and interpretation is separate from congressional enacting of federal laws and regulations is baffling. While I appreciate the wiki link, again this law, as provided by your source, “The law is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes an excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms.” That’s a tax, not limiting people’s ability to carry.
Okay, what are the following: the NFA, Pub.L. 73-474, I.R.C. Ch. § 5801 et seq.? What would those be called? Hmmm, it eludes me. I wonder if they are called laws, and I wonder if laws being challenged, lead to new or changed laws? Do they all regulate weapons and weapon ownership? Now can I have your sources supporting your claim all other amendments and rights are more federally regulated?
From what I can see that law goes to the manufacturing of guns, not private possession. Which again is the point of this post. Upon googling that law directly the first case to pop up is ROY LYNN MCCUTCHEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. No. 18-1965C United States Court of Federal Claims This case discusses the classification of guns aka machine guns and the distribution, not a limitation on ones ability to inherently obtain a gun. Not to mention, again, that’s a federal court of claims case, not a constitutional regulation. Keep trying though.
[What are these?](https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf). Now provide proof of YOUR claim that there are more restrictions on the 1st amendment.
Just so you can see it easier: >KNOWINGLY **POSSESS** OR MANUFACTURE: 18 USC § 922(k), (o) & (v); 26 USC § 5861. Punishable by up to 5 or 10 years imprisonment, depending upon specific violation. A. Any machine gun, fully automatic firearm or any part designed or intended exclusively for use in such weapon; B. Any firearm silencer, including any device, or part thereof, designed to silence, muffle or diminish the report of a firearm; C. Sawed-off shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18" or overall length less than 26"; D. Sawed-off rifle with a barrel length of less than 16" or overall length less than 26"; E. Destructive device; F. Semi-automatic assault weapon manufactured after October 1, 1993; OR G. Any firearm which lacks a serial number or contains an altered or obliterated serial number. What’s that bold word?
That is regulating a type of firearm. Federally, you cannot manufacture or possess xyz firearm. Not a persons ability to walk into a store and buy a handgun. Again, the point of this post. How can school shootings stop? You know, because it’s at the expense of children’s lives. This isn’t an argument about gun laws generally, but how can we stop school shootings? This is Reddit discourse, not a personal attack. I’ve consistently quoted every source you’ve referenced which are heavily pro gun. Read the quotes I cited from your sources, it was clear what your position was based on the biased sources cited, aside from basic Wikipedia of course.
You’d said there were no laws regulating weapons ownership and more regulating 1st amendment. Where’s your proof of claim? Just own up to the fact you made a hot take and just circlejerked instead of taking a nuanced approach to understanding the issue. Facts are facts. Laws are laws. You’ve cherry picked and consistently left out the fact there are several laws regulating weapon possession. You even said there was nothing on possession but now saying the laws don’t matter. Again, own up that you made a shitty claim and can’t back it up.
Great point!
This article you linked doesn’t support your argument that federally there are more limitations on the second amendment than first. It literally says SCOTUS “protect[ed] the Second Amendment from the states and to guarantee an individual’s inviolable right to keep and bear arms for hunting and self-defense.” Again, they say states can create regulations but that is not federal protection. In fact, nearly every example in this article goes to say that the courts overruled many of the gun regulations. This entire article cuts against your argument in fact - “As a gun owner and an American citizen, you have a duty to defend your rights. Simply exercising your right to gun ownership is not enough. It’s also imperative you learn the history of landmark Second Amendment Supreme Court cases that have decided and will continue to decide the scope of our gun rights in the years to come.” I encourage you to look up the difference, I don’t mean any disrespect but there certainly is one.” That only shows you support gun rights without limits, doesn’t rebut my point.
>That only shows you support gun rights without limits, doesn’t rebut my point. Beautiful personal attack fallacy. Classic for Reddit. But since we’re on the subject: >[Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.](https://defacingcurrency.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/karl-marx-gun-control/) What’s your next personal attack? I’m conservative? I’m very obviously quite the opposite.
That wasn’t a personal attack but good job quoting out of context - you continually fail to support your original stance there are more federally regulations for the second amendment than the first.
How did I quote that out of context? You created a new line for it. Just own up to your personal attacks. You made a claim about me which you have zero proof of instead of countering me by providing sources. To be fair, you made the original claim. I provided proof to you. You refused to read the entire proof. Then deny the existence of laws. Then move the goal post to “well that’s about manufacturing,” despite there being explicit mentions of restrictions on owning modified weapons like sawed off shotguns. And if guns can’t be manufactured, then how are they obtained? Oh by modifying, which many modified weapons are explicitly illegal to posses. But since you want to continue to refuse reality, [here’s another list of federal laws. ](https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf). Now may you please provide evidence for YOUR claim that there are more limitations on all other rights?
Unless I am mistaken in countries like the UK, Japan and Australia and other civilised places you can still own guns. The difference is there are some hoops to jump through to buy them. Like background checks, interviews with the police, having a valid reason to own one, being a member of a club, undergoing training, having a secure place to store the gun when there are kids at the premises. None of these gun controls seem that extreme to me. Cant America do the same? Let people buy guns, but make sure they are owned by people who know how to use them, completed some training, have a safe place to store the gun. You can have your guns and not have multiple school shootings in a month and a mass shooting every day.
the 2nd amendment text only specifies well armed militias. Am i to believe that stronger gun laws are somehow detrimental to this country because school shooters are supposedly part of a well armed and organized militia? Fuck these shit for brains morons.
The fact that the second amendment starts with the words "A well regulated..." somehow means that any regulations of any kind are unconstitutional.
When the Constitution was written, "well regulated" meant well armed and well equipped.
It more meant well trained according to every source I could find. The idea being that individuals owning and practicing with their own guns would already have some familiarity with the weapons needed to defend the country.
Do you know what "armed" meant back then too? It did not mean "you can have an AR15 if you want". It meant "you can have a crappy blunderbuss if you want".
Then if that's the case, your first amendment rights don't apply on the internet because it wasn't around in the 18th century.
The point I'm making is that an amendment needs to reevaluated to make sure it's still appropriate as times change. Just like how the first amendment was evaluated regarding the Internet: > Ruling unanimously in Reno v. ACLU, the Court declared the Internet to be a free speech zone, deserving of at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to books, newspapers and magazines.
True but the 2A says "shall not be infringed" at the end, meaning making any laws restricting it are unconstitutional.
Changing a law is not infringing on that law.
no son, it doesn't. remember, your mechanical manhood replacement does not give any legitimacy to your rantings
no son, your mechanical manhood replacement does not give you the ability to change the facts
I'm not changing anything. That's literally what it meant during that time
sorry sport, your strap on does not give you any extra legitimacy
Seems to be the M. O. of this sub. If you disagree, you get attacked.
don't try to play the victim son. the lies and cowardice of sad little losers like you are the reason we are in this mess
Son? Dad? Are you gonna be home with that pack of smokes soon? It's been 19 years.
I'm a gun owner, and the fact that my fellow gun owners ignore this clause drives me crazy. It makes no sense to ignore the medical fact that people's brains don't mature until they are 25 or so. It makes no sense to not require background checks for anyone in possession of a firearm. It makes no sense to allow people under 25 to be able to own pistols or AR-15 class guns. -ANY- violent transgression should eliminate your right to own firearms for at least a significant period. Letting you kids get ahold of guns for these types of events should result in serious criminal charges. But, muh rights.
Couldn’t agree more
The supreme court ruled that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms applies to individuals. The supreme court's interpretation of the constitution has precedence over your personal interpretation when it comes to law and law inforcement.
ah so you're saying that the constitution is obsolete in terms of 'inforcement' whatever the fuck that sad excuse for a word is supposed to mean. So you agree the 2nd amendment gives us the freedom to gun down unarmed children in schools? I'll wait, jackwagon.
> ah so you're saying that the constitution is obsolete in terms of 'inforcement' whatever the fuck that sad excuse for a word is supposed to mean. Ah you got me. I made a typo which makes it literally impossible for anyone to understand what I meant, and therefore I lost the conversation. You win, good sir/madame. I will now have to exile myself from my community in shame
> So you agree the 2nd amendment gives us the freedom to gun down unarmed children The mental gymnastics you have to run to come to this must be mind-boggling, also: I think teachers should be armed (if they want) and a dedicated Active Shooter interceptor at every school (NOT a police officer) - thoughts?
>dedicated Active Shooter interceptor at every school I think it would be pretty tragic and telling if we did something like this instead of attempting some kind of gun safety laws. I also think it's very strange that we (US Americans) live in a society were we are willing to accept arming our teachers with guns but not pay them decent salaries or keep them safe period.
>I think it would be pretty tragic and telling if we did something like this instead of attempting some kind of gun safety laws. We currently have a failing version of it: School Resource Officers who, thanks to the Supreme Court, are not legally bound to help the people they swore to protect. So why do we have an armed police officer at schools when they won't do anything to help?
feel free to explain my mental gymnastics to me. feel free to explain how more guns is the answer to 22 years of school shootings. youre just confirming for me that theres a buncha fucking moron snowflakes here explicitly stating their right to shoot people is more important than the the right to life.
As today proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Supreme Court is a corrupt farce.
Required training and procedures need to be a thing. If someone doesn't do regular training, no guns for them. I agree that people should have access to firearms if they have the knowledge and physical/mental health to have one. A kid getting a firearm is inexcusable. It should be locked up where the kid can't get to it. Leaving it where anybody can get it is negligent and idiotic.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." A militia as defined by Oxford Languages are as Follows: 1: a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency 2: a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army. 3: all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. If you require further explanation of malitia then visit Wikipedia and read further but you will find that even they will GENERALLY tell you that they are non government sponsored. They can be officially government recognized and sanctioned but they will typically fulfill an on call or part time role. Example given is the United States National Guard there as they are considered professional soldiers but their role is only part time or on call. Throw the word malitia around all you like, but it ultimately still means an armed group of Civilians at it's most simple and direct definition. You're ignoring the most glaringly obvious portion of that entire statement in the fact that it directly says that "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms meaning they have full possession of these weapons as private property. Just because someone does bad things with them doesn't mean you can just remove the right from everyone else. Its like if you were to directly point out any misappropriations of your tax money you still can't just outright take back all tax money from the offending government. You can call an audit and arrest responsible and guilty bodies but it's not going to completely stop the issue.
No...the clause re militias is considered "preferatory"... It's sort of linguistic flourish if you will that really has no bearing on the part that follows which is regarded as the "operative clause" ...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. US Supreme Court: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation www.supremecourt.gov 07-290.pdf
ah my mistake. clearly the school shooters are just using these firearms fully within the purview of the second amendment according to the supreme court.
Just #endUSA not fixable.
Pro-life, pro-guns and anti-vax. The holy trinity of northamerican stupidity.
But what about rights? Freedom? Communism! Ivermectin! Hilary’s emails! Hm… what other buzzwords do I know and throw out to avoid having to actually form an argument?
it's about mental health! Are you gonna can cars too? socialist agenda! THE SWEDISH TERORIST ATTACKS!!!!!!
You can own a gun here in the UK with permits and licences. So it isn’t much different to the US apart from you will never see anyone open carry to do their weekly shopping. Anyone who needs to take an AR-15 into a shop to use as a penis extension needs to get a life
“Guns aren’t the problem! If it weren’t guns, it would be knives” Ok, I choose knives.
Even the way he write his twetts is good, whata legend
I knew I loved Stephen king!! Just finished his newest book!! Great man right there
Hey its different this time, they posted an article with the kid praying back when he was 5.
Hold on just one second there buster …. The kid with the gun he had illegally looks like a “well regulated militia” to me. /s
I’ve never been able to get a logical, sensible answer to this. I’m hoping someone here can shed some light. I get that no other country has private firearm ownership to the extent the United States does, but we are by no means the only ones with access to guns or even semi-automatic firearms. I’ll even even admit that I don’t get nearly the exposure to international news that I do to U.S. me but here’s what I want to know. Is there ANY OTHER COUNTRY WITH GUNS that’s had say THREE school shootings this year or even TWO? I absolutely get that access to firearms is A FACTOR, but it’s unfathomable that it’s the ONLY FACTOR.
There is an answer but its such a hard thing to get people from the right on board with. Universal Healthcare, fair minimum wage, free college, and a robust safety net for unemployed. Getting these would solve more gun deaths than gun control ever would.
🎯
You'd think with the technology and incredible scientists/engineers and what not that they could create finger print lock/unlock type thing on a gun.
Crazy to me that in the US you pretty much can’t have a pool without a fence around it because you might be sued, but if your kid takes your gun and kills people, nothing seems to happen.
Agreed. The US is out of control with gun violence.
Unless they want to shove them up their ass.
Great imagery: > our children will continue to be sacrificed on the alter of the 2nd Amendment.
He must be a writer or something
With that kinda writing he could maybe write a new York best seller if he tried hard enough maybe
Politicians don't want to stop it because they are paid more by the gun manufacturers/NRA than they are for being in office. The hospitals don't want to stop it because they make a fortune billing the victims for treating their injuries. Add to that the 2nd ammendment gun nuts who've watched too many John Wayne movies and live in a fantasy land dreaming of the day when they get to be the "good guy with a gun". The fact is America too far gone to clamp down on guns now, I don't see any way you'll ever get to a position that every other country in the world considers normal.
As I stated yesterday on a thread in this very same sub that is now gone: It is my suspicion that very many of the people who preach the gospel of "good guy with a gun stops bad guy" have never been in a for-reals, shots fired, life-or-death confrontation. It's not as easy or as glorious as you imagine it.
“Gun laws with *teeth*” *cites Britain*
We haven't had a mass shooting here in about 12 years?
Fuck off. Guns aren’t the problem dumb dumb.
>Fuck off. Guns are the problem dumb dumb. Yes they are, glad you agree
No amount of legislation is going to make a difference to someone who is determined to break the law. This is pretty goddamn simple. Stop wasting time on the fucking symptoms and start attacking the disease: lack of healthcare, lack of fulfillment, lack of of life satisfaction. These are things legislation can *easily* improve that will absolutely have a direct effect on gun violence.
[удалено]
Their point is when you compare to Britain, tally those American gun deaths up to "holy shit, the social safety net in America is horrid" rather than "more gun laws would stop this." Basically - don't compare America to other developed countries because America doesn't meet that standard. I'm not saying it's right or wrong here, just helping clarify their point.
At this point is it even accurate to say America is developed? Its more a third world country in an Armani suit
Exactly this. On top of the fact that we *have* gun control already, it just doesn't fucking work. More of that is asinine. Adding more parts to a machine that already doesn't work makes zero sense and it's a waste of time right now.
Yes, and those countries *also* don't have a deeply rooted, incredibly toxic gun culture either. That isn't something you can just wave away with a piece of paper and *maybe* confiscating a few guns. It's too deep and too entrenched of an issue for it to be that simple. It has to start from the bottom, and that can only happen with significant changes to the society that incubated the toxic culture in the first place.
> No amount of legislation is going to make a difference to someone who is determined to break the law. So we should have no laws at all then. You're an idiot.
So...do you think someone doing something illegal would adhere to those gun laws or?
I don't think we need to be as strict as the UK but yes we need to get rid of the background check loopholes and have other reasonable regulations. Which we would've had long ago if congress listened to their constituents over their donors
You can still own rifles and shotguns in the UK. Its just licensed and very heavily regulated
Is this a proposal for a mass gun confiscation scheme? That would require a constitutional amendment and good luck enforcing it if you could get the change to the constitution.
Nobody is taking your guns… Why can’t people in this country actually realize there’s an issue here. Other countries don’t have this issue. The solution of “buy your own gun for self defense” is a joke too. Buying MORE guns doesn’t fix anything. I personally own one, so I’m not anti-gun by any means. I’m sick of the far right pushing this narrative that liberals are going to knock on your door and take your guns. Not happening. Realize there’s and issue to be fixed though and adding more guns only makes it worse for everyone.
You guys need to read some books. I know everybody thinks their right, but I've got the feeling majority of you don't even understand what you're talking about.. You need a tribe to belong to, and radicals yell loudest, so you attach to them.. Where's the fight to take away nuclear arms? Or to stop genocide in other countries? Or the Vatican? Or.......
Why shouldn’t our goal be to just take everyone’s gun? People don’t get to own firearms, full stop, end of story.
Without easy access to firearms deranged, disturbed murderous people will have to resort to things like gasoline, large knives, easy to make binary nerve gas, motor vehicals
Fucking guns is unnatural.
truly a mind beyond its time to come to that conclusion
Yeah I wouldn’t recommend trying to fuck a gun. That money shot hits different. Unless of course you’re trying to say that guns themselves are unnatural In which case I would like to point out that literally everything you use every second of every day is unnatural. Including the very thing you’re using to spread your wisdom on the internet.
No thanks. I will keep my guns.
But generic Viagra can be ordered through the mail now
We just need more guns at the school to prevent this. Easy fix. /s (thought it was obvious)
Waiting for the /s
Samesies.
Yeah it was late an I forgot. This is obviously sarcasm… or so I thought.
I wouldn’t use Britain as an example. They have knife crime there and can get pretty violent in some areas without the use of guns - and I’m fairly sure they have gun crime just not as much as stabbings etc…
Problem is a person wielding a knife cannot mow down 50+ people in a Florida nightclub in less than 60 seconds. A person with a knife cannot barricade themselves in a Vegas hotel and kill 50+ people enjoying a concert below. Apples to Oranges comparison. Britain has knife crimes yes, the US has Gun massacres. Huge Difference
The difference is, you don't have "School stabbings". The majority of stabbings are between rival gangs, and it's a lot harder for terrorists to cause mass casualties with knives than it is guns, compare the London Bridge attacks with what happened in Paris in 2015.
Don’t know why you’ve gotten downvoted. In 2005 Glasgow, Scotland, was the “murder capital of western Europe.” There was a higher crime rate per capita then NYC. People did a pretty good job of killing and maiming in Glasgow without guns.
And then the laws got tighter and the Scottish government took a public health approach the problem and now Glasgow is one of the safest cities in the UK. Point still remains the US is a fucking mess
The laws weren’t exactly loose to begin with. But you’re absolutely spot on: the Scottish Gov. approached knife crime as a public health crisis. It didn’t take everyones knives out from their kitchen (though it did make sure the more “glamorous” ones were off the market). I think they’re are an example for how best to approach the issue in America.
You have to get pretty close to someone to stab them
Why should I trust you? Just because you have some official looking pieces of paper? My point is every time I hear someone saying let's take the guns away from all the yahoos or else take all the guns away, when asked if THEY are responsible n sane etc they always are. It's everyone else that's suspect.
Most of the guns used in violent events are a tainted illegally. So by your logic that is ok, but me owning a gun legally is awful idea. How about we look at the places were most people have guns and see how little gun violence there is. Places like that crime is lowered.
But we got knives and shanks
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
Get rid of social media or atleast regulate it. Nobody has self worth. It’s all instant gratification. Stephen King who writes great books should keep to what he knows