[bananabreakfast]

That's... nearly entirely false?

America has by far the most relaxed gun laws in the western world. Most other countries simply ban ownership of most guns outright.

The current situation IS the compromise. And it's pretty stupid I agree. But, there are no states that ban guns and plenty of them want to.

There is no hyper political, highly targeted, industry funded political action group just like the NRA on the side of banning guns.

After every mass shooting in this country democrats have to fight tooth and nail to get even a tiny consideration of regulation in response to human tragedy. And even that usually fails. In what world is that rational? In what world is that not compromise from the left?

[lostapathy]

Our country was founded with gun rights, and 100 years ago gun ownership was nearly unrestricted. Our country is unique in the fact that we have a constitutional right to arms - most don't.

At every step, law-abiding gun owners have given up rights and gotten nothing in return.

The great irony, to me, is that almost all of the "successful" gun/weapon control campaigns have been rooted in nearly blatant racism. Yet repealing those laws born of racism isn't something the left is willing to entertain.

[joshuamorton]

> Our country was founded with gun rights, and 100 years ago gun ownership was nearly unrestricted.

Supreme court opinion on gun ownership was that it could be far more restricted (and it was in many cases!) until Heller.

[lostapathy]

That only started with Miller, which was about 100 years ago and also a pretty good example of justice not being served.

Miller was dead by the time his case was decided, nobody argued his side, and the courts argument was was dishonest at best.

[kelnos]

> Our country was founded with gun rights

No, it wasn't. The current legal interpretation that most gun-rights advocates swear by has existed for a relatively short time, after the lobbying efforts of groups like the NRA.

[_-david-_]

Are you suggesting a person could not own any gun they wanted 200 years ago?

[krapp]

Well...

According to this article[0], the early US adopted numerous restrictions on guns based on preexisting English common law, and during the revolutionary war even forbid anyone from owning a firearm without first swearing a loyalty oath to the government[1].

And of course 200 years ago, slaves weren't allowed to own guns for obvious reasons[2]. Of course, slaves weren't considered persons at the time either.

It doesn't appear that there was ever actually a time in the US when gun ownership was completely unrestricted.

[0]https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-found...

[1]https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/01-03-02-0016-...

[2]https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/29093/the-racist-origin...

[_-david-_]

>According to this article[0], the early US adopted numerous restrictions on guns based on preexisting English common law, and during the revolutionary war even forbid anyone from owning a firearm without first swearing a loyalty oath to the government

Which is not what I was talking about. I was talking about gun types not regulations to get a gun, store a gun, registration or anything like that.

>And of course 200 years ago, slaves weren't allowed to own guns for obvious reasons[2]. Of course, slaves weren't considered persons at the time either.

I wasn't clear. I meant any free adult not anybody.

Some slaves were slave drivers. White slave drivers had access to guns. It is not clear if slave drivers who were slaves had guns but it is possible. This of course would be an exception if it did happen.

The average slave of course would not own a gun.

>It doesn't appear that there was ever actually a time in the US when gun ownership was completely unrestricted.

Again, that is not what I was arguing. There doesn't appear to be any restriction on the type of gun you could own. There were other restrictions like not shooting cannons inside of city limits for example. People were allowed to own cannons though.

[kelnos]

No, that's not what I was saying, but it's not exactly false, either, now that you've brought it up. George Washington himself went on several forced disarming campaigns in the first few years of the US (notably, before 2A was ratified). It's a persistent myth that gun ownership was unfettered and unregulated before the 1900s.

[_-david-_]

There is a reason I said 200 years not 250 years. Are there any examples after the 2A where the government took away guns?

[kec]

> There is no hyper political, highly targeted, industry funded political action group just like the NRA on the side of banning guns.

You may be unaware because this isn't an important issue to you but just off the top of my head the Brady Campaign, Everytown for Gun Safety and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence all have major financial backing and support firearm bans in one form or another.

[webmaven]

I think those aren't "industry funded".

[_-david-_]

>But, there are no states that ban guns and plenty of them want to.

There are plenty of states that have attempted to but the courts have stated the laws are unconstitutional.

[lostapathy]

Plenty of states do effectively ban guns. Like states that don't let you leave home with a gun except to very narrowly defined shooting ranges. Or states that require guns to be secured, even overnight when you're in your own home. Hard to use it for anything in those cases, let alone self-defense.