Except nobody wants to do away with the 2nd amendment. That's a GOP scare tactic talking point. If you did away with the 2nd amendment there's a case to be made in court that the National Guard would be unconstitutional. It's a silly GOP debate tactic to fear monger, and preys on ignorance of the Constitution by right wing voters. The 2nd amendment doesn't say what people think it says, and people are highly ignorant of what Congress and a President can or cannot do to change the Constitution. People are also ignorant of how dangerous a politically radical Supreme Court is where THEY DO have the power to rule for or against law changes that do fundamentally strip precedent set long standing Constitutional rights. The same people who freak out about someone like Joe Biden with very little power to change anything legislatively non-the less change the constitution are the same people who cheer lead unelected random political dark money backed people like Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett just walking into a position where they can fundamentally alter our constitutional rights on a whim, and there ain't a damn thing we can do about it.
I've not been to New Zealand but I've been Australia and many other countries and while they are very similar, have access to much of the same entertainment, the Internet, and mental health their cultures aren't exactly the same as the US. Consider why NZ and Australia where able to put in much more forceful COVID-19 measures than the US were. It's largely the same reason why they were able to greatly reduce firearm ownership. There is a greater sense of social responsibility among their populations than us. For us we largely view that Freedom is about the individual and as such the costs of that is more deaths from a contagious disease or from firearms. As Lt. Dan Patrick put it "somethigns are more important than living." Other countries including NZ and Australia don't view it that way. Their view is that individual rights are far more circumscribed by how they affect the whole of society.
Of course. I talked about the cultural differences too so I totally get that point. But it still doesn't fully explain everything. It's quite possibly chicken or the egg too with access and culture. What comes first... access to mechanisms for violence or violent aspirations desiring mechanisms for violence? Maybe our "come and take it" culture is there because of the mechanisms that have been in place that people are addicted to in a way that will be impossible to take away. However we also have to recognize the significance in what was acceptable as access to mechanisms of violence after very recent Supreme Court decisions such as Heller. Our culture has been our culture through several hundred years. Why did mass shootings explode on the scene in the way they did after the 2008 Heller decision? The Heller decision was the ruling that essentially overturned assault weapon regulation and unleashed unlimited access to mechanisms of violence. So look.... it's nuanced, and yes our Come and Take It culture is a part of the nuance no doubt. But lets please not let the nuances distract from the obvious elephant in the room. We can argue what comes first the Chicken or the Egg, but regardless of which comes first it's still half of the problem that we are doing NOTHING about, and at least here in Texas we are actually electing leaders who celebrate MORE access as a virtue. There's something very F-ed up about that, and we cannot allow the nuances of our 200 years of "culture" to distract from the elephant in the room.
In never ceases to amaze me how such a large percentage of cops are unqualified and cowards. I'm 35, white and have never had any major trouble with the law. I was told I would get "more conservative " when I got older (despite not being very liberal to begin with), but after a life of mostly indifference to the matter, over the last few years I've grown to absolutely loathe the police force at large. I guess I just assumed there were some standards to the hiring
Yes. That's a great line. Of course at the NRA convention, no guns are allowed. Does that mean that they believe none of them are "good guys"?
Several people have posted on this and related threads that they want to do away with the 2nd amendment. The Heller decision had nothing to do with assault weapon regulation, and in fact Scalia even said that the decision didn't disallow regulations. It was about the personal right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense (in Heller's individual case, a pistol). California still has an assault weapon ban, so clearly Heller didn't overturn it.
What New Zealand and Australia did to their people during COVID was an abomination. It destroyed lives, businesses, and robbed millions of people of their lives for two years. And it did not help at all in containing COVID. Governments around the world have been responsible for FAR MORE deaths than individuals. Study history. Disarming the populace means only the government, police, and criminals have guns. Who in their right mind is OK with that?
Are they governing the United States of America?? Is DD running for Governor of Texas? No.. .I was obviously talking about high ranking elected officials. Of course people on an internet forum say this stuff, and I'd make the case too that the 2nd amendment is problematic in 2022 even though I understand why the framers put it in there since we did NOT have a federal standing army at the time. I'll say it again... people are ignorant of what the 2nd amendment actually says, and most people have never actually read the Federalist Papers to see what the framers were actually arguing. Also NOWHERE was it ever mentioned that the 2nd amendment is there so that citizens can overthrow the government if they don't like how they are governing... so let's just nip that one in the bud. But no Democratic lawmakers is seriously saying that we should spend all of our effort and time to campaign on overturning the 2nd amendment. It's a pointless argument, and all of them understand Congressional Legislation is the first and most important step. The decision was made by the Supreme Court during Heller to solidify that there can be NO RESTRICTIONS to handguns NATION WIDE, but states had the right to regulate assault weapons. It stripped states of the ability to regulate weapons below assault weapon level, but gave red states free reign to legalize whatever the hell they wanted now that the Supreme Court well defined how hard it is for states to truly regulate guns. In fairness Scalia did also say that there should be "safe zones" like the ones that Republicans in Congress want to do away with. So even Scalia is to the left of many Republicans in Congress and their voters like @Commodore which is scary. Heller was a slap on the wrist to Blue States that wanted to crack down on guns and left it to "States Rights" on assault weapons which is stupid when you consider how most Red State Republicans will take a mile when you give an inch when it comes to guns. When you get into these stupid states rights arguments on these particular issues you've already lost because we have open borders between states. States can have different laws on taxes or insurance, etc. of course because you can't cross the border into Oklahoma and pay your taxes on your house in Dallas. Some states laws are enforceable. On Guns the most extreme "States Rights" gun laws become the defacto gun law for all the states because you can buy the most deadly AR in the world in Texas and then be in California tomorrow without ever being stopped.
Even Republicans' #1 enemy said it himself, he had no intention of confiscating guns from law abiding citizens. But here we are years later and they still believe it.
Hey, Abbott, Cruz, et al. You say we need to address mental health issues. This is one of the first pieces of legislation Trump signed. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/nc...6535823693501&referrer=https://www.google.com
Watch: When Sen. Rubio said banning assault weapons would rid us of "every semi-automatic" he didn't expect cheers
I'm definitely not advocating for the repeal of the 2nd amendment, since that's a fantasy. In an ideal world, the U.S. should be like Japan, S.Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, instead of Yemen and Serbia. However proposing that as the only solution is not only unrealistic, but being willfully ignorant to the reality that the U.S. govt and public can't even agree to merely SOME expanded regulation of Gun ownership.
I tend to agree but I think that discussion really only happens with regular citizens who just don't understand or care to understand how our government works. I fully support talking about what the 2nd amendment actually says and educating people about it, and it's flaws, but people who are actually proponents of a solution like "we should repeal the 2nd amendment"... it is therapeutic to say, but not based on reality. A constitutional convention would be a horrible idea too just to address the 2nd amendment which could be solved with legislation, and the courts being more balanced towards what the text of the 2nd amendment actually says vs what the Supreme Court interpreted in 2 cases with a far right majority.
