Kelly Roskam of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions discusses a Supreme Court case that will decide if a federal law prohibiting possession of firearms by people subject to domestic violence protection orders is constitutional
Kelly Roskam of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions discusses a Supreme Court case that will decide if a federal law prohibiting possession of firearms by people subject to domestic violence protection orders is constitutional
It’s downright nifty to feel that way.
The reality is it’s a constitutionally-protected right.
I’m not sure you thought this through; they’re entirely unregulated in use on private property.
Lol - it’s okay because occasionally people don’t complain? Yikes.
Have you heard of the danger of the indifference of good men?
Canada, in particular, is doing its best to do away with even that - it’s not a great example. I’m also not sure you can find any example that even approaches the level of ownership we enjoy.
Yes you do enjoy high levels of ownership in the US. You also enjoy extreme numbers of firearm related homicide and spree killing all in the name of an antiquated and poorly grammarically construed piece of legislation made by paranoid rebels back before the average rifle had rifling much less high capacity magazines.
There’s this fantasy that has been planted in your head that you need this security blanket of complete unrestricted access to firearms to uphold your democracy… But just like a child’s security blanket it is a fantasy of false security. What would happen if you and a bunch of your buddies decided to turn on your own government and plan an insurrection or resist a sitting government directive? If it comes to resources you would have to create concensus for enacting violence all under the spectre of surveillance and then you would be facing one of the most milliterized nations in the world on their home turf. Your right to carry does less to protect you than the reluctance and image concerns of a governing body that calls itself “free” to fire on it’s own citizens…
This isn’t the 18th century anymore. What makes a constitutional right is a CURRENT agreement by the standing government body. Dynamic rules that exist to modify it. That document can be amended AND repealed. Saying “It’s a constitutional right!” as though that is immutable isn’t a reason in itself. The option always exists to ditch it as a right.
I see we’re going for most level-headed ex-Redditor - hit me up when you’ve got a point instead of a hyperbolic rant.
Lol, good luck with that amendment.
Give it long enough and enough people will stop gulping down 2nd Amendment flavoraid and realize how many stable democratic societies exist where the kids have never had to participate in an active shooter drill.
Conversely, anyone with an IQ above room temperature will understand the appropriate way to solve a problem is to address the underlying causes, e.g. actually addressing the reasons behind mass shootings instead of only caring because firearms are involved.
Ah yes, good old “we just have to focus on mental health bandaids because it’s miserable people who are the problem, not easy access to weapons to enact their misery on others!”
Heads up, no matter how much you increase access to therapists miserable people are still going to exist. Society’s focus on psychiatry as a catch all leaves a lot of people in the lurch as therapy providers are already overwhelmed with paitent backlog. You can’t even get the US to agree to fund accessable health care, you think they are gunna find success in the pro-gun politicians somehow funding any kind of public mental health initiative?
Tell me you didn’t even skim the article without actually saying it.
Wow!
It’s a good thing therapist are far from the only piece of the solution to such a problem, as highlight by the article you didn’t even bother to skim.
You’re so close to getting it.
How likely do you think a different purely-partisan firearms ban would be?
Perhaps the constitutional amendment to revoke 2A?
For any action to proceed, there needs to be a point of compromise and departure from the wedges. Both parties are going to have to give.
Blue team is going to have to eat crow and address actual underlying issues (e.g. those you didn’t bother to read) and, to gain buy-in, is going to have to give something in, say, pushing for deregulating suppressors or otherwise delivering things the firearms enthusiast crowd would want.
Fortunately, as they’d be actually addressing the underlying pressures to violence, rates are very likely to drop.
But hey - keep pretending actual problem solving is somehow a bandaid. It fits right in with your commenting on things you haven’t even bothered to skim, let alone complex problems you haven’t bothered to understand.