6 ms·

As a foreigner I find this subject very complex since the right to bear arms in on the US constitution. To change or "rewrite" the constitution trying to deal

As a foreigner I find this subject very complex since the right to bear arms in on the US constitution. To change or "rewrite" the constitution trying to deal with this subject could dissolve the US. Banning guns altogether (rather improbable) will only leave law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals. More protection in schools could be a starting point to address these awful events. I'm still in favor of law abiding citizens having a way to defend themselves. My Dad and Mom were almost killed by a burglar with an illegal gun while they were at home!. A burglar got inside my house while my pregnant wife and me were sleeping. If she were to go to the bathroom or anything else, I couldn't possibly imagine what would happen. For context, it's practically impossible to buy a gun in my country. I wouldn't recommend anyone to vote for laws restricting any law abiding citizen to defend themselves and their loved ones.

paulcole 4y ago
> To change or "rewrite" the constitution trying to deal with this subject could dissolve the US. As an American, this is a risk I’m willing to take.
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  Okay. In practice, how do you plan on achieving this? What steps can we take to “rewrite the constitution” (other than an actual revolution overthrowing the current political system, which… would require guns and even then would probably be impossible)
  - paulcole 4y ago
    There are literally very clear steps to amend the Constitution. It’s not like Steve grabs a pitchfork and YOLOs his way to no second amendment. > An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-governm... It’s not as rare as you might be imagining. The last amendment was finalized in 1992.
    - School-Cotton 4y ago
      I’m familiar with how the constitution is amended. Given the structure of the political system in the US, it is impossible for a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress to agree on any even mildly controversial topic. You’ll note that the 1992 amendment was about a boring and uncontroversial topic. The last one that had anything to do with a cultural hot-button issue was the repeal of alcohol prohibition, in 1933, when the political system operated completely different to how it does now. So, yes there’s a mechanism. But getting together enough votes to activate that mechanism is impossible in the actually existing reality of the United States. So, now what?
      - paulcole 4y ago
        > I’m familiar with how the constitution is amended. It didn’t sound like you were. Let’s start with one state or 1 member of congress saying they want to amend the constitution. Then get a 2nd and perhaps a 3rd. You can probably see where this is going. It is absolutely not impossible for 2/3 of Congress to agree on a controversial topic. Believing that is very defeatist. We can also just sit around and wait for the next school to get shot up and act confused again.
        School-Cotton 4y ago
        > You can probably see where this is going. Yeah, I can. It will get to about 49 or 50 senators (at the absolute maximum) and then stall out. Many of those senators, especially in marginal states like Arizona, will then become subject to difficult primary and general election challenges, dissuading anyone from trying again anytime soon. > It is absolutely not impossible for 2/3 of Congress to agree on a controversial topic. Provide even one counterexample, then. > Believing that is very defeatist. Yes it is. I’m a defeatist on this subject. Things don’t magically become possible because you really wish they were. Sometimes defeatism is the factually correct position. But you’re making moral/emotional arguments, not factual/logical ones. I’m also a defeatist on such subjects as whether I’ll live forever, or whether I can win the lottery and stop working, or whether Iran or Hong Kong will become a democracy anytime soon.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    You don’t have to actually rewrite it, amendments to the constitution don’t have the be consistent with those that come before it. Prohibition and repealing prohibition for example. If you somehow had enough political will you literally dissolve the US then you have enough to amend the constitution many times over.
  - pmlamotte 4y ago
    It's not necessarily rewriting the constitution, and could take decades, but ensuring liberal judges get a majority on the supreme court is all it really takes in order to reverse the 5-4 D.C. v. Heller (2008) decision that first affirmed the 2nd amendment grants individuals the right to handguns for private use outside a militia. It's congressional legislation from there. Roe v. Wade already showed it's possible to overturn an opinion that grants individual rights.
    - School-Cotton 4y ago
      Indeed, you’re right. The Supreme Court is the only remotely plausible way policy on gun control, or any other cultural hot-button issue, can ever change in the US. However, given the present composition of the Supreme Court, it’s reasonable to assume that they will not do anything meaningful on this subject for decades, at least.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  > The Bill of Rights feels intense today, but try reading it in the mindset of someone in 1791. A few years removed from Louis XVI selling Divine Right of Kings. Then suddenly “Hell no, also we’re gonna say and print whatever we want, you can’t search us, and everyone gets guns.” Source: https://twitter.com/Austen/status/1525640468129673216 https://twitter.com/Austen/status/1525640468129673216 Right to bear arms is one of the most profound ideas of the American constitution.
pvg 4y ago
This really isn't the shape of the policy debate in the US. Nobody is seriously talking about rewriting the constitution or banning guns outright. The fundamental issue is that there's a politically powerful minority that is able to block essentially all meaningful attempts at any kind of gun regulation and they do. That's it and it's not likely to change in the short term.
- __blockcipher__ 4y ago
  I live in California, where it's illegal to have a magazine that can hold more than 10 bullets (a standard Glock 17 holds 15+1). It's also de-facto illegal to own an AR-15, since you have to neuter the gun in all sorts of crazy ways for it to be "California legal". You also can't buy any recent (recent meaning, in the last several YEARS) handguns due to the also-obviously-illegal-yet-still-a-thing CA handgun roster. You're right that nobody is seriously talking about rewriting the constitution; rather, states and other actors are just outright passing laws that blatantly disregard the second amendment. So it's actually worse than that. It'd be better if they were honestly just trying to remove the second amendment from the constitution rather than just de-facto abolish it through ridiculous measures.
- nobodyistalking 4y ago
  > Nobody is seriously talking about rewriting the constitution or banning guns outright. https://deadline.com/2022/05/michael-moore-repeal-second-amendment-1235033193/ https://deadline.com/2022/05/michael-moore-repeal-second-ame... https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/texas-school-shooting-second-amendment-20220525.html https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/texas-school-sho... https://newrepublic.com/article/166628/democrats-repeal-second-amendment-guns https://newrepublic.com/article/166628/democrats-repeal-seco... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens... The final piece linked above is from a Supreme Court justice! Meanwhile, in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31517777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31517777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31517768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31517768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31514876 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31514876
Aeolun 4y ago
> Banning guns altogether (rather improbable) will only leave law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals. How do you imagine this works? I’ve been ‘at the mercy of criminals’ my entire life, but I’ve never had to fear getting randomly gunned down in my school, or on the street, or in a bar brawl. I do not see how a sensible person would ever choose the alternative.
- randomtwiddler 4y ago
  Your fear, or lack there of, may or may not reflect reality. It's not really a good basis for an argument. The right to bear arms is based on the idea that a person has the right to defend themselves, their life, loved ones and property. This basis is plenty sensible. Plenty of history is filled with violent criminals, governments, invaders, marauders, rioters, pirates. And it is sensible to suppose that, even if not present now, the future will have them too.
cstoner 4y ago
> More protection in schools could be a starting point to address these awful events. The evidence in this area shows that increased police presence in schools does not reduce the amount of school shootings, but does increase the number of students arrested.
mrtksn 4y ago
>Banning guns altogether (rather improbable) will only leave law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals. Is that statement true though? The only person I know who owns a gun is a farmer and he never shot a criminal but wild boars. In the countries I lived(2 Western Europe, 1 Eastern Europe, 1 Middle East) no one I know ever shot at any criminals, any criminals were dealt through the police, we actually never saw the criminals because they avoid the confrontation even if you don't have any arms. The only time I was a victim of a crime where I was confronted by the criminal, it was when a person really high on drugs tried to rob me on a train. I wouldn't be shooting that person anyway, I simply notified the security at the train station and professionals took care of it. The rest of the times the criminals I encountered are usually things like selling me fake SD cards, which is also something I wouldn't shoot people for(though I wouldn't oppose capital punishment for fake media storage). Is this different in the US? Are people shooting at criminals all the time? Will a JavaScript programmer in Austin be defenceless in the face of the dangers in Texas if they made the guns illegal? What's the situation on the ground? What is the number of criminals shot per year by an average US citizen?
- cowmoo728 4y ago
  It's exceptionally rare to shoot at criminals or even to use a gun in self defense. When a person in the United States purchases a gun, the three most likely occurrences where that gun will be used to shoot a human are: 1. suicide 2. murdering a romantic partner 3. murdering a stranger after an argument or while the owner is committing a crime Harvard has a good site that summarizes current research on how guns are used in the United States. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-own...
  - lliamander 4y ago
    Per the CDC, defensive gun uses are estimated in the hundreds of thousands per year. It is not "exceptionally" rare to use a gun for self defense (even if actually killing someone with a gun in self-defense is relatively rare).
grecy 4y ago
> Banning guns altogether (rather improbable) will only leave law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals. So, ah, what are the Police for? Also, hundreds of millions of people in developed countries without guns around the globe live "at the mercy of criminals" but experience less crime, less violence, less homicides and less gun deaths than people living in America. Your statement makes no sense.
- elforce002 4y ago
  Well, I have first hand experience being at the mercy of criminals. Do you think the police is always available when crime happens? How many cops would any country, let alone a city, need to provide safety for every citizen? Your statement makes no sense.

paulcole 4y ago

> To change or "rewrite" the constitution trying to deal with this subject could dissolve the US. As an American, this is a risk I’m willing to take.

School-Cotton 4y ago
Okay. In practice, how do you plan on achieving this? What steps can we take to “rewrite the constitution” (other than an actual revolution overthrowing the current political system, which… would require guns and even then would probably be impossible)
- paulcole 4y ago
  There are literally very clear steps to amend the Constitution. It’s not like Steve grabs a pitchfork and YOLOs his way to no second amendment. > An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-governm... It’s not as rare as you might be imagining. The last amendment was finalized in 1992.
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    I’m familiar with how the constitution is amended. Given the structure of the political system in the US, it is impossible for a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress to agree on any even mildly controversial topic. You’ll note that the 1992 amendment was about a boring and uncontroversial topic. The last one that had anything to do with a cultural hot-button issue was the repeal of alcohol prohibition, in 1933, when the political system operated completely different to how it does now. So, yes there’s a mechanism. But getting together enough votes to activate that mechanism is impossible in the actually existing reality of the United States. So, now what?
    - paulcole 4y ago
      > I’m familiar with how the constitution is amended. It didn’t sound like you were. Let’s start with one state or 1 member of congress saying they want to amend the constitution. Then get a 2nd and perhaps a 3rd. You can probably see where this is going. It is absolutely not impossible for 2/3 of Congress to agree on a controversial topic. Believing that is very defeatist. We can also just sit around and wait for the next school to get shot up and act confused again.
      - School-Cotton 4y ago
        > You can probably see where this is going. Yeah, I can. It will get to about 49 or 50 senators (at the absolute maximum) and then stall out. Many of those senators, especially in marginal states like Arizona, will then become subject to difficult primary and general election challenges, dissuading anyone from trying again anytime soon. > It is absolutely not impossible for 2/3 of Congress to agree on a controversial topic. Provide even one counterexample, then. > Believing that is very defeatist. Yes it is. I’m a defeatist on this subject. Things don’t magically become possible because you really wish they were. Sometimes defeatism is the factually correct position. But you’re making moral/emotional arguments, not factual/logical ones. I’m also a defeatist on such subjects as whether I’ll live forever, or whether I can win the lottery and stop working, or whether Iran or Hong Kong will become a democracy anytime soon.
- Spivak 4y ago
  You don’t have to actually rewrite it, amendments to the constitution don’t have the be consistent with those that come before it. Prohibition and repealing prohibition for example. If you somehow had enough political will you literally dissolve the US then you have enough to amend the constitution many times over.
- pmlamotte 4y ago
  It's not necessarily rewriting the constitution, and could take decades, but ensuring liberal judges get a majority on the supreme court is all it really takes in order to reverse the 5-4 D.C. v. Heller (2008) decision that first affirmed the 2nd amendment grants individuals the right to handguns for private use outside a militia. It's congressional legislation from there. Roe v. Wade already showed it's possible to overturn an opinion that grants individual rights.
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    Indeed, you’re right. The Supreme Court is the only remotely plausible way policy on gun control, or any other cultural hot-button issue, can ever change in the US. However, given the present composition of the Supreme Court, it’s reasonable to assume that they will not do anything meaningful on this subject for decades, at least.
systemvoltage 4y ago
> The Bill of Rights feels intense today, but try reading it in the mindset of someone in 1791. A few years removed from Louis XVI selling Divine Right of Kings. Then suddenly “Hell no, also we’re gonna say and print whatever we want, you can’t search us, and everyone gets guns.” Source: https://twitter.com/Austen/status/1525640468129673216 https://twitter.com/Austen/status/1525640468129673216 Right to bear arms is one of the most profound ideas of the American constitution.

pvg 4y ago

This really isn't the shape of the policy debate in the US. Nobody is seriously talking about rewriting the constitution or banning guns outright. The fundamental issue is that there's a politically powerful minority that is able to block essentially all meaningful attempts at any kind of gun regulation and they do. That's it and it's not likely to change in the short term.

__blockcipher__ 4y ago
I live in California, where it's illegal to have a magazine that can hold more than 10 bullets (a standard Glock 17 holds 15+1). It's also de-facto illegal to own an AR-15, since you have to neuter the gun in all sorts of crazy ways for it to be "California legal". You also can't buy any recent (recent meaning, in the last several YEARS) handguns due to the also-obviously-illegal-yet-still-a-thing CA handgun roster. You're right that nobody is seriously talking about rewriting the constitution; rather, states and other actors are just outright passing laws that blatantly disregard the second amendment. So it's actually worse than that. It'd be better if they were honestly just trying to remove the second amendment from the constitution rather than just de-facto abolish it through ridiculous measures.
nobodyistalking 4y ago
> Nobody is seriously talking about rewriting the constitution or banning guns outright. https://deadline.com/2022/05/michael-moore-repeal-second-amendment-1235033193/ https://deadline.com/2022/05/michael-moore-repeal-second-ame... https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/texas-school-shooting-second-amendment-20220525.html https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/texas-school-sho... https://newrepublic.com/article/166628/democrats-repeal-second-amendment-guns https://newrepublic.com/article/166628/democrats-repeal-seco... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens... The final piece linked above is from a Supreme Court justice! Meanwhile, in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31517777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31517777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31517768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31517768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31514876 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31514876

Aeolun 4y ago

> Banning guns altogether (rather improbable) will only leave law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals. How do you imagine this works? I’ve been ‘at the mercy of criminals’ my entire life, but I’ve never had to fear getting randomly gunned down in my school, or on the street, or in a bar brawl. I do not see how a sensible person would ever choose the alternative.

randomtwiddler 4y ago
Your fear, or lack there of, may or may not reflect reality. It's not really a good basis for an argument. The right to bear arms is based on the idea that a person has the right to defend themselves, their life, loved ones and property. This basis is plenty sensible. Plenty of history is filled with violent criminals, governments, invaders, marauders, rioters, pirates. And it is sensible to suppose that, even if not present now, the future will have them too.

cstoner 4y ago

> More protection in schools could be a starting point to address these awful events. The evidence in this area shows that increased police presence in schools does not reduce the amount of school shootings, but does increase the number of students arrested.

mrtksn 4y ago

>Banning guns altogether (rather improbable) will only leave law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals. Is that statement true though? The only person I know who owns a gun is a farmer and he never shot a criminal but wild boars. In the countries I lived(2 Western Europe, 1 Eastern Europe, 1 Middle East) no one I know ever shot at any criminals, any criminals were dealt through the police, we actually never saw the criminals because they avoid the confrontation even if you don't have any arms. The only time I was a victim of a crime where I was confronted by the criminal, it was when a person really high on drugs tried to rob me on a train. I wouldn't be shooting that person anyway, I simply notified the security at the train station and professionals took care of it. The rest of the times the criminals I encountered are usually things like selling me fake SD cards, which is also something I wouldn't shoot people for(though I wouldn't oppose capital punishment for fake media storage). Is this different in the US? Are people shooting at criminals all the time? Will a JavaScript programmer in Austin be defenceless in the face of the dangers in Texas if they made the guns illegal? What's the situation on the ground? What is the number of criminals shot per year by an average US citizen?

cowmoo728 4y ago
It's exceptionally rare to shoot at criminals or even to use a gun in self defense. When a person in the United States purchases a gun, the three most likely occurrences where that gun will be used to shoot a human are: 1. suicide 2. murdering a romantic partner 3. murdering a stranger after an argument or while the owner is committing a crime Harvard has a good site that summarizes current research on how guns are used in the United States. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-own...
- lliamander 4y ago
  Per the CDC, defensive gun uses are estimated in the hundreds of thousands per year. It is not "exceptionally" rare to use a gun for self defense (even if actually killing someone with a gun in self-defense is relatively rare).

grecy 4y ago

> Banning guns altogether (rather improbable) will only leave law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals. So, ah, what are the Police for? Also, hundreds of millions of people in developed countries without guns around the globe live "at the mercy of criminals" but experience less crime, less violence, less homicides and less gun deaths than people living in America. Your statement makes no sense.

elforce002 4y ago
Well, I have first hand experience being at the mercy of criminals. Do you think the police is always available when crime happens? How many cops would any country, let alone a city, need to provide safety for every citizen? Your statement makes no sense.