you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 54 points 2 years ago (14 children)

I just wish Dems would stop trying to ban any guns, and not because I'm against gun control, but because it's a losing issue. It's never passing through this Congress, and if it ever did, the Supreme Court would strike it down. Given that that's fairly undeniable, why lose the people who organize and vote on this issue alone?

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    This has been said about many issues in the past. Effecting change isn't easy but giving up doesn't help. Americans support gun control. Only our crappy political system stands in the way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    it's a losing issue. It's never passing through this Congress, and if it ever did, the Supreme Court would strike it down.

    You know, that's exactly what people said about Roe v. Wade and about banning abortion.

    Turns out that you can keep losing on an issue for 50 years, yet winning only once will drastically change the trajectory of the entire issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's the opposite situation. Pro-life voters and pro-gin voters are the 2 largest single-issue voting groups in the country.

    Look at it this way. If you swapped Trump and Biden's positions on abortion but changed nothing else, how many pro-choice Democrats would have voted for Trump?

    Basically zero, right. Meanwhile, millions of pro-life Republicans would have flipped because abortion is the singular issue upon which they base their vote.

    Guns are in the same boat. Hundreds of thousands of voters vote strictly based on their love of guns. There's no political advantage in the general election for being anti-gun, and the Dems are sacrificing a whole lot of seats to fight this losing battle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah nevermind that the constitution says "shall not be infringed"' If abortion rights were in the constitution there would be no way of banning it, just as it is with firearms.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Actually it says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.* It says nothing about procuring them. Banning gun sales is totally on the table. Plus, "arms" is kinda a funny word. It doesn't mean just guns. Yet most people would agree that I shouldn't be allowed to build bombs in my basement. Isn't that a violation of the second amendment?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Not to mention that whole well regulated militia part.

    A reasonable interpretation would at the very least take that to mean a requirement to be eligible for the national guard and to consistently pass training and inspection with each action class of weapon you want to buy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    The well regulated part means functional and effective.

    The reasonable interpretation is that the founders didn't want a federal standing army because of the temptation towards tyranny such federal power would create, and instead expected the states to draft their citizens into militias in response to threats. These citizens were expected to arrive self-armed, knowing how to use their gun, with ammunition, and with initial rations. Citing the militia acts for this, you can verify that the government saw everyone of able body as members of the militia. The militias could then slot into a temporary federal army when needed, and then sent home after the threat has passed. The "shall not be infringed" was to prevent the federal and state governments from disarming their citizens, and the temptation of tyranny over a helpless population.

    We have since become the world's largest military power through constitutional amendment and stretching of interpretation, but there has been no update to the 2nd. It doesn't matter that a citizen militia can't match the US military today like everyone likes to argue, we shouldn't selectively enforce constitutional rights. Full stop. If you want to change it, get a constitutional amendment passed modifying the 2nd. If you can't pass that threshold, then you don't have the support you think you do. If you want to guarantee people trained, offer free training and make it attractive to do this training or include it in our compulsory education system so everyone gets it by default. By the way, everyone is already eligible for the national guard, it is essentially the current active volunteer militia. What you can't do is make people join the national guard to be able to keep and bear arms.

    If you want to just scrap the country like your later comments on this thread indicate, go find uninhabited land and found your own country that doesn't have a constitution and can be completely redesigned at your will. Or steal some from any current inhabitants if you can, and if you find that palatable or find a group you don't think deserve their country.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Imagine just for a second, that they drop the issue and gain control of all 3 branches and then actually do something about it rather than constantly struggling to win because of single policy voters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    The only thing tougher to imagine than dems winning supermajorities and all three branches is the dems doing something with it. Hard to imagine the people who fund splinter dems like Manchin wont just do the same thing to a dozen dems instead of two.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Roe had good results, but it wasn't a good decision.

    Casual observers of the Supreme Court who came to the Law School to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak about Roe v. Wade likely expected a simple message from the longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights: Roe was a good decision.

    Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her thoughtful, nuanced approach to difficult legal questions were not surprised, however, to hear her say just the opposite, that Roe was a faulty decision. For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since.

    Ginsburg and Professor Geoffrey Stone, a longtime scholar of reproductive rights and constitutional law, spoke for 90 minutes before a capacity crowd in the Law School auditorium on May 11 on “Roe v. Wade at 40.”

    “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

    “Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

    https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    Plus if they focused on mental health and preventive measures they could maybe bring over some fire arms enthusiasts, who otherwise vote republican or atleast get them to not vote.

    Mind you the effectiveness may be scattershot at times since its alot easier to get the guy going postal than it is to get the an ideologically motivated shitbag.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] [S] 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    What do you propose? Just accept the massacres?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (14 children)

    What do you propose?

    I guess I'd ask you the same question. I don't have a proposal because I don't think any of it will make it through Congress. And if it somehow made it through Congress, the Supreme Court would strike it as unconstitutional.

    Short of voting out these members of Congress and balancing the court, there's no hope of reform. So drop the issue to appeal to more voters. Win more elections, balance the court, then you're in a position to effect change.

    Also, AWBs are pretty useless. They tend to grandfather in existing weapons and they exclude handguns, which are the weapon used most often to commit murder. Magazine limits, which were in the 1994 law, were the only piece to show a genuine reduction in violent crimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • load more comments (14 replies)
  • load more comments (10 replies)