31November t1_jcz2lxz wrote
Reply to comment by WunkyFinkerbean in Gunfire erupts at birthday celebration in Horsham cemetery, killing 1. Group had gathered to celebrate a life lost to gun violence 10 years ago. by PienotPi
I see no reason we don't have A WELL REGULATED MILITIA requirement with those extensive and mandatory training & retraining.
We do mandatory trainings with cars, food service licenses, and many other things. But, the weapons that are made to kill by literally throwing sharpened metal through the air have less regulation than baristas in many states.
And before some NRA lunatic comes in with "oh well that's not how the founders intended it," I completely reject that argument and don't want to hear it. 1) We are in no way bound to what 50 dudes from 300 years ago thought. Originalism is purely made-up SCOTUS doctrine that has no binding authority on the current SCOTUS; and 2) Even if we were bound by originalism, our society wouldn't work with it. If the founders wanted us to be able to fight the government, then it would be unconstitutional to ban citizens from having nukes and Blackhawk helicopters, which is obviously banned for a reason.
SanjiSasuke t1_jcz7msp wrote
Additionally, Originalism is in direct conflict with the Founders intentions. They knew their ideas would grow stale and new ideas would need to take their place. From Thomas Jefferson,
>[N]o society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation.
In fact, in that little writing he argues constitutions and laws should only last 19 years. Not sure I'm quite that far, but the 'intent' couldn't be more clear. Jefferson believed he was wildly unqualified to govern the world of his grandchildren, let alone the world of 2023.
Pineapple_Spenstar t1_jd0dhh4 wrote
I think firearm safety and basic proficiency should be part of school curriculum
31November t1_jd0ttwj wrote
I totally agree as an optional extracurriculars
rollingstoner215 t1_jczs2vz wrote
The founders did intend the 2nd amendment to be for the purposes of a well-regulated militia though. No harm in accepting their wisdom in this instance and sticking to the original intention.
31November t1_jd0tymr wrote
My point exactly!! Why don’t we have A WELL REGULATED MILITIA requirement?
Hell, I want men in knee-high boots and muskets on every corner to keep us safe. That’s what the founders intended.
rollingstoner215 t1_jd0xykl wrote
Not exactly… the founders feared civilian uprisings similar to Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, and knew they might need a way to marshal armed forces quickly. At the time standing armies were seen as somewhat tyrannical, and the founders did not envision a strong federal government with access to soldiers like that. Militias were a solution, and so that each militiaman could bring his own weapons to battle, the Second Amendment was written into the Bill of Rights.
[deleted] t1_jczd9cf wrote
[removed]
Minqua t1_jd2f7dj wrote
Guns are in the constitution, cars, coffee, and knives are not, so regulating them is much easier.
Im pro 2A. I own guns legally. I want other people to own guns legally. The issues we have now are because people no longer have any respect for life or fear of consequences. The new argument i hear when people commit violent crimes is that “ they had a bad day, moment of weakness, shouldn’t remove them from society because if a bad day” and i just dont get it.
31November t1_jd2mrfa wrote
I disagree that modern guns are in the Constitution in any recognizable form. The Constitution was written 300 years ago- back then, it was a different ball game. People actually could fight off their government with a militia because the firearms accessible to both civilians and the government were directly comparable.
As I said above, now we are in a middle ground. On one hand, we don’t have a comparable firearm situation (the people already can’t fight their government on an even playing field, as we have already banned the weapons our government has but we can’t, like most (if not all?) fully automatic weapons, helicopters, tanks, etc. that it was be ridiculous for a common person to be able to have, or even for the mega wealthy to have,) but on the other hand, we have too many weapons that society is too dangerous to enjoy living in.
We arbitrarily decided that being able to shoot up a school but being unable to fight a basic police force is the amount of weaponry the Constitution guarantees, but there is absolutely no backing to that claim.
In no world did the Founders envision the modern firearm crisis as the guarantee within the 2nd Amendment. Even if they could understand the physical development of modern weapons, the scale of what weapons are allowed to the common person versus the government is completely different.
Either we have a right to all weapons so that we are on even playing field with the government (again, do you want the rich to be able to buy the high end weapons?) or we acknowledge that limiting firearms is the basis for a healthy society.
Edit: Typo
alaska1415 t1_jdbbcnz wrote
The idea that the founders thought every Tom, Dick, and Harry should have a gun with little to no oversight is ahistorical.
bigassbiddy t1_jd2i5zg wrote
I think it’s a good idea. Unfortunately I don’t think it will stop thugs who illegally possess guns.
31November t1_jd2ne1q wrote
Cutting the supply of legally available weapons would drain the supply for illegal weapons. It would take a while, but cutting the supply while also increasing the law enforcement efforts to seize from criminals the weapons would drastically improve the situation.
The main issue - mass shootings - doesn’t seem to be lead by Crips and Bloods. Grown ups shooting up night clubs or stores and teenagers shooting ip schools are the main problem, in my experience, that that average person fears the most.
If somebody can source a claim otherwise, I’m receptive to it, but I don’t believe criminals with weapons are the main drivers of firearms related deaths in mass shootings. It seems to me that the mass shootings that make the news are from otherwise law-abiding people who snap in some way.
bigassbiddy t1_jd2qhjq wrote
Mass shootings, though scary, account for a very small percentage of gun violence and fatalities. Take 2022 for example, there were a total of 20,138 firearm deaths (excluding suicide).
74 (0.36%) of those deaths were from mass shootings.
The media sure does a great job of highlighting the real issue.
Sources:
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/gun-violence-deaths-statistics-america/
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments