Gun Violence and how to address it
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 34393
American culture might be complex. And it is; so are most nation's own. But when your house keeps being burned down by a succession of young men wielding petrol cans, maybe it's time to make it harder for them to buy gas.
Debating complexities only serves to erode the will to take action. It's a cultural filibuster. Some action is better than none. The US needs to be brave, sign laws, make mistakes, tweak the laws. Rinse and repeat. Maybe another aspect of American culture that needs amending is a belief laws need to be perfect first time around.
1 -
Debating complexities only serves to erode the will to take action. It's a cultural filibuster. Some action is better than none. The US needs to be brave, sign laws, make mistakes, tweak the laws. Rinse and repeat.Absolutely agree, but before any of that happens there has to be the will, the desire and the push to change the situation. For all kinds of complex reasons related mostly to politics and money and self-absorbtion, at the moment there is no will to do anything, and so nothing will change. If the next election cleared all the Republican rot out of the country (just the same as Conservative rot in the UK, but more dangerous) then things might begin to happen, but, as in the UK, there are so many brainwashed people apparently wanting a dystopian future it will not be easy.
1 -
Join Date:Posts: 19367
Be aware that 25 years ago, the Good Friday Agreement ended a thirty year civil way in NI, that was waged by an illegal force (the PIRA) and the state's security forces. The state was quite willing to use illegal methods to try to end the civil war, and protect others that acted for them in murderous attacks on innocent people.
So, how was that civil war brought to an end? Well, try the same method for the USA - state by state if necessary.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 34393
Well for sure, that's the biggest blocker here and you look at the likes of Marjorie Taylor-Green to see the most brazenly vulgar form of the "cold dead hands" pro-gun Republican (and that's the least of that senator's problems TBH). I'm sure there are plenty of pro-gun Democrats but only the GOP have made it a key pillar of their manifesto and rhetoric.
Depressingly, the only way to effect change would be for a President to simply railroad the change but that'll just play straight into every right leaning nut polishing their assault rifle; the gubberment truly will be after their guns and Fox would have a field day. And god knows what the noe Conservative leaning Supreme Court would make of any legislation (assuming it fell into their radius).
0 -
changing guns laws could very well be the 'easier' part of all of this, america is clearly experience social collapse, this could very well be the harder one to solve!
0 -
Advertisement
-
After a young girl was shot yesterday, Mobile, AL, PD spokesman let rip with his opinion.
2 -
Good to see some passion about the issue of gun violence in the US. However the money will firmly remain behind not doing anything but hopefully the US can get to a critical mass of people saying enough is enough.
0 -
Well said! He was so right to focus on what mattered and didn't allow the usual inanities of the press group to overshadow the main point of why it is happening and how to stop it. While not taking from the fact that so many of the shootings involve white shooters, in his town it is black, young, men killing other black people and he is aware that he may be accused of racism for saying so. The gun issue is not a black or white problem, its a problem with guns, attitudes and availability.
America has way too much influence, through social and other media, in Europe (and other parts of the English speaking world) and I am convinced that if guns were as easily available here, and there was the same attitude to their use - this sense of 'my right to do as I wish' - then we would have the same problems as America.
I cannot understand the logic of the view 'its not guns that kill people, its people that kill people' which is an admission that there is something wrong with with a large swathe of the population. If they are not prepared to give up guns would it not be reasonable to anticipate that they would pour money into mental health problems and researching the causes of them? It seems that life is cheap in any other than the wealthy classes.
This investment is not going to happen though, as it is also 'my right' for any individual to make as much money as they possibly can, by any means they wish, and that small group of wealthy people supports each others' rights to accumulate wealth because it supports their own identical rights.
There is the issue: my rights. I have a right to put myself first. I have a right to carry - and use - a gun. I have a right to accumulate far more money than one person could ever need. I have a right to dispose of anyone who annoys me. I have a right to express my feelings any way I wish.
Oh of course it is not everyone in the US who thinks this way, but there are enough of them to create the society that has emerged over the last number of years. We can only hope that that thinking is not allowed to spread to other countries, the seeds are already sown, lets hope reason prevails and we can maintain the balance without tipping into the abyss the US is heading into.
3 -
Join Date:Posts: 19367
My uncle, when seeing his kids watching an American violent gun-toting, film said 'They are killing each other just to amuse you!'
First it was cowboys with hand guns shooting Red Indians with impossible accuracy, waiting for the cavalry to save them. Then it was criminal gangsters shooting each other and unfortunate bystanders or cops. Then it was heavily armed SWAT teams attacking heavily armed criminals in a stand off - with many dead. Of course, with the improvements in camera techniques, the gory details were portrayed in ever more realistic blood soaked horror.
Always, the guns got bigger, the fire power was used more extensively, and the violence got more ubiquitous, and more realistically gory .
And all to amuse the viewer.
They might start in Hollywood.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 34393
To be fair, the glorification of violence, especially gun violence, hasn't been that bad in years. Westerns haven't been of that ilk in 40+ years, what few there are these days - quite the opposite they have been deconstructionist for that time, arguably set to the mainstream with Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven. There's a deep recognition in the genre that (gun) violence is toxic, its protagonists often scarred hollow men trying to atone for a violent past. If anything, the western is now an ally against gun culture.
In terms of modern popular genres, there's no real gun violence TBH. The Marvel movies - the biggest series by a country mile worldwide- are conspicuous by the absence of "real world" gun violence. Even the non-superhero characters rarely use weapons and those that do tend to be very clearly Bad Guys. John Wick is probably the closest, most popular franchise that fetishises guns and yeah, maybe there's a case there - though this series is intentionally a heightened version of reality.
I think there's a legitimate discussion to be had about gore and violence in Hollywood and what effect it can have. IMO it's overstated - anyone who grew up on Video Nasties are immediate testimonial to that - but in terms of gun violence, it's not really a thing anymore.
Even "cops shoot baddies" has slowly gone out the door, bad a few so-called "copaganda" shows.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 19367
Hollywood has been making violent films for more than just the last decade. Glorifying violence and gore is not new, but a long standing theme. It is not the only theme, but its prevalence must have had an effect on the psyche of the American public - particularly juvenile males.
The theme articulated by the phrase 'If you can see it, you can be it!' is used by various female groups looking for a better involvement in society, correctly.
It also applies to males driven to copy the violent portrayals in films and on TV, who see the size of their gun as a symbol of their manhood. [Unfortunately for them, there is an inverse relationship between the two].
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 14681
Also , those same movies and tv shows are shown around the world so claiming that it's mass media that drives the behaviour doesn't really align with the data.
If "TV & Film" were desensitizing us to violence and making people more comfortable with the use of violence then we'd see this stuff everywhere.
We don't , we see it in the US almost exclusively.
For me the two big differences for the US are firstly, the outrageously easily access to guns of all kinds throughout the country. The second , far harder challenge is this culture of "If you're not 1st you're last" (to quote Ricky-Bobby) that isolates people and throws them on the scrap-heap without any support or obvious path back.
The second thing is the "trigger" event that makes the people snap and the easy access to guns is what creates the tragedies.
They could reduce the scale of the tragedies almost overnight by removing the gun from the equation , the underlying cultural problems will take an awful lot longer.
0 -
In my childhood the best gift a small boy could get for Christmas was a 'cowboy set', a cap-firing handgun and holster, possibly a stetson and sheriffs's badge, but the gun was what mattered. You never saw small boys but that they were racing round chasing each other playing 'cowboys and indians' even if small sisters had to be rounded up to be Indians, since that was the less entertaining part of the game. Then by 12 or 13 or so they had grown out of it and moved on. In the US though they seem to have taken it on to adulthood, my right, my toy.
There is a telling piece of video on CNN today https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2022/06/02/lawmaker-pulls-out-guns-magazine-house-judiciary-committee-protecting-our-kids-act-orig-aw.cnn where a lawmaker, not apparently realising how childish it makes him look, is bragging about his handguns. The most telling sentence is along the lines of 'I'm in my house, I can do what I want with my guns'. And if one of the grandchildren should be killed or injured as a result of him 'doing what he wants', well, everyone's thoughts and prayers will be with the family, so that's ok.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 34393
"Must have" is a reach; there have been no studies AFAIK showing links between violent behaviour in youth and video games / movies. It's a long-standing prejudice that has informed narratives since columbine and beyond. Video games tend to get the bulk of the antagonism these days, itself a totally separate segue - albeit related. Media as a "corrupter of the youth" is a long, exaggerated worry.
My point, and it's one @Quin_Dub expanded upon, is that the "violent movie" you speak have hasn't really existed in mainstream cinema in several generations. Quite the opposite in the case of the biggest blockbusters. and if it was as simple as violence on-screen being a trigger of real life kind, we'd see the end result repeated across the globe (the worldwide box office is more important than ever). It isn't, precisely because it's a bias and dead-end.
0 -
Guns are not just as available in Canada. You have to go through an extensive background check before you can buy one.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19367
On the 12th Feb 1993, James Bulger (aged two) was taken by two 10 year old boys from a shopping mall while momentarily out of sight of his mother while she paid for her shopping. He was beaten to death by the two boys. There were no guns involved, but 'video nasties' were cited by some tabloids as having some influence in the murders.
I think if you add such videos and similar media to the ready availability of military grade guns, it is a toxic combination.
Add the glorification of gun ownership and freedom to use as the owner wishes, then it is no surprise the incidences such as happen regularly in schools, shopping malls, and workplaces happen resulting in multiple deaths and many near fatal injuries.
In Ireland, we used to have over 500 or more deaths on the road each year in the 1970s. We did something about it and last year 136 people died on our roads. Even that is way too many, and we continue to tackle it.
0 -
The video game theory is silly. The vast majority of people playing video games are well aware it is just a game. It is escapism. If video games are the cause, why don't we see people running around collecting rings, or casting spells? GTA is one of the most popular video game sin history, are those claiming video games are the problem also calling that cars should be banned as players can, and are awarded for, doing outrageous stunts and killing pedestrians in the game?
But even if it were true, then it makes the case even more for young people to not be allowed guns. Since apparently they can't tell games from reality. But the NRA, and those who are trying to use video games as an excuse, aren't looking for that. It is just an easy scapegoat, and one that moves the conversation away form the main problem. Guns, their availability and the culture.
They should certainly move to start making guns less prominent. Like cigarettes, guns should not be on display. No advertising. Stop this crazy situation where people are allowed walk dow the street in full combat gear with an AR-15 or similar. Guns should not be allowed inside public buildings.
Time to take the romanticism away from gun ownership. Won't happen overnight, but over time as guns are removed from peoples everyday lives they will start to fall away. We have plenty of examples of this, even in certain states of the US.
Yes you have a right to own a gun, but just like smoking, driving and plenty of other areas, there can be limits placed on where you can exercise that right.
To have a gun outside your main residence should require a permit. If it's for hunting, grand, get a hunting licence. Yearly medical tests, safety course.
0 -
I can accept that video games do not inspire people to commit violence, but to some extent what is does is normalise it, like the films and tv shows that have been discussed. Its not such a big deal to kill someone, the death is incidental to a story with no concern for the consequences of a family left behind, or grieving relatives.
In the wider picture death happens, life goes on. But death should be either a natural event in due course or a tragic but unavoidable event as a result of illness or accident, not an arbitrary end because someone was feeling upset or aggravated and felt they had some sort of right to fire a gun at (a) totally vulnerable target(s). When it is a deliberate, or mindless, decision by one person to end another person's life then the rest of the population should be outraged enough to want to do something about it, including removing the means. As it is, it is just another event, in the news today, something else tomorrow, ok someone is dead, thoughts and prayers.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 14681
The key part above is
'video nasties' were cited by some tabloids as having some influence in the murders.
Anywhere you are referencing "Tabloids" as factual evidence you are on a loser.
Video Games , Movies , TV Shows etc. are NOT the reason people go out and commit heinous crimes - Mental health is the reason they do it.
In Ireland and elsewhere , those heinous crimes tend to be singular in nature where a single person is murdered by a deranged person because typically the tools available to said individual are limited in their ability to commit mass murder.
In the US , those same people are provided with simple, easy access to weapons expressly built to produce mass casualties.
That above all else is the key reason for these events happening.
2 -
Join Date:Posts: 34393
As you say yourself, tabloids cited Video Nasties, which should say a lot, and there has been no connection drawn on the academic side of actual investigations. Conflation & causation and all that. It has never amounted to anything more than moral panic from bad faith journalists or vested interests trying to find a scapegoat - which is understandable when something as horrible and tragic as the Jamie Bolger incident occured. People want easy answers and a clear culprit to blame.
In fact it says a lot about where the mindset of the GOP sits these days that Video Games and movies aren't even part of the deflection tactic anymore after mass shootings - it's "mental health" now, presumably because they know the attempts to blame video games don't work when everyone now plays them and no studies have shown something to worry about. You get the odd talking head but no consensus from the party.
And again, the global aspect of media means we should be seeing similar effects if they had a corrupting effect, especially in similarly individualistic countries like the UK and Australia. Now, in the latter we did have a mass shooting incident recently; the action taken wasn't to ban certain forms of media (Oz already has notoriously strict video game laws, so can't blame them anyway), but ban guns.
0 -
Advertisement
-
The registration aspect is nothing burger imo. It won't do anything to prevent crime, and the database that it would entail would likely end up a financial black hole. If previous documented efforts are any indication. The best option in that regard would be to link it with a driver's license.
Education, training and licensing I would agree with. I do think that a long term reduction in the gun population is possible with a ban on future sales of specific types of firearms and the associated ammunition.
0 -
It's not easy to stamp out. Here's a few problems with your call to make guns illegal.
- People have a constitutional right to bear arms in the US. In many cases they have not only a US constitutional right but also have a State constitutional right.
- A 2018 survey shows that only 1 in 5 people in the US wanted to repeal the 2nd Amendment in the aftermath of the Parkland Florida shooting. How do you change that? Source https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/nothing-will-solidify-support-second-amendment-fight-repeal-it-ncna860546
- There are over 400,000,000 guns in the US. Practically how would you take them back?
- What would happen if you tried to take them back by force?
- Many criminals are armed in the US. If there was a gun ban and guns were confiscated, the criminals won't hand up their guns. Guns would only be handed up by law abiding citizens. This would lead to a situation where the criminals had guns and the law abiding citizens who handed up their guns are unarmed.
Calling for a gun ban in the US is foolish in my opinion and will get people nowhere. A slower approach will be needed.
Here are some of my ideas that might help keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.
- Mandatory background checks for all gun purchases.
- Guns only to be sold through FFL dealers, no private sales.
- Have a mandatory waiting period for buying a gun. Maybe two weeks to a month.
- Have a red flag system whereby if someone is proven to have threatened anybody or threatens to shoot up a school or some other such place, they are investigated and their guns are taken from them if they are found to be acting the b0llix.
Now I'm no expert on US constitutional law so I don't know if there are any legal blocks to what I've suggested above but I think they are more practical than a call for making guns illegal.
1 -
Join Date:Posts: 14681
@BattleCorp - I'd agree with all those suggestions.
I mean the guy that shot up the Hospital the other day bought the AR-15 on his way there ffs!!!
I also think that raising the purchase age to 21 is a no-brainer that could be done overnight - It's already that way in numerous States , including Florida so it's not just in "Blue" states or anything.
In terms of your point 5. at the top , there's some merit to the point , but fundamentally those Criminals bring the guns because they need them to subdue their victims as there's a decent chance that the victim has a gun.
If they don't need the gun , they won't bring it - Why pick up all that extra jail time for having/using a gun if it's not required to get the job done?
Yes , that's a fairly simplistic viewpoint , but ultimately the US has been in this "arms race" of sorts for years and the more people that have guns "for protection" the more likely it is that the criminals have and use those guns in the commission of a crime. It's a vicious circle.
1 -
- Yes they do, but as in all other aspects there can be limits on that right. Age, criminal history, time limits etc can all be placed without a need for a constitutional change. Place a 30 day waiting period for any purchase. Limit the people who can sell ammunition.
- No need to repeal anything. Bring the cases to the SCOTUS and let them fight it out, much like abortion.
- The first way is a buy back scheme. IT will of course cost, but what is the cost of all the killing?
- Yo don't need to take anything back by force. People have the right to have a gun. But you put strict laws in place. If anything happens after the buy back the owner is personally responsible. You couple this with a shift in the acceptance of guns. No advertising, no private sales, no gun shows, no open carry of a weapon not required for your job etc.
- There are criminals in every country in the world, and with guns. That is nothing more than an argument about 'good guy with a gun'. As was pointed out previously, there is no law that can protect you from a criminal, if they are determined to get you. But if they know you have a gun, they will bring more and be more prepared to use it. Criminals use the art of surprise, they sneak into your room, they don't send a txt message to give you time to prepare.
US needs to take radical action. They have wasted years with almost none change, hoping that this was the last time. It is clear that the US has a serious issue, and like any serious issue it needs serious action to control and then reduce it.
There was plenty of time for gun owners to introduce sensible controls but they opted to place their fun ahead of the security of society. Now US is faced with having to train kids in school to react to a terrorist attack from a guy with a gun. I agree with all your possible actions, only I would go further.
Nobody would suggest that guns should be allowed on a plane? How is that allowed within A2? Because there are justifiable limits to peoples rights.
1 -
Sorry for the big long novel of a reply. :-)
Yes there are limits to who, when and where and one can possess a gun, and I'm totally fine with that. But good luck trying to ban all guns. Not a chance that would happen. And that's what I was replying to, a suggestion that guns be made illegal. It's a pie-in-the-sky ambition.
I'm in agreement with you on a 30 day wait period. Although if someone is genuinely under threat, there might be a reason for an exemption system. Maybe waive the 30 day wait period in individual cases if the cops agree with it.
I'm in agreement with you that only authorised dealers should be allowed to sell ammo. If a private citizen has ammo that they want to sell, then sell it through a FFL licenced dealer. Although even we aren't that strict on the ammo here. Private ammo sales are allowed here if the seller and buyer both have a licence for a firearm of the calibre of ammunition you are selling. Not sure that rule would make much of a difference eitherways.
What happens if the SCOTUS backs the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms? You've no guarantee that a challenge would be successful. Even if the 2nd Amendment is watered down, what happens to the State constitution that might contain the right to bare arms?
A buyback scheme would have little effect unless there was a ban on new gun sales. Remember, there's over 400,000,000 guns in the US and if I was in the US (I'm a gun owner here in Ireland) and there was a voluntary buyback scheme, I wouldn't sell my guns to the Government. I might sell my worst gun and buy a better gun. Many other US gun owners would be the same. I've no evidence to suggest I'm right but I think most people who have guns won't sell them back to the Government. I mean, why would they. You might argue that they would like to have the cash. If that's the case, why aren't they selling them now? I can't see a mandatory buyback scheme getting off the ground.
If there is a mandatory buyback scheme and most gun owners don't sell their guns to the government, what then? Do you go try take them by force? That wouldn't work for a number of reasons, including the fact that the US Government haven't a clue who and where most of those 400,000,000 guns are. And if you try and introduce a mandatory buyback scheme, just watch gun sales go to an all time high. When there was the threat of AR15s etc. being banned after Sandy Hook, gun sales went up by 3,000,000 when compared to a normal period.
The firearm owner is already responsible. I don't see how a buyback scheme would make the gun owner any more legally responsible.
I'm fine with no private person to person sales without it being through a FFL dealer. Open carry is a right in many states. You'll need lots of laws changed and some states won't agree with that.
I don't agree with no gun shows or no advertising because I don't think gun owners should be stigmatised because they own a gun. While there are curtailments in the US on tobacco advertisements, they still spend close to $8.2 billion per year on advertising. Gun companies would get around it too. There are ways around an advertising ban. Supposing you need a gun for a certain task, how do you know which gun is best suited without looking at advertising etc? Going to a gun show shows what's available and you can look and try the feel of something before you buy it. I don't think someone should be allowed to buy a gun then and there at a gun show. Also, gun shows also display and sell gun safety items such as safes, trigger locks etc. How do you advertise gun safety classes etc. without including guns?
Open carry is a right in some States. That'll be difficult to change. Open carry possibly contributes to the glamourising of guns but I don't think it directly relates to mass shooting. Banning open carry won't really achieve much. I have to admit, I do think it's strange to see people open carrying in supermarkets etc in the US. But then again, it's common in some other countries such as Israel.
I'd agree with your point about criminals not using guns if we were talking about Ireland. Many small time criminals such as burglars in Ireland aren't normally armed with firearms. We don't have that culture. It's different in the US. Many burglars are armed with firearms or at least there is a chance that they are armed. They aren't going to leave their guns at home if a law is brought in to disarm everyone else. So I don't see the benefit of taking a gun off a law abiding citizen when criminals have access to them. And don't seem to be afraid to use them either.
Yes, the US need to take action, it's too easy for a madman to get hold of a gun but I don't think you understand the culture there. The right to bear arms is deeply ingrained in the psyche of a very large percentage of the population. Many gun owners won't view gun control actions as being put in place to save children, they will view them as an attempt to take away their rights. And nobody likes losing rights. That's how deeply ingrained the gun culture is over there.
You say my suggestions don't go far enough........it will be a mamoth task to get even those measures across the line in the next 10 years.
1 -
I also think that raising the purchase age to 21 is a no-brainer that could be done overnight - It's already that way in numerous States , including Florida so it's not just in "Blue" states or anything.
Also questionable. A couple weeks ago, the 9th Circuit ruled that California's blanket prohibition on the acquisition of semi-auto centerfire rifles by under-21s was not Constitutional. There is currently a federal prohibition on purchase (but not possession) of pistols by under-21s.
Bring the cases to the SCOTUS and let them fight it out, much like abortion
Being done. Actually, has been being done for the past two decades and much to the annoyance of the pro-gun side, SCOTUS has been generally refusing to take the cases, also to the public anger of some of the judges. The last time that SCOTUS took an appeal, the local government (New York City), under pressure from gun control groups, changed its law so that SCOTUS didn't need to hear the appeal: It was obvious they were going to lose and they would rather lose the State than the nation. The current case being considered is the first one in over a decade out of dozens of tries which SCOTUS is actually going to rule on.
Assuming that NY Rifle and Pistol is going to result in an expansion of firearms rights (and that Thomas and Gorsuch in particular are going to lay down some law to the lower courts, they have been rather vocal about their displeasure as to how the lower courts have taken post-Heller cases), a lot of 'no-brainers' which are currently in place (such as the under-21 prohibitions) may not survive.
Waiting periods have their own problem. If someone feels at threat, is it right for them to be forced to wait a certain amount of time before they can exercise their right to obtain a firearm? A short waiting period may well prove Constitutional, but it's not a one-way policy decision. There is a cost associated with such a move, the difference being that the right to obtain a firearm does exist and isn't a light barrier. Do not be surprised if a law of such a nature is passed, and then eventually struck down.
If anything happens after the buy back the owner is personally responsible. You couple this with a shift in the acceptance of guns. No advertising, no private sales, no gun shows, no open carry of a weapon not required for your job etc.
You think any of this is legal? With the possible exception of modifying private sales, which I think can be legally accommodated by a background check requirement. For example, ban on advertising. See Tracy Rifle & Pistol vs Harris et al ruled on 1st Amendment grounds. No, it's not the same as banning tobacco advertising, that argument's been tried as well. No gun shows? Nordkye vs King, if you have the right to a firearm, you have the corresponding right to buy a firearm. Nordyke was specifically about gun shows. Open carry of a weapon? Nunn v Georgia at least somewhat covers this. It's possible for a State to prohibit either open or concealed carry, but not both. If it's a state which doesn't like concealed carry, then that limits your options. The question has not yet, to my knowledge, been asked in any court about rifles, since obviously it's a bit trickier to carry an operable rifle concealed. Liability for the actions of another who you are not responsible for? Outside of felony murder, which still requires partaking in the unlawful act, I don't believe there's any such jurisprudence in the US.
And good luck with a buyback. We've been trying buybacks for years. What often happens is a private collector will offer more for the gun than the government. There have been cases where the dealers will stand out front of the police department with signs saying "cash for your guns". I'm not convinced the US taxpayer wants to get into a bidding war with private industry.
1 -
Change the laws, then let the NRA fight to strike them down. Of course it will be difficult, but more difficult that having to tell parents their child has been shot at school?
Take the lead from the anti-abortion movement. Keep pushing it, keep changing the law and forcing people to challenge.
A2 is viewed as this all encompassing rule. It doesn't. Right to bear arms does not give you a right to advertise or hold gun shows.
Force gun owners to feel outcast, to feel estranged. Will they be upset? Yeah, but so what?
Eventually the nettle will have to be grasped. It is only a question of how many school shooting will take place before people finally realise it.
Eventually A2 will be amended. Years and years away, but it will have to happen
0 -
A2 only give private citizens the right to have guns if people choose to read it that way. How about forming the 'well regulated militia' in every state with required attendance and practise (in order for it to be well regulated) and limit gun ownership to those people willing to take part in a voluntary 'army reserve' type organisation. With suitable rules to prevent it becoming a vigilante organisation. The original militias no longer exist, so why would the right to own guns survive?
0 -
They do still exist, actually, at least in the legal sense. You may have noticed the recent commentary about how De Santis wanted to make his own 'private army' in Florida, when in actuality he would just be restarting the same State Defense Forces which already are operational in about half the States. See Florida Code Chap.250, S2. "The militia consists of all able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens."
And, of course, there are the State laws to worry about, which are often very explicit about not having anything to do with militia service.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Fair enough, but surely for a militia to be 'well regulated' they would have to have some sort of training and practise sessions and some obligation as to what was required of them. Just saying that the whole adult, able bodied population is a militia doesn't really make a lot of sense. But it might make a good basis for regulating gun ownership and usage. If anybody wanted to regulate it, which of course they mostly don't at the moment.
I was not really intending to get into the nitty gritty of running militias, more making the point that if there were any will to do anything about it, which there apparently isn't, then there are ways of bringing A2 into some sort of sensible focus.
In some towns in Ireland and England there are places called 'The Butts' or similar type names where at one stage people were obliged to turn out on a Sunday to practice archery to be available to defend the town. Just because it was a law then, doesn't mean people have to turn out still. It depends on whether it suits people whether they keep up old laws. And certainly the constitution can be amended so it is not holy writ.
0
