[yequalsx]

I'm not a gun owner. Indeed I'm very much opposed to people being able to own guns and hope that someday they will be banned in the U.S. I do understand your perspective and why this is upsetting to you.

For me I see it as a step toward people being more anti-gun ownership. Societies evolve and social views change. Our views on marijuana, smoking, etc. have changed over the decades. I hope I am now seeing the beginning of the end of acceptance of gun ownership.

While we are on opposite sides of this issue I encourage you to continue to stand up for your rights and fight for what you believe in. Let Reddit and Youtube know you are upset about this. Be active and vigilant. I will too.

[zombieprocesses]

> Societies evolve and social views change.

That's why we have principles and constitutional rights. So that our rights aren't taken away on a whim of societal change.

I'm from NY and I've never owned a gun and I probably will never do so. But even I would be against repealing the 2nd amendment.

The fact that people here are so openly talking about repealing the 2nd amendment and taking away more of our rights is really concerning. And it's self-defeating. It'll only make americans more wary of losing our 2nd amendment rights and increase gun sales.

[kevhito]

The reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch. Extremism begets extremism. If people can't get sensible gun regulation, extreme gun regulation starts to seem more attractive.

Conservatism, I though, was all about making slow and slight tweaks to society, rather than radical changes. But refusal to allow even the slightest evolution or deviation on some issue, like gun rights, leads to the opposite: at times it feels like we are heading towards outright civil war.

In the face of an obvious societal problem like gun violence, real conservatism would say sure, lets make some small changes to gun regulation, see how that goes for a few years or decades, then re-evaluate our position to see if society is better or worse off. Instead, seemingly obvious minor tweaks to gun regulation get cast as the first giant step towards impending repeal of the 2nd amendment. Maybe we are past the point of no return, I don't know.

[makomk]

The "sensible gun regulation" isn't, that's the thing. Indeed, the people calling for it are so proud of being so ignorant about guns and gun laws that they often can't even accurately say what class of guns they want banned, they've coined a term - "gunsplaining" - to mock those who point out when they don't know what they're talking about.

Features of the current US pro-gun-control movement include the notion that it's somehow absurd handguns, which are used in the vast majority of US gun homicides, are more tightly restricted than rifles. The idea that the gun used in your deadliest school shooting, the VA Tech massacre, is basically useless and ineffective. The belief that the AR-15 is some kind of super-powerful danger rifle too powerful for anything but murder (it's actually a tad underpowered as hunting rifles go). Also unyielding, full-throated defence of the elected official in charge of the police department which ignored all the warning signs about the Parkland shooter. Pretty much only pro-gun folks seem to be questioning any of this.

To give some idea about the quality of this debate, the founder of gun control group Moms Demand Action literally pointed her followers at a photo of a scary-looking black gun, trying to make it look like some incredibly dangerous killing machine, and demanded they pressure the retailer into not selling it to under-21s https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/969572513154936833 It was actually a .22 LR bolt-action rifle, probably the least effective long rifle in widespread use it you want to kill anyone or anything, that was optimised entirely for competitive target shooting. I can't think of any other country off-hand that considers 18 year olds incapable of buying and owning those. Her follow-up was to accuse the NRA of misogyny for pointing out how stupid and clueless this was, with the help of Media Matters for America.

The campaigns for "sensible gun control" basically just use the term as a talking point that avoids having to actually explain and justify what they're calling for; after all who could be against sensible, common-sense restrictions other than some gun nut whackjob?

[soundwave106]

I don't think this is a terribly good counterargument, personally. To me, the gun control movement is basically reacting to several high profile mass shooting cases. Your argument to me seems to be the equivalent of countering, say, a mother who lost a child to a drunk driver, with an argument that they shouldn't be concerned, because they don't know about the technical details of engine displacement or the neuropharmacology behind ethanol. That would be nonsense.

Obviously, with drunk driving, no one tends to blame the tool, either, as gun control movements often are doing. It is worth pointing out that automobiles are fairly regulated, though. There is a "street legal" definition for a car, you have to have an operator's license, and there are things you cannot do in a car -- elsewise, your license gets taken away. For better or for worse, America's one of the few places out there with a relatively high minimum age to purchase alcohol -- 21 -- and drunk driving was one of the reasons it ended up this way (https://www.boston.com/culture/health/2014/07/17/why-21-a-lo...).

I personally think it's fine to counter over-emotional focus on the tool (after all, 99% of AR-15 owners are just normal, average folks who don't commit mass shootings or indeed violence of any kind). Ultimately, though, "what they're calling for" is a reduction of gun violence. If "they" don't get a reasonable counter-answer to their concerns (and in my opinion, the NRA is doing a poor job here, themselves often being overly-emotional in response), it's entirely possible the regulations "they" want will result in the end.

[Frondo]

Well, people who get caught driving drunk a few times can have their license taken away or a blood alcohol interlock put on their car.

What if gun owners who didn't keep their guns locked in gun safes had their bullets replaced with rubber ones, or had mandatory trigger locks installed on their guns?

I dunno, I'm just spitballing here, but cars are heavily regulated, licensed, the whole nine yards, and if we had a tenth of that applied to guns, we could probably do a lot to reduce gun deaths and gun violence across the country.

[soundwave106]

One of the ideas floating around after Parkland that seems to have gotten bipartisan support (even the National Review warmed up to it! -- https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republica...) is a "gun violence restraining order". This provides a framework for those close to someone, and law enforcement, to temporarily restrict their ability to purchase weapons. I think (as the National Review columnist says) there is broad conceptual agreement that someone can demonstrate through their conduct that they should not possess a weapon. Parkland was a clear failure in this regard -- the perpetrator was this close to being "Baker Acted" (Florida's involuntary institutionalization law).

From my perspective, I welcome ideas like these. Limited access control ideas along the line of this framework is where I think the focus needs to be.

Some discussion also could be reserved for equipment like "bump stocks", that at first glance seems to solely be designed to circumvent existing law (it is highly illegal to modify a semi-automatic into a fully-automatic gun). Again, treating these type of equipment like the extremely highly regulated machine gun class is something even the National Review agrees with. (https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/bump-stocks-machine-g...)

[mtreis86]

The 5.56 round is designed to tumble upon impact to maximize internal damage. It really is a poor choice for anything but warfare.

[robgibbons]

This is an old misconception, and incorrect. All Spitzer-tip (pointed) boat tail bullets are prone to destabilization upon impact with anything hard in their path, deflecting easily off of surfaces (eg. wood, metal, bone). They were not designed to tumble on impact, but to fly straight, fast (high ballistic coefficient).

The same shape (Spitzer-tip boat tail) is used for virtually all modern target and hunting rounds. 5.56 (and .223) is basically a glorified varmint round. Certain 5.56 rounds, however, are designed to be frangible, which causes the bullet to break up on impact and causes more wound channels. Hunting ammo in 5.56/.223 does not do this, as it is designed to stay in one piece.

[krapp]

You're mocking the intelligence of gun control supporters and doubting their sincerity and credibility. As you seem to be knowledgeable about the subject, and seem to believe that only persons such as yourself are qualified to have an opinion on the matter, what would you consider to be actually sensible gun regulation?

[prepend]

I don’t know if OP is stating that only s/he is qualified. But that if someone wants to explain knowledge of guns enough to control them, they should spend some time understanding their subject.

And saying someone is stupid isn’t mocking. (Although it can be)

It’s like old men legislating abortion laws who know nothing about female specific health topics.

[hueving]

Pointing out ignorance is not mocking intelligence.

[krapp]

The tone of the comment seems intended to dismiss through ridicule, but that's beside the point. Its thesis that that one should have knowledge of guns and gun culture to have a credible opinion on gun legislation, so I'm merely asking that be followed up on, with an opinion on gun legislation from those with credible opinions.

I see a lot of dismissal of gun control advocates in threads like these, but arguments regarding gun control from those who claim authority on the matter tend to devolve towards strident defiance - "if you try to take my gun I will shoot you with it." That doesn't make for constructive discussion.

[chillwaves]

Still waiting for the answer here.

What the NRA is doing is a disservice to gun owners. They are making a gun ban more likely by not offering any reasonable alternatives.

My opinion is we need state run (but federally funded) gun licensing to ensure safe owners and gun registry to ensure the guns stay with those owners.

Other countries do it. It works just fine. We are not having that conversation in America today in part because of the extremist views of the NRA.

[logfromblammo]

The registry is a non-starter. A significant fraction of gun owners will see registration as a precursor to confiscation. A smaller fraction fear that the registry will either be public from the start or significantly breached within a short time frame, such that gun owners will be selectively targeted for harassment or burglaries.

Given what New York has done recently, I presume that a lot of gun owners will also simply refuse to comply with any registration orders. And, as usual, the black market guns will remain nigh-untraceable, especially among those who are barred by law from owning them.

The best you could do is a database of last-known locations, maintained entirely without cooperation by owners, that will probably consist mainly of business locations of licensed firearm dealers and crime scenes.

[makomk]

It's not clear whether there is, in fact, any obvious or easy improvement on what the US has already. If there was it'd likely have happened already. I mean, I live in the UK which has outright banned handguns and doesn't consider self-defense justification for gun ownership, but that won't fly in the US - it's unconstitutional and goes against the principles the country was founded on, and it'd require an lot more trust in your police force and a much less rural population - and probably wouldn't be enough to satisfy gun control supporters anyway.

Surely the burden for coming up with a reasonable, sensible gun control proposal should be on the people who're insisting we could have one if it wasn't for the pesky NRA and their gun nut supporters?

[humanrebar]

Bump stocks are likely on their way out. They seem to be only suited for throwing a lot of bullets around indiscriminately.

[lostapathy]

In some states, sure.

At a federal level, it's not that easy. If there was an easy way to ban them, the ATF would have already. It's really hard to define a bump stock in a way that wouldn't either ban a lot of other things, short of classifying them as machine guns. If you classify them as machine guns, at this point, you pretty much have to let people who already have them enroll them on the NFA registry (federally, there is no legal basis to confiscate property that was legally acquired and legal to acquire when acquired), which is not necessarily what you want either.

[cgag]

I would view it as a fundamental parts of the system not to be flexed with. You're also never going to get back anything you give up.

You could easily live through 50+ years of incrementally handing over bits and pieces of your right to bear arms to the government before things turn ugly. It's San Francisco relaxing its building codes since it hasn't had a big earthquake in 100 years.

[Karunamon]

>NRA won't budge an inch. Extremism begets extremism. If people can't get sensible gun regulation, extreme gun regulation starts to seem more attractive.

You realize that "sensible" is both subjective, and cuts both ways, right? Have you ever noticed that the "compromise" touted by gun control advocates is always, 100% of the time, entirely one-sided?

That isn't compromise, that's capitulation. Compromise would be "Okay, universal NICS checks for all gun sales, but private citizens can access it for free". Compromise would be "per the full faith and credit clause, CCW permits are now legally recognized in all 50 states and become shall-issue, but there will be a standardized framework to get them".

Compromise is unambiguously not "ban bump stocks" and everyone who disagrees going "okay!".

So long as gun control compromise is a one-way street, I remain a dues-paying NRA member.

[jakeogh]

Requiring citizens to ask permission for a sale means they don't really own their firearms. It also breaks plausible deniability in a confiscation scenario.

[jdanp]

NRA won't budge an inch? What do you call the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment of 1986, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, not to mention all the state based bans on everything under the sun from a pistol grip to a "shoulder thing that goes up to two year waiting periods to possess a simple handgun.

[chillwaves]

As mentioned, the NRA did not support those initiatives, secondly the NRA today, right now, is not willing to compromise. As a gun owner, this hurts us all.

Common sense gun regulation is a benefit to safe gun owners and less people will die from misuse, less criminals will have access to guns, less mentally unstable people will be able to go on killing sprees.

This is all in benefit to gun owners. How does sensible gun control (not bans) hurt a legal and safe gun owner?

[jdanp]

This is false, the NRA has compromised as recently as last year. Here's an article from their website congratulating the concealed carry reciprocity act being coupled with the background check fixing bill - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171206/house-passes-concea....

That's what a compromise looks like, gun owners get easier concealed carry rules and everybody gets safer gun purchases via enhancements to the NICS system.

[dragonwriter]

> NRA won't budge an inch? What do you call the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment of 1986, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, not to mention all the state based bans on everything under the sun from a pistol grip to a "shoulder thing that goes up to two year waiting periods to possess a simple handgun.

Not sure of the first two off the top of my head, but the other two of the named examples are things that the NRA vociferously opposed, and (especially Brady) fought to repeal after they were adopted, so not exactly examples of the NRA budging. Ditto with many of them state laws you wave your hand at.

The NRA may lose sometimes, but thats different than budging.

[jdanp]

Last year they allowed Fix NICS to be coupled with the concealed carry reciprocity act, so one side gets enhanced background checks and the other side gets an easier time concealed carrying - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171206/house-passes-concea....

That sounds like budging to me.

[sheepmullet]

> The reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch.

Because the anti-firearm crowd won't budge an inch either.

All the evidence points towards gun-free zones failing to reduce violence. Will the anti-gun crowd work with gun owners to expand where law abiding citizens can carry?

> If people can't get sensible gun regulation

Without making this partisan - you can't have strict gun control without strict border control.

Should we try and meet the conservatives in the middle and help them secure our southern border?

[kevhito]

This isn't a game or a horse trade, I win one, you win one.

"I'll agree not to shoot your kids today, but only if you let me beat up your cousin instead." That's more or less what your argument sounds like to me. Can we agree that gun violence is a problem in the US, on a level vastly higher than many other parts of the world? Can we talk about how to move towards a society with less gun violence? Let's work together to find things that will help reduce gun violence. I'm willing to give up a lot of things I care about to move that way. You seem to only be willing to head that direction if you get something else you want in return. And it's especially jarring when the thing you want in return seems a to always move things back in the exact opposite direction, expanding access to and availability of guns.

[sheepmullet]

> Can we talk about how to move towards a society with less gun violence?

Yes - by implementing proven policies and removing ineffectual ones.

> You seem to only be willing to head that direction if you get something else you want in return.

Because we don't trust anti-gun people.

> expanding access to and availability of guns.

^ and this is why we don't trust anti-gun people.

Like I said above gun free zones have been shown to be ineffectual.

Yet you don't want to remove this ineffectual policy and try a different approach. You just want stricter and stricter gun control.

> I'm willing to give up a lot of things I care about to move that way.

Are you?

So if the evidence supports arming teachers and reducing the number of places that qualify as gun free zones will you support these changes?

[kevhito]

You don't trust "anti-gun people" so you therefore don't want to enact policies that you think will reduce gun violence? You seem to be saying you'd rather have more gun violence than work together with "anti-gun people". I don't understand that, on a fundamental level.

I never said anything about "gun free zones". I'm not sure what they are, I don't know how effective they are, but I don't see how they hurt either. To me, it seems like more guns, easier and cheaper availability of guns, more destructive guns, less strict and less comprehensive / universal background checks are all things that lead pretty clearly to more gun violence. That's why I'm against those things. I'm willing to change my mind. But the NRA is too busy disparaging victims of gun violence.

I really don't see how arming teachers helps. I've heard arguments for it, but those arguments really just don't ring true to me, and it seems that more guns will lead to more violence. I haven't read studies that seem credible and support what you are saying. Do you have any? I've looked, and there is a lot of really contradictory stuff out there. I'm willing to support anything that will reduce gun violence, in general.

I've been thinking about this thread for a while, and I think what bothers me is this. If you think expanded background checks (for example) will help reduce gun violence, why will you only support it if you get something else in return? Why can't we find things both sides thinks will help, and enact those things? Why must you hold those things hostage until you get some other thing that the other side fears will make the situation worse?

[chillwaves]

> you can't have strict gun control without strict border control.

The irony of your statement when guns flow from the US to Mexico, not the other way around.

Maybe the Mexicans should build a wall to protect them from illegal US guns?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/...

[sheepmullet]

> The irony of your statement when guns flow from the US to Mexico, not the other way around.

Does it make my statement any less true?

Does the current direction of gun flow matter when we are talking about a future US gun ban?

[chillwaves]

I'm not sure how guns flowing from the US to Mexico hurts the prospect of gun control in the US.

The logic that makes more sense to me is gun control in the US would result in less guns going over the border to Mexico.

[pasquinelli]

the constitution allows itself to be changed. ultimately it comes down to the whims of society.

[itbeho]

It takes more than a whim to change it.

[humanrebar]

Hacking apart the constitution because it is too hard to persuade people to amend it is a bigger problem than videos about AR-15s.

[chillwaves]

All you have to do is appoint the right judges.

[yequalsx]

The 2nd Amendment does speak of a well regulated militia and it being necessary for the defense of the United States. I'm in favor a well regulated militia. I'm not a lawyer and have no expertise on the legalities but I do know that amendments can be repealed. There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it.

[4d66ba06]

This podcast episode on the Second Amendment was fascinating as it discusses how the US Courts interpretation of the second amendment changed http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect...

[yequalsx]

Thank you for the link. I'll listen to it later.

[jakeogh]

Justice Antonin Scalia reads Heller(2008) for the majority: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/...

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290

[zombieprocesses]

> There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it.

I didn't say it was unconstitutional. The constitution makes it very difficult to repeal for a reason.

It's why only 1 amendment has ever been repealed and that amendment was written nearly 150 years after the founding of the country.

I'm fairly certain that the 1st and 2nd amendment are pretty much untouchable.

But I wish you the best in trying to get it repealed. The more you try to get it repealed, the more people will support the 2nd amendment and remind people that we actually have rights that we need to protect lest it be taken from us.

[yequalsx]

I grew up a Reagan Republican in the Canal Zone. At that time I never thought I would see the U.S. (much less conservatives) embrace torture, mass surveillance, things like the Patriot Act, renditions, and other such things that have become commonplace. People haven't been particularly assertive of their right to free speech. Few complained when Clinton instituted "free speech" zones at major political events. Now such is commonplace.

It does not stretch my imagination to see people being fed up with it being legal to own firearms with the lethality that is currently allowable. I may be wrong. Fight for your rights. Be vigilant. I will continue to advocate for repealing the right to own guns. I may never see my vision come to fruition.

[splintercell]

"well regulated" meant "well functioning". Like "a well regulated clock".

> There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it.

You really think you can get 34 states to vote to repeal something from our bill of rights?

If you are a democrat mastermind and want to do that then your best bet is to get more and more states created out of the blue states to get more than 2/3rd of the states to vote to repeal 2nd Amendment.

[humanrebar]

> I'm in favor a well regulated militia.

So people can have guns as long as they're in a "well-regulated militia"? Do we want all gun owners to be in self-governed militias? I don't follow this line of thought.

[yequalsx]

The second amendment states that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I’m no expert on the legalities and legal interpretations of the 2nd amendment but it seems to me a case could be made that well regulated gives the government broad regulatory powers. The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the militia, clearly under the command of the military, can own guns. Of course a repeal of the amendment would be fine with me too.

[humanrebar]

The Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought to keep "the military" (British troops) from taking weapons away from arguably "self-regulated" militias. I think it's a tough case to make if you're arguing that the Constitution was referring solely to current members of armed services commissioned by the government.

[yequalsx]

Those militias were under the control of the colonial government. Indeed one of the colonials killed at Lexington was an ensign. That militia was the army at the time.

[ehmu]

The second amendment states that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

you misquoted it the text reads: 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.

emphasis mine, It is the right of the people that will not be infringed.

[splintercell]

> The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the militia, clearly under the command of the military, can own guns.

Rhode Island's 1842 constitution starts like this:

> The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . .

So according to you, if the 'security of freedom in a state' is threatened, then the government can suspend the freedom of the press?

Or take 1784 New Hampshire constitution:

> In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . .

So according to you, 'if the trial of the facts in the vicinity where they happen is not essential to the security of the life' (again, in wartime or any exogenous circumstances like 9/11 attacks) then this right of citizens to be tried in the county where the crime was committed can be suspended by the govt whenever they deem fit?

Or maybe, this 'justification clause' which was written in many different ways at many different places by the people of that time is actually 'one and the most important justification' for a right and not 'If and only if trial of the facts in the vicinity ...'.

Let me explain another scenario. The first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law...". Today we clearly understand it to mean 'US Congress', but in the year 2256, People have created a new legislative body called Congress-22 and now they claim that first amendment only restricts Congress's power to restrict speech. On the other hand Congress-22 still has the power to restrict speech and religion.

Same thing goes with 'militia'. It used to mean "pretty much all able-bodied men from age eighteen to forty-five". This does not mean that it ONLY protects the right of 18-45 men to keep and bear arms, but it cover everyone's right to keep and bear arms.

[yequalsx]

The basic answer is no. I was referring only to the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. I have a view of what that amendment means and how it ought to be interpreted in the present era. I don't think I'd answer yes to your questions on interpreting the various texts you quoted.

[ehmu]

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.

They left out part of it

[chx]

> That's why we have principles and constitutional rights.

You never had a constitutional right to owe a firearm. This is legal nonsense put together relatively recently, starting as answer to the Black Panthers arming themselves and then later some politics. Please look at https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-sec...

> From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.

And, in light of recent events: everyone not turning in their own guns and campaigning strongly for reversing this nonsense is an accessory to the mass murder of children. Everyone who used their money to support the proliferation of guns have blood on their hands.

[deno]

> And, in light of recent events: everyone not turning in their own guns and campaigning strongly for reversing this nonsense is an accessory to the mass murder of children. Everyone who used their money to support the proliferation of guns have blood on their hands.

Do you support women’s right to terminate their pregnancy? Assuming you do, what would you think of similarly worded pro-life argument?

I think you’ll find such emotionally charged arguments are never effective and will convince no one.

It’s also uninformed, as there’s plenty of objective evidence to suggest that guns save more lives than they take[1–2].

[1] recent study: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-...

[2] more via: https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[int_19h]

I would recommend reading this article. It was written in 80s, when NRA was just gaining political steam, and long before Heller v. DC (after which, like it or not, there is definitely a constitutional right). And it's written by an unsympathetic liberal law scholar.

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html

[sanxiyn]

> Everyone who used their money to support the proliferation of guns have blood on their hands.

Note that among US states, there is no correlation whatsoever between gun ownership and gun homicide.

[chillwaves]

If only guns respected state lines.

[lightedman]

"You never had a constitutional right to owe a firearm."

The Supreme Court ruled otherwise. District of Columbia vs. Heller.

[humanrebar]

...because the text is in the Constitution in very clear wording. Trying to use syntax tricks to explain an alternate meaning for the second amendment results in nonsense, really. People who are against gun rights aren't for "well-organized militias" in general.

[yequalsx]

Very clear wording that took over 200 yeas for there to be a Supreme Court willing to agree with that interpretayption. Previous courts disagreed. Given this no one can reasonably think it’s very clear wording.

[humanrebar]

Guns were not banned for 200 years. D.C. vs. Heller in particular overturned parts of a law passed in 1975.

[jakeogh]

Getting really obvious that you haven't taken a moment to listen to the Heller decision.

[sp527]

The NRA/Republican Party's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a total fabrication. The amendment was meant to apply to a standing militia organized by a state (potentially in opposition to the federal government).

The Founders weren't stupid. They did not intend for any random nut to have the right to carry a gun. The lethality of weapons available at the time the 2nd amendment was introduced is not even remotely comparable to that of the puniest modern handgun. Simply put, an armed individual didn't pose much of a threat back then. They could hardly envision the nightmares we have to endure today, or else they might have been more precise with the language in order to preclude exactly this sort of Al-Qaeda-esque interpretative perversion of a 'sacred text'.

That you're dispensing the carefully-crafted bile conservatives have vomited into our society is little more than a testament to their capacity to brainwash the masses.

[geowwy]

> 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.

IANAL but it seems like it applies to people not militias

Wikipedia gives some historical context which makes it seem more clear that it's about people not state-run militias:

> Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution: "Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures."

[jakeogh]

The reasons are clearly enumerated as to why it is an individual right in Heller vs DC: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/...

If "inalienable" means "when you have met some specific requirements" then the term is meaningless btw.

I hope the NRA folks also take a look at GOA.

[patrickg_zill]

The object is, that every man should have a gun - Patrick Henry

You might well be a member of your state militia and not even be aware of it...

[flounders]

There is an interesting section that goes into the scholarly interpretation of the 2nd amendment in the Wikipedia article on it, and it's only been in the 20th century and after that we have gotten into what militia, well regulated and whether or not the people have the right or militias.

The main point the founding fathers had for the militias was to defend the country from foreign invaders and from a tyrannical government. I know people think we don't need to worry about tyrannical governments these days, but what if what happened in Libya, Syria and Egypt started happening here? How would we fix that kind of a situation?

[pasquinelli]

the hypothetical tyrant just wins over the gun nuts who shoot up the regular folks. tidy.

[spacehome]

The more people that own guns the better, then. That way a minority can't run things.

[x14]

>hope that someday they will be banned in the U.S

How would something like that possibly be carried out?

[eloisius]

Just like drugs. It’s easy.

[some_random]

Exactly! No one would break the law, that would be illegal!

And while we're at it, we can use it as an opportunity to crack down on minorities we don't like, and maybe do some good old selective enforcement, genius.

[_frog]

In the same way other countries who've banned firearms have carried it out? It's not like there's no precedent for this if you look outside of America.

[TheAdamAndChe]

America isn't other countries. Guns are as ingrained in rural America's culture as lifted trucks and beer. There would literally be armed revolts if the government tried taking peoples' guns away en masse.

[pbhjpbhj]

"Don't take guns away from people to protect the populace because if you try to do it nutters with guns will shoot people"?

That sounds like justification for taking people's guns from them.

[purple-again]

Every time I see this argument come up people always try to frame it like it will be ‘nutters’ shooting ‘some’ people. You are very wrong, and that is the attitude that will get a lot of innocent people killed. This country is filled with rational, professional, well organized people who will kill before being disarmed.

[pjc50]

> well organized people who will kill before being disarmed.

The collective noun for people who will kill rather than obey the law is "terrorists".

One of the conditions for peace in Northern Ireland was that political groups had to disarm in order to enter politics, because you can't do politics with people who are threatening to murder you. That's not a democracy.

[ashooner]

It would be nice if all these gun owners were interested in defending rights other than owning guns.

[pbhjpbhj]

You don't think trying to murder policemen because your country enacted gun controls to protect schoolchildren would be "nutters trying to shoot people"?

"Oh but I need this 1000 round per minute gun for pest control in my apartment! I'll murder people to protect my right to have it."??

[yequalsx]

What's interesting is that rural America was in favor of increased gun control in the 1960s when blacks started to assert their right to own guns. Ultimately peoples' attitudes can be swayed and changed and it isn't really hard to do it. Witness our embracing of torture, taking shoes off to board an airplane, fear of sharia law, etc.

[TaylorAlexander]

Yes, and blacks were taking up arms because they were literally being bombed. The whites wanted to control their rights to have guns so they could continue controlling the black populations with violent force.

So you highlight how gun control has been used as an oppressive tool in the past. What are we do to when only our corrupt government is allowed to have guns?

[Mononokay]

If you're going by second amendment rights, at this point it's more to the spirit of it for civillian fighter jets and tanks to be legalized than guns.

To some extent, I actually imagine it'd be safer for the average citizen.

* * *

From a more protectionist standpoint, you could say that an AR-15 or an AK-47 will allow you to stand up against your government. This isn't really realistic, however - no civillian weapon, especially not a semi-automatic rifle, will reliably take care of a tank, fighter jet, drone or military robot. [0]

[0] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150715-killer-robots-the-s...

[jjjensen90]

Our "corrupt government" would crush us with jets, tanks, nukes, laser weapons, missiles, helicopters, drones, ships, chemical weapons, smallpox, and probably many more things regardless of whether we had AR-15s or not.

[archagon]

And what are we to do when half the population is armed and wants to install an authoritarian regime?

[pjc50]

It's never going to be en masse. Australia enacted sufficient gun control to drastically limit mass shootings by introducing licensing, purpose and registration requirements as well as banning semi-automatics. There was a buyback scheme which most people complied with.

I do wonder if American resistance to sensible gun control will cause a flip straight over into hard restrictions, but it's difficult to see what the trigger event for that would be. Left-wing paramilitaries? (right-wing paramilitaries are seemingly tolerated!)

[bnolsen]

"sensible"? Since massive amoutns of guns have found their way to the public since the 1990s the crime rates across the US have been dropping dramatically. And even so the US isn't even close to the top of the list worldwide in per capita murder rate even though lots of people have weapons.

If anything those numbers show that there is at the very least no correlation between numbers of guns and crime, and may well indicate more guns means less crime. Since the US constitution protects ownership with the "shall not be infringed" clause and the stats show there's little downsides why stomp on people's rights?

[rpenm]

Gun ownership rates have been falling, not rising.

http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun...

[mattbrewsbytes]

At one point (1920 I think) there was an amendment which made alcohol illegal. It went on for 13 years and then was removed.

So there is a legal framework to add/remove amendments from the US Constitution, they are amendments after all, they were not there originally (I think 3 years after).

[latencyloser]

It was removed, but also (and maybe because) it was nearly impossible to effectively enforce. Gun restrictions would very much experience the same problems. There are millions of guns and gun owners in the US and many of those people are firm believers in their right to own a gun. They'd likely bury them in the yard or, as the old joke goes, "lose" them in a boating accident, before turning them over to authorities.

I personally would _never_ willingly turn mine in--they're for my and my family's protection and have saved my life before. I am certain many gun owners feels this way as well. Trying to enforce such a rule would be difficult, if not impossible.

[mattbrewsbytes]

I didn't really comment on if it was enforceable, just that in a logical manner there is a path for amendments to be removed, added or changed.

Doing minimal research on prohibition since I had no context into what triggered it: "Prohibition also united progressives and revivalists. The temperance movement had popularized the belief that alcohol was the major cause of most personal and social problems and prohibition was seen as the solution to the nation's poverty, crime, violence, and other ills." [0]

You could replace alcohol with firearms and the part about removing them being "solution to the nation's poverty, crime, violence, and other ills". I bet there are a lot of people that would believe that prohibiting firearms would help solve those issues.

Just because laws are not easy to enforce doesn't mean they can't happen. There are still counties in some states that are 'dry'.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat...

[apazzolini]

I think he was alluding to the fact that although there is a legal way to make guns illegal, it won't actually get rid of guns, in much the same way making alcohol illegal didn't prevent people from drinking.

[deadmetheny]

Yeah, and look at how well that whole experiment turned out.

[yequalsx]

Similar to how other bans get carried out. Make it illegal and send those who violate the law to jail.

[SlowRobotAhead]

Worked for drugs, and tax evasion, and human trafficking, and alcohol for awhile.

Simply make it illegal and it goes away!

[Larrikin]

The logical conclusion from that train of thought is that laws have no meaning if people break the laws. So why have any laws?

[SlowRobotAhead]

Do you understand that outside of obvious moral ethics - that a law against murder doesn't stop someone from murdering. It only gives lawyers a way to punish it.

It's the punishment that is the deterrent.

Why should law abiding gun owners be punished again?

Adding punitive laws is not a deterrent. Enforcing those laws is. We don't enforce many guns laws, then you come in yelling about adding more laws.

The logical conclusion isn't that laws have no meaning if they're broken, it's that they have no meaning if they aren't enforced, and we're not.

Parkland could have been avoided in at least 6 different ways. So tell me how your new-laws that make illegal things illegal-er would stop people with no criminal record from being bad.

[yequalsx]

A person is law abiding until they aren’t. It’s about keeping people from having ready access to so much lethality when that person decides to become a bad actor. Banning guns would lower the likelihood of a bad actor having as much lethality as they currently are easily able to acquire.

Parkland could have been avoided in a 7th way too. Without access to guns it wouldn’t have been as lethal.

[nbdev]

Why have a society if you cannot trust the people in it to defend themselves?

[themacguffinman]

Because when we organize a society, we can specialize into roles like policing and become more effective at defense as a whole?

[pasquinelli]

why not defend yourself with something less likly to accidentally kill some random people?

[zkomp]

That is too simple. The conclusion is the laws only work as long it is percieved better to follow than not, either by force, violence or social coercion or their actual concequences.

Drug laws for example does not really work, since some people self medicate no matter if there is a death sentence. Others don't care since they probably wont get caught.

While other laws kind of does work, people can rationally choose to follow them because the concequences of doing so are the "best" available option.

[int_19h]

Laws have no meaning if [most] people can break the laws without consequences. The ability to enforce is important.

[yequalsx]

People do illegal things. This isn’t surprising nor an argument against making something illegal. If it could be shown that banning guns and making it illegal to sell guns didn’t decrease the frequency of their usage to commit crimes then I would no longer be advocate for banning guns.

[SlowRobotAhead]

Except that there is no correlation to gun ownership and crime.

We know the places that have more guns don’t have more crime, we can’t call correlation to that, but we do know adding guns doesn’t increase crime - because that’s been true since the high crime peak of the early 1990s where crime has been falling with guns skyrocketing.

It’s painfully childish to claim that it’s some surprise that where guns are that there is more gun-crime. Something can’t be abused where it doesn’t exist - the joke is that people look at gun-crime compared to overall crime.

Rape rates in Australia are 40-45% higher than the USA. If you’re a rapist, it’s much safer to “work” in Oz, does the rapist getting shot in the USA contribute to “gun-crime”? On paper, yes.

[yequalsx]

Adding guns probably doesn’t increase crime rate. It does the mass murder rate. It is precisely gun crime that I abhor. Thus I'm opposed to their availability.

[cuckcuckspruce]

Offtopic: What legal mechanism do you propose to use to ban the private ownership of firearms in the United States of America?

Edit: Additionally, what do you want done about all of the currently legal guns that exist in this country when this ban goes into effect?

[huntie]

A constitutional ammendment is the most straightforward way.

[swalsh]

Bumpstocks were banned in multiple steps, here in MA where they have a list of ALL people registered to own a firearm they sent a letter out "if you own a bump stock after x date, you're committing a felony". They got back 4 devices. In the WHOLE state. Even though everyone received a letter.

It's not going to be easy.

source: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/02/02/bump-stock-massachuset...

[hartator]

Not everyone owns a bump stock. Anyway, you can also destroy it yourself.

[alsetmusic]

> Not everyone owns a bump stock. Anyway, you can also destroy it yourself.

This is an absurd comment. The parent stated that four units were returned state-wide. Asserting the ability to manually decommission them attempts to give the appearance of undermining the parent’s statement without actually addressing the issue.

I don’t think anyone here, even you, likely believes that even a majority of these were destroyed by the owners, let alone all but four.

[hartator]

Parent makes it sounds that most gun owners are not law abiding when they are. A gun ban will effectively confiscate guns from good people. Like it did in other countries.

[lostapathy]

I'm sure plenty of them were sold out of state or shipped to friends/family out of state as well. There are more options than destroy/turn-in/felony.

[TaylorAlexander]

Or... you can keep it and ignore the law. The above comment was highlighting the futility of this kind of ban, so I don’t see what voluntary disposal would do to realize it.

[cuckcuckspruce]

So a repeal of the Second Amendment to the Constitution?

[huntie]

Yes, just as the 21st amendment repealed the 18th. I'm not suggesting this is easy, but any other method gets messy due to the 2nd.

[yequalsx]

I would like it to be illegal for people to own guns. Those who violate the law (as the ban would be in the form of a law) would go to jail. Current owners would turn in their guns and those guns would be destroyed.

The 2nd Amendment is oddly worded. It does speak of a well regulated militia. I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert but it seems to me that banning the ownership of guns except for members of the militia should be constitutional. I could be wrong. It also seems to me that for those who tend toward original intent interpretations (majority of current Supreme Court) would agree that the founders only saw it fit that people be able to own guns with similar firepower and lethality as muskets. So I could see a law saying that we can own guns but they are quite limited in comparison to what is currently legal to own.

There are far more people in the country now versus 250 years ago. The population density is far greater. We are much more of an urban society. In such circumstances I see no necessity for allowing gun ownership. I don't think the propensity to assholeness has increased but by virtue of having far more people now than in the past the number of assholes has greatly increased. It's best that the lethality of devices we can carry be very much curtailed than what it currently is.

[ameister14]

> It also seems to me that for those who tend toward original intent interpretations (majority of current Supreme Court) would agree that the founders only saw it fit that people be able to own guns with similar firepower and lethality as muskets.

You'd be wrong there. The Supreme Court agrees that the founders saw fit that people are armed with weapons similar to those used by the military, with certain restrictions.

[yequalsx]

And those weapons at the time were....muskets, bayonets. They had no vision of the M-16, AK-47, etc. The statement of the 2nd Amendment begins with, "A well regulated militia..." So let's well regulate it.

According to Wikipedia:

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[11] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[12][13]

As I stated, I have no expertise in this matter. If it requires a repeal then that is what I would favor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...

[Turing_Machine]

"They had no vision of the M-16, AK-47, etc. "

They also had no vision of the Internet.

So, obviously, the First Amendment only applies to quill pens and manually-operated printing presses. Right?

"The statement of the 2nd Amendment begins with, "A well regulated militia...""

If the First Amendment had read "A well-educated legislature being essential to the governance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed" you would argue, what? That only well-educated people should have books? That only the legislature should have books?

No, you wouldn't. Neither would anyone else, because that would be a contrived and nonsensical interpretation of the language.

[pbhjpbhj]

That's a clever analogy.

[yequalsx]

Well if the first amendment were stated differently than what it is then people would interpret it differently. I fail to see your point on that.

There is much that the writers of the constitution didn’t foresee. I think it’s ridiculous, in many cases, to try to seek what they originally intended. Society is far more complex now than it was then. I mentioned their views for the self described originalists. These people tend to have a very broad interpretation to what the second amendment means but narrowly interpret other parts of the Constitution.

The 2nd amendment has had many cases before the Supreme Court. It wasn’t until 2008 with Heller that it was interpreted to mean an actual right to own guns. As far as I understand the history of the legal interpretation if the second amendment. It appears the modern interpretation is out of sync with what the founders intended.

[dragonwriter]

The Second Amendment did not limit the type of arms it applied to, and the reason that it's preamble referred to the dependency of the security of a free state on a well-regulated militia was because it was in the context of the best universal opinion at the time that large standing professional armed forces for either internal security or international conflict were a mechanism of tyranny, and that having a free country absolutely required a dependency on avoiding those and instead relying on mobilizing the armed populace (with all the weapons of war) to deal with internal and external threats.

Leaving aside gun laws, we've long since completely abandoned the premise of the second amendment on a far more fundamental level with our professional militaries and paramilitary police forces.

[yequalsx]

According to the quote I have of the Wikipedia article there are Supreme Court cases that say it does limit the type of arms.

[SlowRobotAhead]

Please man, the pre-Heller 2008 argument of “well regulated” where you need to pretend means “lots of regulations” and not the real meaning of “well trained and in good working order” is tired.

Leave that nonsense at Reddit.

I used to... I still find it interesting how the “collective right” angle is pushed post Heller and MacDonald with the obviousness that’s always been there of “can you read the rest of the right past the first few words?”

[bonzini]

So where's the training?

[yequalsx]

I’m not a lawyer, never claimed to be an expert. Heller is a recent ruling. Previous rulings contradict Heller in some aspects. See, the way the Cinstituion is interpreted over time changes. It’s not like we are bound by a ruling for all eternity.

The reasoning is not tired. It’s how I interpret the text. Fortunately for your position my interpretation doesn’t matter since I’m not on the Supreme Court. Indeed, even decades after Roe v Wade people still argue against the reasoning used in that ruling and desire change.

It’s not nonsense to advocate for one's position just because there is a Supreme Court ruling against that position.

[emusan]

While the military arms at the time were muskets and bayonets, that was not the only technology available. Many colonial troops had rifles of their own that they used. These rifles were superior to the British musket in many regards and helped the colonial troops win.

Surely the founding fathers were aware of this and knew that the second amendment would allow citizens to have weapons that were more deadly than the standard military firearm at the time. In fact, this trend even continued well into the Vietnam war. It was really only in the past 50 or so years that the military has eclipsed the citizens in terms of standard issue firepower.

So no, the founding fathers were not aware of the M-16 and AK-47[0], but they also had more than muskets and bayonets, and were perfectly content to have a citizenry that outgunned the military.

[0] - I should note that the M-16 and AK-47 are essentially illegal in the US at this point, along with any weapons of similar firepower, so that point seems moot anyway. The only people able to acquire them are incredibly rich collectors.

[lostapathy]

Many, many more recent cases have conflicted with Cruikshank and chipped away at its jurisprudence. The court was not well run or fair in those days.

Miller is especially bad case law too, he was dead by the time it was heard and essentially no one even argued that side of the case - it was a total sham.

[swalsh]

"banning the ownership of guns except for members of the militia "

The definition of militia is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

There are two "militias", the national guard, and the unorganized militia...

When I read the Federalist papers, I interrupted it as Hamilton and Jay were trying to describe a defense strategy of the country, which included internal, and external threats. When I read it, I got the feeling they both were very much against the state of affairs we have today. They advocated for a small professional army, and a large reserve of men if needed.

I personally feel this is the right model, today our DoD budget is 600 BILLION dollars! Every social service other first world countries have, we can't afford. That is directly a result of our military spending. If we spent less getting into conflicts we probably don't need to be involved in (I still do not understand what the national interest in Afghanistan and Iraq is), and we had a very large reserve of men. We could maintain the defense readiness we have today, but also have publically funded education, healthcare etc.

I do concede that the requirements of training are much different though. A model like Switzerland's militia might be preferable. In their model, each citizen has 1 year of conscripted service. It's spread out a bit but is an adequate amount of time to train someone properly. It also provides a method for "weeding" out individuals who should not be a part of this reserve. Their gun laws are also far more strict. Gun ownership is more of a privilege there. I don't know how much of that we can do here, but I think it's a good example of how to build a militia in modern times.

[leetcrew]

> Every social service other first world countries have, we can't afford. That is directly a result of our military spending.

The US spends a lot on its military, but it's only about 15% of central government spending. When you look at spending as a percentage of GDP, we (3.3%) are not that far off from European powers like France (2.3%) or the UK (1.9%) whose defense we essentially subsidize through NATO. We just have a much larger economy so that 3.3% turns out to be a really big number.

There's no obvious (to me) fiscal reason why our social services have to be so poor, so I have to assume we just suck at allocating the money (possibly intentional).

[swalsh]

I can't recreate your math, but I don't think that's important for the point.

By your numbers, there's a 1% difference. On the scale of the GDP, that is a HUGE number. I think looking at the absolute numbers matters. Free higher education for everyone would cost $75 billion (according to Bernie Sanders). Trump asked for an additional $116 billion dollars for defense. I don't see the logic in arguing if we can afford $600 billion, and another $116 billion, while at the same time arguing $75 billion is impossible and would bankrupt the country. We're clearly making priorities.

[leetcrew]

the 15% turned out to be a lowball, it's more like 17% if you use the 2015 numbers from wikipedia[0]. I got the %GDP numbers from wikipedia as well[1].

> Free higher education for everyone would cost $75 billion.

this I find hard to believe. the US government estimated that ~20 million students would be enrolled in college/university in fall 2017. assuming enrollment would not increase if college were free, that $75 billion works out to about $3750 per student. this substantially undercuts even in-state tuition at the average community college, which already receives significant funding from the government.

although I pushed back on that particular claim by Sanders, I still maintain that we have an allocation problem, not a money problem. according to 2012 data[2] the US government spends almost exactly the same percentage of its GDP on education as the UK, and we are in the high range of money spent per student in primary and secondary education[3].

i'm no expert, but this doesn't look like the kind of thing where you can just throw money at it and expect it to work. we should figure out how to use the money we already have to produce more similar outcomes to those in Western Europe.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_spending_...

[3] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp

[cuckcuckspruce]

The original question was about your legal mechanism for implementation of a ban on private ownership on weapons. What change would you make to existing laws to enact this ban?

Additionally, what is your plan to deal with the potential for violent, armed resistance to this ban, and in what facilities would you put all of the violators of this ban?