3 ms·

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 fundament

by 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
- pvg 4y ago
  The qualifier was 'seriously'. As one of the sibling replies says, it's a fringe view. Retired (and sitting) Supreme Court justices can and do have fringe views.
lliamander 4y ago
> Nobody is seriously talking about rewriting the constitution or banning guns outright. That's simply untrue. > 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. Such regulations are drafted in ignorance and have far more to do with making guns less scary to ignorant people than in actually affecting public safety.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Nobody is seriously talking about rewriting the constitution or banning guns outright. People are talking about both, but they are on the fringes. OTOH, they are convenient for the defenders of the status quo to elevate to the level of principal alternative, because it helps deflect from the real debate, which they don't want to have.

by pvg 4y ago

__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

pvg 4y ago
The qualifier was 'seriously'. As one of the sibling replies says, it's a fringe view. Retired (and sitting) Supreme Court justices can and do have fringe views.

lliamander 4y ago

> Nobody is seriously talking about rewriting the constitution or banning guns outright. That's simply untrue. > 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. Such regulations are drafted in ignorance and have far more to do with making guns less scary to ignorant people than in actually affecting public safety.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Nobody is seriously talking about rewriting the constitution or banning guns outright. People are talking about both, but they are on the fringes. OTOH, they are convenient for the defenders of the status quo to elevate to the level of principal alternative, because it helps deflect from the real debate, which they don't want to have.