The red line is when Republicans ended the national assault weapons ban.
Source:
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-does-gun-control-work
Also, https://www.instagram.com/p/CeEZJNJu5X2/
Note: In 2004 the Republican Congress refused to renew the assault weapons ban
@AthenasOwl I never quite understood the idea of banning weapon types based on how dangerous they sound. Restricting who can own firearms, of any kind at all, seems like a much better solution.
But whenever either side proposes a compromise like improving background checks while loosening restrictions, both sides just stubbornly deadlock and nothing changes.
People still get shot, and gun enthusiasts don't even get more fun for it. What's the point of that?
Also why does the gun debate never distinguish between owning (like you can do in many places around the world) guns and carrying (which is allowed in very few countries) them?
Germany has gun owners too, we just don't let them take their toys to the supermarket every day.
@darkwiiplayer Many of our problems with firearms in the US owe to vague wording in our constitution about the right to "keep and bear arms". There's endless debate about it, but 'bear' is often interpreted to mean 'carry'.
I don't have room here to explain why I believe that interpretation is wrong, but that confusion is part of the problem in our country.
There's also a lot of money behind the gun lobby in the US.
@wesdym I mean, the point of that is that the population can form militias, isn't it? So if the government goes fascist or if the chinese invade, people can take out their weapons and organise to defend themselves.
That doesn't really imply everyday self-defense in any way whatsoever. So it's quite straight-forward why the constitution doesn't really grant a right to carry.
Of course, just because the constitution doesn't guarantee it, that doesn't mean the government can't still make laws to allow people to carry, so this isn't an argument against it.
@darkwiiplayer Private defence was and remains a secondary intent, though that was already part of the law before 2A, and remains so separate from it. That is, defence by arms does not require 2A. The important difference is that without 2A, the state retains regulatory control on WHO should be able to arm themselves, and when and where. Modern (mis-)interpretation of 2A has turned our nation into a deadly shooting gallery with appalling violence resulting.
2/
@darkwiiplayer 2A has in fact served no useful purpose since at least 1865, and by 1936 was wholly obviated by the conversion of state militias into the National Guard. The professional military which did not exist in 1791 is now the world's most powerful. States cannot benefit from 2A anymore, and therefore it has no place anymore. It was never meant to empower armed gangs with no state command over them.
3/3
@wesdym I think there's still a case to be made that a well-armed population might, in extreme circumstances, serve as a last line of defense (look at the situation in Ukraine, for example).
So in that sense, it does still sere a purpose to the state in that it provides a little bit of extra safety in the case of a very unlikely event.
My main point, though, is that for this purpose, it is more than enough to allow a citizen to keep a rifle in a safe and only take it out to use it for practice in dedicated places.
In other words, *if* you subscribe to the common interpretation that the US constitution protects the right to bear arms in case of federal over-reach, then you still can't derive from that a right to carry a firearm, which many pro-gun people often defend because "constitutional right".
@darkwiiplayer The armed citizenry in Ukraine are under the legal control of the government, as intended. It would be the same in any country with or without anything like 2A. 2A was only meant to prevent the federal government from disarming state militias. It never had any other purpose.
It's essential that SOME level of government have this regulatory power. 2A only restricted that power to states and not the feds. But not since 2008. We're living in deadly insanity right now.
@wesdym whether or not it really was intended that way seems like a rather inconsequential debate though; as long as there is a political will to preserve the right to own and publicly carry weapons, it will remain with or without constitutional protection.
As for the Ukraine example, it doesn't make a difference whether or not the population organises itself or not. The point is that a population that is already armed and trained on their weapons will simply be easier to integrate into a militia, even if it is organised by a government.
@darkwiiplayer People are trying to 'preserve' something they never had to begin with. As I keep saying, modern (MIS!)interpretation of 2A is cultish mythology. It is not based in history, reality, or even rationality.
The people of Ukraine mostly didn't have these weapons before the war broke out. Many people forget that government distributed those and suspended most gun controls, in order to mobilize the citizenry in an emergency. It would work like that anywhere without 2A.
@wesdym People absolutely have the right to own guns in the USA, and they also currently have the right to carry them in public. The details vary from state to state, of course.
Whether this is a constitutional right or not doesn't really change that fact.
And again, just because the right to walk into walmart with an assault rifle on your back isn't protected by the constitution means very little if there is a political will to maintain that right anyway. Not all rights need to be constitutional; most of them are just covered by normal laws.
And currently, it just doesn't seem like the USA is overall willing to do away with their gun rights, as seen by the fact that even carrying weapons is still legal, which you just can't read into the constitution without some major 4D mental gymnastics.
There's just not enough people calling for a gun-free USA compared to those wanting to keep their guns.
Athena's Owl
𒀭Wiiお姉さん 💜 🏳️⚧️
WesDym