I mean the GOP and SCOTUS can’t even get over the infatuation with bump stocks.
2 Likes
There are several amendments in the constitution that are as solid as can be, and will never be removed.
I don’t think anyone is talking about banning guns outright. They aren’t banned in most countries in the world, but they are controlled.
Making gun ownership equivalent to car ownership would be a sensible option, but talking about banning just raises the hackles of all involved.
2 Likes
It’s the fault of the official tan artist, he threw a grenade into this thread.
Yea like just banning those assault weapons for common people for a start. It’s like if you have a pistol, that’s one thing, why would any normal being need an automatic rifle or bigger weapons? But what do I know.
1 Like
Aye, of course I understood what you mean and am aware of the context. Just sounded funny to me. Don’t worry about it.
1 Like
Unless the gun control measure could be framed as acceptable within the constraints of the 2nd Amendment, which a gun ban would absolutely not be, a constitutional amendment is required.
That requires 2/3rds in both the House and the Senate, or a majority at an assembly of the states(never done). It must then be ratified by 3/4 of the states. None have met that test since 1992, the one in 1992 in fact took over two centuries despite being basically administrative. The last substantive one (18 year voting age) was started and came into force in 1971. The US is far more deeply divided these days.
Obviously I’m not a constitutional expert (and I don’t live in the States, so I am talking out of my arse), but surely treating guns in the same way as cars would not contradict the 2nd Amendment. The fact that you have to take a test and have a license is not a prohibition on automobiles, it just means that there’s some checks on who can own and drive.
If you set aside the stuff about militias, which is clearly a remnant from the War of Independence, a car is also a tool which can be deadly if misused. I find the talk of banning unhelpful and divisive. Wouldn’t a clear message equating cars and guns be a middle way on an issue which the majority want action on?
2 Likes
That is in fact the subject of some significant jurisprudence. Cars are not mentioned in the Constitution. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen struck down the NY restriction on gun licenses, invoking 14th Amendment rights as they apply to 2nd Amendment rights. With the current SC, your ‘surely’ is very much in question.
Yeah, obviously I’m talking about a world in which common sense actually had a chance of holding sway.
1 Like
So you have not been to Capitol Hill?
1 Like
I like the framework of likening the responsibility of owning a gun to that of a car.
Take a test to prove proficiency (historically that was the emphasis of the NRA, as they stressed responsible gun ownership. Those days have sadly long gone, as making money is now the driver).
Have a license to prove that you have attained the standard to own a gun.
I would add one more thing, using the same analogy: insurance. If you own a car, lots of things could potentially go wrong, and insurance is required to protect yourself, and others. I would similarly require gun owners to carry an insurance policy. Related to that, if you want a more powerful gun, or multiple guns, the insurance rate goes up, as it would with a more powerful car, or multiple car ownership.
It’s common sense stuff, but that is in short supply in these parts when it comes to the right to bear arms. And as Arminius suggests, the current Supreme Court would give any gun control measure short shrift.
2 Likes
I have actually,. Quite a while ago. Ted Kennedy was giving a speech.
A lot of states have what is called constitution carry. Means I don’t need a permit to conceal and carry. It’s pretty awesome 
/flame me
Ok then you can buy all the guns you want, but you can only buy 1 bullet per year, are ammunitions included in the constitution?
I think what confuses me about the second amendment is that it seems to ignore the concept of a “well regulated militia” in favour of a free-for-all.
Switzerland has very liberal gun ownership laws, but they have just enough regulation to ensure that they are used appropriately. I would have thought that it is a fairly successful model of liberal and well regulated.
3 Likes
From what I have seen/heard/read, that’s something the US citizens rather dislike.
1 Like
I don’t see a use or justification for a regulated militia in this age - let alone in a country one would profess to love and is the greatest country in the world (of all worlds)…
1 Like
Which is why they pretend that part of the amendment doesn’t exist.
3 Likes