3 ms·

At this point, I think it has less to do with a belief in a complete gun ban, which seems an absurd thing to even contemplate. It's more that absolutely nothin

At this point, I think it has less to do with a belief in a complete gun ban, which seems an absurd thing to even contemplate. It's more that absolutely nothing is done at all. Not even Sandy Hook produced any change whatsoever. A prominent argument was that the entire thing was a fake for the purpose of banning guns, tacitly admitting that reality did merit some kind of change. So at this point it's more of an indicator that politics has utterly broken down. We can't meaningfully discuss a limit case such as you bring up, because the answer is predetermined. Between a Supreme Court composed two-thirds of candidates vetted to allow no gun restrictions of any kind ever, and a set of checks and balances in the Congress that requires a super majority for any legislation, the argument is permanently decided in favor of "doing nothing". Not just on this issue but on every issue. Compared to that worrying about Zombie George III reimposing the Stamp Acts doesn't seem much like worrying about.

Geisterde 3y ago
How do I relate this, from your prespective they do nothing to fix an obvious issue. From their prespective it has nothong to do with guns and are so absolved from responsibility, they are only acting in reaction to a threat to their lawful rights. Its unfortunate that you are left with only reactionaries to offer alternatives, because by nature they are predisposed to telling you to pound sand. We could have a more healthy relationship with guns, I think it starts with acknowledging the role pharmaceutical drugs and investigating their effects more publically. I would also support any kind of community work in teaching responsible firearm operation, and more generally promoting high ethical standards of conduct in everyday life. That said, the safest place I inhabit is work, with its fences, badge readers, and security guards. The second safest place is at home, with cameras, alarms and locks. Paying administrators over security guards is a gross mismanagement of government money.
a_gnostic 3y ago
The supreme court, stacked or not, has no bearing over gun ownership, nor does congress. "Congress shall make no law […] the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." supercedes both of them.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  >> no bearing over gun ownership Except they have great sway over definitions. They dictate what "arms" actually means. They dictate whether that word includes entire classes of weapons. The court currently protects only guns, but a small reinterpretation of "arms" could easily expand it to include bladed or explosive weapons, both of which are not currently protected. Does the 2nd cover flamethrowers? SCOTUS gets to make that decision.
  - jandrewrogers 3y ago
    The current scope of "arms" does include most conventional weapons but intersects with other boring regulatory considerations, especially at the State level. Anyone that can buy a gun can also fill out the paperwork to buy or manufacture much heavier weaponry. Most people don't because exercising the right is a headache. You can't drive a main battle tank on a public street or store a surface-to-air missile system in your backyard for basic infrastructure, zoning, and safety reasons that have nothing to do with the weapons per se. Small arms present much less of a practical safety or nuisance risk regardless of type, the same as any firearm. The paperwork required is the trivial part. I have friends that, essentially for a laugh, filed for and received every Federal approval required to acquire basically the entire range of conventional weaponry. It had a similar level of scrutiny as applying for Global Entry at the airport. If you exercised this, you still need to comply with all the industrial regulations that apply to non-weapons with similar properties, which is expensive and inconvenient.
    - sandworm101 3y ago
      >> The current scope of "arms" does include most conventional weapons but intersects with other boring regulatory considerations If those other conventional weapons were covered as "arms" under the 2nd, then those other boring regulations don't matter. The fact that those regs even exist is because so many weapons are specifically not covered as arms. I can own an AR-15. I cannot own a switchblade. I can own a 9mm semiautomatic, but I cannot own a small pen gun. I can own a short shotgun (coachgun) but I cannot own a crossbow in New York. Walk into a Nevada store with a handgun on your hip or an AR over your shoulder and nobody will bat an eye. But carry a sword and you will be arrested. It was only a couple years ago that laws banning "chain sticks" were struck down. SCOTUS has consistently narrowed the 2nd to only protect guns. Most ever other weapon is open for whatever reg the government wants to enact.

Geisterde 3y ago

How do I relate this, from your prespective they do nothing to fix an obvious issue. From their prespective it has nothong to do with guns and are so absolved from responsibility, they are only acting in reaction to a threat to their lawful rights. Its unfortunate that you are left with only reactionaries to offer alternatives, because by nature they are predisposed to telling you to pound sand. We could have a more healthy relationship with guns, I think it starts with acknowledging the role pharmaceutical drugs and investigating their effects more publically. I would also support any kind of community work in teaching responsible firearm operation, and more generally promoting high ethical standards of conduct in everyday life. That said, the safest place I inhabit is work, with its fences, badge readers, and security guards. The second safest place is at home, with cameras, alarms and locks. Paying administrators over security guards is a gross mismanagement of government money.

a_gnostic 3y ago

The supreme court, stacked or not, has no bearing over gun ownership, nor does congress. "Congress shall make no law […] the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." supercedes both of them.

sandworm101 3y ago
>> no bearing over gun ownership Except they have great sway over definitions. They dictate what "arms" actually means. They dictate whether that word includes entire classes of weapons. The court currently protects only guns, but a small reinterpretation of "arms" could easily expand it to include bladed or explosive weapons, both of which are not currently protected. Does the 2nd cover flamethrowers? SCOTUS gets to make that decision.
- jandrewrogers 3y ago
  The current scope of "arms" does include most conventional weapons but intersects with other boring regulatory considerations, especially at the State level. Anyone that can buy a gun can also fill out the paperwork to buy or manufacture much heavier weaponry. Most people don't because exercising the right is a headache. You can't drive a main battle tank on a public street or store a surface-to-air missile system in your backyard for basic infrastructure, zoning, and safety reasons that have nothing to do with the weapons per se. Small arms present much less of a practical safety or nuisance risk regardless of type, the same as any firearm. The paperwork required is the trivial part. I have friends that, essentially for a laugh, filed for and received every Federal approval required to acquire basically the entire range of conventional weaponry. It had a similar level of scrutiny as applying for Global Entry at the airport. If you exercised this, you still need to comply with all the industrial regulations that apply to non-weapons with similar properties, which is expensive and inconvenient.
  - sandworm101 3y ago
    >> The current scope of "arms" does include most conventional weapons but intersects with other boring regulatory considerations If those other conventional weapons were covered as "arms" under the 2nd, then those other boring regulations don't matter. The fact that those regs even exist is because so many weapons are specifically not covered as arms. I can own an AR-15. I cannot own a switchblade. I can own a 9mm semiautomatic, but I cannot own a small pen gun. I can own a short shotgun (coachgun) but I cannot own a crossbow in New York. Walk into a Nevada store with a handgun on your hip or an AR over your shoulder and nobody will bat an eye. But carry a sword and you will be arrested. It was only a couple years ago that laws banning "chain sticks" were struck down. SCOTUS has consistently narrowed the 2nd to only protect guns. Most ever other weapon is open for whatever reg the government wants to enact.