Whether he was wrong or not does not change the ruling of the Supreme Court. It is very important that the Supreme Court's original purpose was not to legislate, but rather interpret the...
Whether he was wrong or not does not change the ruling of the Supreme Court.
It is very important that the Supreme Court's original purpose was not to legislate, but rather interpret the constitution and its amendments, where there was lack of clarity.
This means that even if a justice today disagrees with a previous ruling, they are supposed to generally stick to precedent. This is supposed to provide stability and prevent corrupt politicians from overriding the will of the people as laid out in the constitution and its amendments.
This is why the overturning of Roe is such an overstep. Roe was the interpretation of the constitution based on majority opinion. If the justices today disagreed, they should have stuck with precedent, instead of working for a minority.
What is our recourse then? Legislation! New amendments to the constitution overrule old ones, and even the body of the document itself. It shouldn't matter then, if a SC justice disagrees with an amendment personally. Their job is to interpret the law, not preserve the original intent of the founders in conflict of overriding amendments.
But for some reason, even though there is this mechanism in place to make the constitution more of a living document, people worship the ground of the founding fathers and act like their rules and morals from 300+ years ago should dictate us today.
The misunderstanding of course comes in that the old only needs interpretation and application today, where it is not superceded by amendments today.
This is why updating obscure and outdated language in the constitution and old amendments is so important to protect the rights and freedoms of each person in the US!
The founders were limited by their lack of knowledge of the world today. That's why they baked in this process for adaptation as the will of the people changed.
This obfuscation of such a useful tool is intentional and designed to preserve power in the hands of the Supreme Court, and by extension, the Presidency that appoints justices.
It steals power from our direct representatives in Congress and concentrates power into the hands of a select few.
To be clear, I fully agree with you about your points. The Supreme Court in it's current iteration is undemocratic and needs reform. I do think it's very interesting though, that your opening...
To be clear, I fully agree with you about your points. The Supreme Court in it's current iteration is undemocratic and needs reform.
I do think it's very interesting though, that your opening argument is to discuss the original intent of the Supreme Court. And then, the main critique you have of the current situation is the adherence and worship of the founders and their writings.
As I said, I do think the Supreme Court is currently not very democratic, but I feel like that the lack of the will of the people should be the focal point, rather than what the founders intentioned for the court.
Founder's intent is useful for understanding the "design intention." You need that as a basis for figuring out how the different pieces are meant to work and then you can evaluate whether they are...
Founder's intent is useful for understanding the "design intention." You need that as a basis for figuring out how the different pieces are meant to work and then you can evaluate whether they are actually meeting their intended function.
By Scalia’s logic, the natural meaning of “bear arms” is simply to carry a weapon and has nothing to do with armies. He explained in his opinion: “Although [‘bear arms’] implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of ‘offensive or defensive action,’ it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.”
But Scalia was wrong. Two new databases of English writing from the founding era confirm that “bear arms” is a military term. Non-military uses of “bear arms” are not just rare — they’re almost nonexistent.
I am by no means a lawyer nor an American but isn't the opening clause of the 2nd Amendment "A well regulated Militia"? So it doesn't matter what the colloquial historical sense of the term "bear...
I am by no means a lawyer nor an American but isn't the opening clause of the 2nd Amendment "A well regulated Militia"?
So it doesn't matter what the colloquial historical sense of the term "bear Arms" might or might not have been because it's very clearly contextualised for the purposes of this meaning elsewhere in the sentence. Not elsewhere in the document, or even paragraph, literally the one sentence that makes up the second amendment.
The intellectual hoops some people seem prepared to jump through to justify the insanity of the firearms situation in modern America is astonishing.
I agree that the hoops people will jump to in order to justify lack of gun control in the US is ridiculous, but the grammar of the 2nd Amendment is less unambiguous than that unfortunately. The...
I agree that the hoops people will jump to in order to justify lack of gun control in the US is ridiculous, but the grammar of the 2nd Amendment is less unambiguous than that unfortunately. The exact text is as follows:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This sentence is written in absolutely abysmally poor style in the modern day and would definitely get marked off by any English teacher nowadays (two of those commas just should not exist holy shit). However, it can be rephrased without changing the meaning in a way that makes it more readable:
Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The existence of a well-regulated militia is clearly the justification for the right to bear arms in the text, but it's less clear from the text that it's a limitation on the right to bear arms. Hence all the arguing about the meaning of "bear arms" specifically. I do think the inclusion of "keep" makes it less likely that the right was supposed to be constrained to a militia, personally. But I think arguing about the exact semantics here is more often a distraction from the actual things both sides are actually arguing for.
I also think it specifically ignores the context of a milita to preserve a free state. We have a massive military with several redundant branches that are far more effective at securing our...
I also think it specifically ignores the context of a milita to preserve a free state. We have a massive military with several redundant branches that are far more effective at securing our borders against outside invasion than private firearm-owning minutemen. This amendment came about to address an issue that doesn't really exist anymore? We are not strapped for military power, and we have better armed, trained, and expedient QRFs than a bunch of unaffiliated citizens in their homes.
I think the standard argument you'd get there is that the existence of a militia to preserve a free state isn't to secure our borders against outside invasion but rather to overthrow a tyrannical...
I think the standard argument you'd get there is that the existence of a militia to preserve a free state isn't to secure our borders against outside invasion but rather to overthrow a tyrannical unjust government should that be necessary (much as we did in the American Revolution). But I think our massive military also serves as a good argument against that particular stance -- there is no situation in which even the most heavily armed private militia would be able to be powerful enough to remotely be a threat to our massively overfunded military. The difference in power between even a well-armed militia and a well-funded military is just FAR bigger than it was in the 18th century.
None other than George Washington himself slashed this notion to ribbons when he crushed the Whisky Rebellion. Abraham Lincoln had to go and teach the lesson again. The Constitution confers no...
I think the standard argument you'd get there is that the existence of a militia to preserve a free state isn't to secure our borders against outside invasion but rather to overthrow a tyrannical unjust government should that be necessary (much as we did in the American Revolution).
None other than George Washington himself slashed this notion to ribbons when he crushed the Whisky Rebellion. Abraham Lincoln had to go and teach the lesson again. The Constitution confers no right to engage in armed insurrection against the government of the United States and I'm not sure how many more times we're gonna need to burn down the Southern planter class' estates before the lesson finally takes.
Does the tree of liberty need to be watered once again?
This is really not an accurate representation of the argument, at least when made by the sane. Lets get out of the way that, yes, there are nuts out there who think that they'll march on...
Exemplary
This is really not an accurate representation of the argument, at least when made by the sane.
Lets get out of the way that, yes, there are nuts out there who think that they'll march on Washington and oust the evil doers with their M16's and stockpiles of ammo. It's not happening, they'll be cut to shreds.
That said, the threat is not "we'll come and get you". The threat is "we'll grind this entire country to a halt and take you with us". Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (for multiple countries) and plenty of other conflicts have shown that a armed civilian force that is not trying to take objects (and that's just sticking to US stuff off the top of my head), but rather disrupt operations and opportunistically attack targets is essentially impossible to win against. You will spend every single day bleeding lives and resources with almost no ability for the country to function.
And this is in places we were 100% willing to bomb into dust in smaller countries with less sparse targets. There is 0 way ANY military on earth could defend all the US infrastructure from a guerrilla style resistance. It would instantly take the country from a Superpower to a mess should it occur. Hong Kong is a MUCH smaller example, but their populace was not nearly as armed, and thus not nearly as able to resist (not sure if they would've wanted to use those arms even if they had them).
I will also point out I do find it odd that the political party that wants to currently strip arms from the civilian populace is both the one investigating the ex president and supposedly trying to get our police to be less violent/powerful. Arming the police/gov ONLY strikes me as turbo charging the massive systemic abuses and racism.
Because there's no way to discuss this without "what about blah" some other personal opinions that often wind up discussed-
Something needs to be done about mass shootings and gun violence (two separate issues that are too commonly combined), but I dislike seeing all the poorly researched opinions that get thrown around in this discussion. The majority of gun violence is suicide and perpetrated by handguns (a huge % of which is veterans). Ignoring suicide it's still almost all handguns. The majority of school shootings/mass shootings as people intended to discuss them (since gang violence stats are often folded in and not what people are really talking about) are done by 1-2 people usually with rifles and sometimes shotguns.
Almost no one touches on the issue of "what do we do with the guns in circulation" which is a huge huge problem. This is a genie in the bottle situation. I'm sure there could be a buyback program, but the number of guns that will not be returned, and the number of citizens you're going to turn into criminals overnight is going to be insane. The US is saturated with weapons and has a culture of "fuck you no way" to begin with.
Related to that, just like alcohol and drug prohibition, you're going to get a monumental black market. All the guns that aren't returned have now become hot commodities, and once again Canada, the coast, and ESPECIALLY mexico will become major smuggling points. Further while it takes different tools/skills to make a gun, it's not substantially harder than some drugs. You're probably not making perfectly machined M16's to sell on the market, but you'll absolutely see illegal rifles and handguns produced from within the US, probably in huge quantities. Even worse, since this is criminal action with GUNS, you're almost certainly going to get more militarization of the police to handle it. The last thing anyone wants.
I also expect that "if you're rich you can own weaponry" will still be the standard. There's 0 way that millionaires are going to be denied weaponry and private armed security. This is again focusing power in the hands that already have it, and taking one of the few (if horrific) advantages that the lower class can even access.
As for what to do about mass shootings...i'm not even sure, it's an ugly fucking subject. Uvalde is just the most horrific blight on the world and nothing has come of it. IF we could get our police forces into something more sane (the average officer NOT being armed and trained to kill everyone but instead to deescalate like most situations), I'd say you're probably going to need quick response task forces for it who are required to actually do their fucking job. If you go through win a heavy ban on semi auto rifles, I really believe we're just going to see the next double digit mass killing with handguns or shotguns or whatever else is easy to obtain. If you go for a full ban, I do believe that will lower the amount of mass shootings, but it won't stop them. As always I think this starts with much better mental and physical health care in the US, because you cannot just focus on stopping them once they've decided to go through with it. This also has the advantage of hopefully helping with the suicide part of gun violence.
Broadly, I support the rest of what you've said here, but I'd like to push back on the smuggling side of things, particularly regarding Mexico. The Mexican border police are remarkably effective...
Broadly, I support the rest of what you've said here, but I'd like to push back on the smuggling side of things, particularly regarding Mexico. The Mexican border police are remarkably effective at keeping guns out of their country (when they aren't paid off), especially contrasted to the other failures of their government. The border is huge, so of course if there are guns being smuggled into the US, some will come that way, but the numbers would probably pale in comparison to the ease of manufacture domestically, even in a black market.
Maybe but that’s under current demand with guns easy to obtain within borders. I suspect it’s going to change massively once you make them illegal and they’re in much higher demand
Maybe but that’s under current demand with guns easy to obtain within borders. I suspect it’s going to change massively once you make them illegal and they’re in much higher demand
Very possibly, but the current state of affairs is that Mexico basically doesn't have guns that aren't imported. From there, it's not hard to imagine your example happening, but it also hardly...
Very possibly, but the current state of affairs is that Mexico basically doesn't have guns that aren't imported. From there, it's not hard to imagine your example happening, but it also hardly seems like the easiest route. Except perhaps literally.
Sure, but mexico is one of the smuggling points for all sorts of stuff that isn't manufactured there. Some major % of the drugs coming through there aren't actually grown/created/whatevered in...
Sure, but mexico is one of the smuggling points for all sorts of stuff that isn't manufactured there. Some major % of the drugs coming through there aren't actually grown/created/whatevered in mexico, but if you're going to sneak a large amount of illicit cargo across the border, a country with known cartel's who do that all the time is going to be a prime target.
Guns are a lot bulkier than drugs, is really where I think our differences in intuition lies. I was mostly trying to head off people writing off your whole post as xenophobic or racist though,...
Guns are a lot bulkier than drugs, is really where I think our differences in intuition lies. I was mostly trying to head off people writing off your whole post as xenophobic or racist though, because I can imagine a lot of liberals seeing that "especially" and dismissing everything because of associations.
Meh. If that’s the first place they go then so be it. It has nothing to do with race, it’s an issue we helped create thanks to the absurdity of the drug war. And while guns are bulky they break...
Meh. If that’s the first place they go then so be it. It has nothing to do with race, it’s an issue we helped create thanks to the absurdity of the drug war.
And while guns are bulky they break down into lots of little parts that are much much easier to move. Especially when you stop caring about easier to assemble parts like the stock.
Further I’m not sure you can easily train a dog to sniff them out. The ones that do detect weapons are trained on gunpowder, but if it’s just metal/plastic parts among other such goods it’s going you be insanely hard to detect. You can also ship legitimate goods that are easy to rework into the right piece for some parts.
And this is all external smuggling. The machinery required to make a high precision high capacity rifle is not specialized. They might not be top level quality but that quality really only matters in military applications. Basically every half serious shop in the county could and if the money is there some % will.
I think we're basically on the same page, just slightly different interpretations and expectations, and didn't mean to accuse you of anything except maybe imperfect phrasing. I see the difficulty...
I think we're basically on the same page, just slightly different interpretations and expectations, and didn't mean to accuse you of anything except maybe imperfect phrasing. I see the difficulty of paying off authorities, dissembling and stowing and masking and reassembling as a lot of overhead compared to doing it domestically.
This is a terrible feature for a functioning democracy to have in my opinion. I understand the intent, but I'd argue it's > 20:1 that someone is able to whip up a large enough civilian force for...
That said, the threat is not "we'll come and get you". The threat is "we'll grind this entire country to a halt and take you with us". Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (for multiple countries) and plenty of other conflicts have shown that a armed civilian force that is not trying to take objects (and that's just sticking to US stuff off the top of my head), but rather disrupt operations and opportunistically attack targets is essentially impossible to win against. You will spend every single day bleeding lives and resources with almost no ability for the country to function.
This is a terrible feature for a functioning democracy to have in my opinion.
I understand the intent, but I'd argue it's > 20:1 that someone is able to whip up a large enough civilian force for ill will versus an actual totalitarian government situation, especially given the media landscape and the essentially monolithic gun culture in the United States.
Almost no one touches on the issue of "what do we do with the guns in circulation" which is a huge huge problem. This is a genie in the bottle situation. I'm sure there could be a buyback program, but the number of guns that will not be returned, and the number of citizens you're going to turn into criminals overnight is going to be insane. The US is saturated with weapons and has a culture of "fuck you no way" to begin with.
I do agree with you here, but that doesn't really alter the fact that if you were designing a free society from scratch today you wouldn't want gun proliferation. Might not be a relevant point in the US but pretty relevant for the rest of the world.
You don't need someone to "whip them up". Every cited example is mostly headless cells. You train people when you can if you can, but mostly you just distribute weaponry when you can with a...
I understand the intent, but I'd argue it's > 20:1 that someone is able to whip up a large enough civilian force for ill will versus an actual totalitarian government situation, especially given the media landscape and the essentially monolithic gun culture in the United States.
You don't need someone to "whip them up". Every cited example is mostly headless cells. You train people when you can if you can, but mostly you just distribute weaponry when you can with a general edict of "fuck things up". People seriously underestimate how insanely hard it is to handle such things on a mass scale.
I do agree with you here, but that doesn't really alter the fact that if you were designing a free society from scratch today you wouldn't want gun proliferation.
Ideal societies probably don't have lots of things, but at the end of the day the automatic balancing feature of society has been that the powerful need the populace to be productive to keep them in power, otherwise their neighbors will cause them issues. If they piss off the populace too much, they will always have violence as a last resort. This was a lot easier when it was lords in castles and enough people with spears could be a serious threat, but as military tech has changes so have the methods and goals.
Every single resistance or revolution comes from an armed populace, and every single major dictatorship makes sure that's not possible. As nice as it would be to have an ideal world, I really think that a lot of people's ideas of what a society should look like, is sorta like designing your perfect beach house knowing its in Category 5 hurricane territory. You need to be aware of the potential problems, and that's what all forms of government are, various methods of mitigating. I do not think a democracy lasts if there's 0 ability for the people to keep those in power in check. Every time power changes hands you get some % chance of it being some lunatic, and the easier it is for them to take over, the more likely they will.
I think you misunderstood me, or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. It also ties in with your next point, so I'll just address both. I think you think I'm being idealistic but in my opinion this is...
You don't need someone to "whip them up". Every cited example is mostly headless cells. You train people when you can if you can, but mostly you just distribute weaponry when you can with a general edict of "fuck things up". People seriously underestimate how insanely hard it is to handle such things on a mass scale.
I think you misunderstood me, or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. It also ties in with your next point, so I'll just address both.
Ideal societies probably don't have lots of things, but at the end of the day the automatic balancing feature of society has been that the powerful need the populace to be productive to keep them in power, otherwise their neighbors will cause them issues. If they piss off the populace too much, they will always have violence as a last resort.
I think you think I'm being idealistic but in my opinion this is more a more idealistic conception of an empowered civil society in the 21st century. Totalitarian government will just co-opt any such power structure by manufacturing buy-in via media anyways. It's far more likely a US gun culture would be enforcing a totalitarian government and guarding it against perceived 'enemies' than it would be to defend itself against one, particularly when any would be demagogues know that's a requirement from conception.
Oh I definitely agree with you, it's not a great point, it's just definitely the standard talking point for that bit on the right. I grew up among conservative republicans so I learned most of...
Oh I definitely agree with you, it's not a great point, it's just definitely the standard talking point for that bit on the right. I grew up among conservative republicans so I learned most of their "apologetics".
Honestly I've always found arguments over the semantics silly/bad faith at their core. If someone could 100% prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the words mean you can't have guns unless you're...
Honestly I've always found arguments over the semantics silly/bad faith at their core.
If someone could 100% prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the words mean you can't have guns unless you're in a militia, would that change anyone's mind?
And if they could prove the opposite, it would be the same.
Neither side cares what it actually might mean. They just want to convince a court to somehow agree with them so they can skip the proper procedure to handle the issue.
Absolutely 100% agree. The semantics is just being used as a proxy by people who have already made up their minds about what they want the result to be for reasons totally disconnected from the...
Absolutely 100% agree. The semantics is just being used as a proxy by people who have already made up their minds about what they want the result to be for reasons totally disconnected from the semantics.
No but the semantic arguments are part of what lock people into their positions before they've made up their minds, so it's beneficial to prophylactically demonstrate that they're hogwash.
If someone could 100% prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the words mean you can't have guns unless you're in a militia, would that change anyone's mind?
No but the semantic arguments are part of what lock people into their positions before they've made up their minds, so it's beneficial to prophylactically demonstrate that they're hogwash.
As an american, it is a tangled mass of clauses that don't parse coherently under most readings, and given its context of militias (i.e. farmers rolling out of bed to defend towns with personal...
As an american, it is a tangled mass of clauses that don't parse coherently under most readings, and given its context of militias (i.e. farmers rolling out of bed to defend towns with personal weapons), that line of reasoning is incredibly unconvincing. I'd appreciate it in general if non-americans would quit ridiculing us for struggling to settle what is, believe it or not, a much more complicated matter than most foreign commenters seem to believe, regardless of how satisfying it might be to dunk on from the outside.
As an American, they kinda have a point though. It's not dunking, it's pointed criticism at our inability to resolve our epidemic of firearm violence while whinging over the semantics of a...
As an American, they kinda have a point though. It's not dunking, it's pointed criticism at our inability to resolve our epidemic of firearm violence while whinging over the semantics of a centuries-old decree. And with the flexibility and modernity we have shown to many other laws, even amendments like voting rights or freedom of and from religion, I can see how it's baffling to outsiders who don't have a booming firearms industry enmeshed in their government.
I'm certainly not quick to judge them for a lack of nuance
I'm happy to judge anybody who thinks they can just gather the gist of an issue that's been debated for over a century and meaningfully contribute to the solution. Not particularly harshly, but...
I'm happy to judge anybody who thinks they can just gather the gist of an issue that's been debated for over a century and meaningfully contribute to the solution. Not particularly harshly, but it's pretty rude.
I don't think it's very pointed, either. "Just do what I think is obvious" is rarely insightful or convincing rhetorically. I get it, most english speakers online think people with more to say on the matter than "just get rid of the guns" are brainwashed fools, everyone has heard it before from people who have no understanding of the nuance.
For example, I find it baffling that Europeans are fine with surrendering such rights, but my moral outrage is not very relevant to their lives, is it?
I'm inclined to believe the difficulty in our interpretation is due to deliberate 3rd party obfuscation who have a vested interest in making a lot of money off of a paranoid and violent society....
I'm inclined to believe the difficulty in our interpretation is due to deliberate 3rd party obfuscation who have a vested interest in making a lot of money off of a paranoid and violent society. And that difficulty doesn't justify value. But I digress.
For example, I find it baffling that Europeans are fine with surrendering such rights, but my moral outrage is not very relevant to their lives, is it?
One of the leading causes of child mortality in the United States is gunshot wounds, this isn't an issue in Europe, and that's a notable distinction. They also have no need for privately owned guns to form rapid response militias, like the case was here. They've had standing armies longer than we've been a nation. I guess I am trying to entertain their perspective, why they seem so frank and treat the issue with such obviousness, when from our perspective it seems so complex. They are approaching the issue from a point of social responsibility vs our mire of precedent and historical tradition. They see a law they find strange, they see its effects, and they draw a conclusion.
Let me clarify, I don't mean to imply that the situation isn't complex, just that it probably very simple to make objective conclusions based on our society without our ingrained constitutional obligation (or propaganda, depending on who you ask).
You say objective, I say cultural chauvinism. The conclusions might be "ultimately right" in some way, but I look at Europe, and am not convinced they're proceeding based on exclusively rational...
You say objective, I say cultural chauvinism. The conclusions might be "ultimately right" in some way, but I look at Europe, and am not convinced they're proceeding based on exclusively rational and humanist principles in some way that would justify such an absurd argument as "white people have had guns in Europe longer than the US, so they've come to the definite solution", as if the third thing to come up in every one of these debates isn't "guns before 1900 were just different".
FWIW I think over the long run the US needs to come to a social consensus around what the purpose of guns should be in a civilized society and that comes upstream of laws regulating them. My hope...
FWIW I think over the long run the US needs to come to a social consensus around what the purpose of guns should be in a civilized society and that comes upstream of laws regulating them. My hope is that whatever comes out of that societal consensus is going to probably do a better job of accounting for the eventual reality of 3D-printed or robotically-CNC machined at-home firearms production than straightforward banning of sale and production of firearms is going to manage.
Granted a big part of the gun lobby's efforts revolve specifically around preventing the formation of such a consensus, because they want to assert an inalienable right to menace your fellow citizens any time you don't get your way. There is really no response to that but for civilization to simply say "Fuck you. No." Because such a mindset is simply antithetical to having a functioning society.
Yeah, I don't really disagree, and it's obviously fine for people to talk about this stuff and to think that it is ridiculous for the status quo to continue. It's just that when people with no...
Yeah, I don't really disagree, and it's obviously fine for people to talk about this stuff and to think that it is ridiculous for the status quo to continue. It's just that when people with no experience or knowledge on a subject proudly announce their clear objective correctness, in almost every other domain, the culture here on Tildes recognizes that as little more than noise, but the gun control debate is so polarized that it seems like everyone forgets about basic respect.
This is life and death, almost everybody in the USA thinks that the amount of violence happening for no reason here is ghastly and is constantly being debated and discussed, and people outside of the country, or sufficiently insulated in their bubbles within the country, tend to just dismiss that because the "other side" is framing it differently. So then the discourse that floats on the assumptions of the totally naive is mostly just more fomentation of discontent without actually helping to work toward any sort of real consensus. Fundamentally, most gun nuts (and I do mean the wild ones) who are not literally brainwashed are antitotalitarian and more sincerely individualistic in attitude, culture, life, and politics than the cliches traded around. Arguing that those people should just get with the program is the furthest thing from compromise, from their perspectives, and you can't call yourself a philosophical democrat and also demand that everyone just do your thing.
I took a falconry class and learned quite a bit about how they worked, particularly that most raptors have no sense of scale (so a yak or a squirrel are basically the same in their eyes) and also...
I took a falconry class and learned quite a bit about how they worked, particularly that most raptors have no sense of scale (so a yak or a squirrel are basically the same in their eyes) and also that they choose to attack based on seeing the rippling pattern of something furry moving.
So I asked "Wait a minute, in Mongolia they hunt with enormous Golden Eagles that can literally carry small goats. But goats are bigger than toddlers, and they dress their kids in furry clothes. Do they not have accidents?"
And the falconry coach's response was basically that it's a different culture and they accept such accidents as part of their traditional way of life. They take reasonable precautions and tend not to send their eagles out in the general direction of their kids, but if it happens that's like how we see car accidents and (I suppose) scandalously high rates of gun violence.
As an urban American who sees the extent to which proliferation of handguns and semi-automatics has completely ravaged disadvantaged communities though, I find it deeply frustrating that rural Americans are willing to write off our deaths and safety in the name of their "traditions." I put that in scare quotes, because mass-availability to semi-automatic repeating rifles is not old enough to be a tradition, it's marketing nonsense. Traditional gun ownership involves handmade long guns meant for hunting or sport shooting, not the proliferation of "tactikool" wannabe mercenaries.
The thing is, though, that most rural Americans also perceive something as deeply wrong with the rates of violence, they just ascribe different causes entirely. And they can't (I know you aren't...
The thing is, though, that most rural Americans also perceive something as deeply wrong with the rates of violence, they just ascribe different causes entirely. And they can't (I know you aren't trying to) be boiled down to bigotry and narrowmindedness. Granted, that's most of what is discussed, but I don't see that as much more than mass media misdirection for the sake of getting attention, in the same way that semiautomatics have been treated as inducing increases in violence in broadly left leaning news.
I, personally, don't give a damn about anyone's traditions in and of themselves as traditions. That's not why I disagree with much of the discourse on limiting gun access. You're right, that would be a bad reason to "allow" these deaths. My grievances are much more specific, pedantic, and anarchist, in a way I would be happy discussing, but not publicly until I get the sense that it'd garner anything but a mix of 60-90% bad faith engagement, that the interlocutors wouldn't even notice falling into, with the remaining minority of threads turning into hours of work for everybody involved, just to probably get to a point of mutual understanding.
I suppose I have a rhetorical question here Is this an artificial narrative? From my understanding, there is a direct correlation with the availability of semiautomatic firearms and mass shooting...
I suppose I have a rhetorical question here
Granted, that's most of what is discussed, but I don't see that as much more than mass media misdirection for the sake of getting attention, in the same way that semiautomatics have been treated as inducing increases in violence in broadly left leaning news.
Is this an artificial narrative? From my understanding, there is a direct correlation with the availability of semiautomatic firearms and mass shooting violence. State to state and country to country, this seems to be the case, and it's a phenomenon that has been thoroughly studied. Is this a false narrative being pushed for fear-mongering reasons to sabotage our freedom, stability, economy or what have you, or is it an alarmingly true narrative coming to light as a result of numerous violent deaths? If there was no correlation with firearm availability and firearm deaths, it would make sense that this was a false narrative.
Semiautomatic firearms have been widely accessible in the US since the late 1800s, and spree shootings, which are really the only situations that are made easier with not having to cock before...
Semiautomatic firearms have been widely accessible in the US since the late 1800s, and spree shootings, which are really the only situations that are made easier with not having to cock before every shot, have only become commonplace in the past 30-40 years. If anything, prior to the 50s, they were even easier to obtain, and prior to the 90s, far more tolerated even in small cities. My parents, who are not from remotely similar socioeconomic backgrounds or regions, both have memories from high school of students regularly keeping guns in their cars, to no distress.
I believe that! My parents and grandparents had a lot of friends who also regularly owned and shot guns, and had little difficulty in obtaining or owning them. I think mass shootings are a...
I believe that! My parents and grandparents had a lot of friends who also regularly owned and shot guns, and had little difficulty in obtaining or owning them. I think mass shootings are a relatively novel phenomenon, and had little to do with firearm availability in the past. Although gun violence in general was much higher per capita during my parents and grandparents' time, and that's the correlation I'm referring to, more generic than the school shootings we're familiar with.
But guns have only become so incredibly ubiquitous and the surrounding culture has only gotten wilder in the past ~30 years. Don't these facts, all together, contradict the simple "more guns...
But guns have only become so incredibly ubiquitous and the surrounding culture has only gotten wilder in the past ~30 years. Don't these facts, all together, contradict the simple "more guns equals more violence" explanation, and especially the focus on semiautomatic firearms?
I think the glorification and identity aspect of firearm ownership has gone up within firearms communities, and by correlation those communities suffer from higher levels of gun violence, and as...
I think the glorification and identity aspect of firearm ownership has gone up within firearms communities, and by correlation those communities suffer from higher levels of gun violence, and as general firearm ownership decreases per capita across the entire country, gun violence is decreasing per capita as well. But I think the enthusiasm towards ownership is neither here nor there when it comes to the math that more guns equals more gun deaths on average. Which contradiction are you referring to?
The connection to enthusiasm I was vaguely gesturing at is how it fuels the "I'd like to buy fifteen pistols, please" habits which are the reason that there are more guns than televisions in the...
The connection to enthusiasm I was vaguely gesturing at is how it fuels the "I'd like to buy fifteen pistols, please" habits which are the reason that there are more guns than televisions in the US. Sorry, too vague an explanation there on my end.
I'm referring to the way that gun sales have only been going up in the past generation, while absolute quantities of gun violence have fallen. The only categories that defy that trend are mass shootings, where it matters most if the gun is manual or semi/automatic, and suicide, which is a fairly distinct conversation from other forms of violence. And before the 80s, it was legal for a citizen to privately own fully automatic weapons. So, we have historic evidence that as gun ownership rose, but the accessibility to children via legal channels was restricted, gun violence fell in general, but violence specifically between children rose.
ah I see, thanks for the clarification. That is an interesting set of trends. The enthusiast portion of the market is an interesting variable that, you're right, I think limits the ability to make...
ah I see, thanks for the clarification. That is an interesting set of trends. The enthusiast portion of the market is an interesting variable that, you're right, I think limits the ability to make a direct correlation to gun purchases and gun violence, which is a common comparison. I think # of gun owners is a more useful value to watch than # of guns in circulation. If a bunch of guns are owned by a few extremely responsible individuals who keep their firearms in safes and practice extreme safety and responsibility, it's pretty obvious that will have little to no impact on violent crime in the area.
I think the more people that have access to firearms, the higher the chance a gun ends up in the hands of an irresponsible owner, or the higher chance of theft by someone with ill intent, a burglar or disturbed family member, or ending up in a kid's hands. I think these edge cases are what leads to gun crime predominantly (when it comes to legal firearms) and the only way to reduce it would be to ensure responsible ownership. The issue there is that the culture itself fights for unregulated, unpoliced anarchy. A lot of reactionary gun control measures are born from the reality that gun owners at large refuse to engage in measures of public trust.
The way that these issues are discussed really makes it a chicken-or-egg issue. Every time Joe Biden said "nobody wants to take your guns", I could sense a single-issue voter tune out, because...
The way that these issues are discussed really makes it a chicken-or-egg issue. Every time Joe Biden said "nobody wants to take your guns", I could sense a single-issue voter tune out, because it's bullshit. Nearly every time gun rights folks argue for their principles online outside of a conservative safe space, it's met with a massive number of uninformed individuals demonstrating perfectly why they're afraid of gun control. People mocked that one Texas politician for his wild boar story, but, while he deserved that, they were usually mocking him because they didn't believe that, sometimes, wild boars en masse do just show up, and that most guns that liberals are comfortable with are not sufficient for a homestead or farm to prevent terrible property damage, rather than the fact it was a non sequitur. People push for the AWB even though very few experts believe it had any large impact on violent crime.
Just to be clear, I am not a cryptorepublican, or NRA apologist, I'm just not going to torture myself by coming up with things to criticize in a platform made of senile piss and vinegar. There are reasonable steps toward gun control that wouldn't be totally pointless and would have a chance at doing anything beyond emboldening the nuttier side, but there's really good reason that nobody believed Biden's "promise". There are things that are universally held to reduce violent crime, everything from forms of welfare to consumer protections to labor rights, that have nothing to do with guns, but the leftish politicos think that'd be ceding ground, rather than widening the demographic. When the justification lies on fundamental ills of humanity, things that could be emulated despite a framework of gun control laws, or things that historically are so rare that arguing for restricting access at any cost isn't reasonable, it undermines any potential collaboration. Leftists (broad generalization) really seem to have no clue how many people would be voting for Democrats if their priorities weren't dismissed out of hand. How can we ever hope to destroy the "monopoly on violence" justifying the continuous heel on the throat of the worker if only the wealthy can hope to even survive a 1-on-1 encounter with the State?
amen to that, I think there's too big of a rift between firearm ownership and gun control proponents to be able to legislate a compromise at this point. It's a matter of identity and a power...
amen to that, I think there's too big of a rift between firearm ownership and gun control proponents to be able to legislate a compromise at this point. It's a matter of identity and a power struggle like you say. Unfortunately, I feel like we can only support candidates that can address tangential issues like expanding support for the impoverished, expanding healthcare reforms, and addressing education disparity. Realistically, we were never in a position to survive a violent encounter with the state. Every reasonably successful insurgency has been propped up by a third party, usually a patron rival country, who will provide all the guns potential freedom fighters will need. Our best bet to heal our country from violence and disparity is the ability to set up the next generation to be more amicable to each other, to avoid the rifts we've built for ourselves.
I guess this is where we differ most. While you aren't wrong about the history of revolution, I don't accept that as justification to happily ensure worse odds. Not to imply you are making that...
Realistically, we were never in a position to survive a violent encounter with the state. Every reasonably successful insurgency has been propped up by a third party, usually a patron rival country, who will provide all the guns potential freedom fighters will need.
I guess this is where we differ most. While you aren't wrong about the history of revolution, I don't accept that as justification to happily ensure worse odds. Not to imply you are making that case either, but that I'm on the extreme end of a spectrum. It seems to me that a lot of ills can be traced back to abdication of responsibility in moment to moment decision-making of everyday life, that the horrible responsibility of violence may be crucial to human development, and not something that can be entrusted and isolated to a paternal state.
Unfortunately, I feel like we can only support candidates that can address tangential issues like expanding support for the impoverished, expanding healthcare reforms, and addressing education disparity.
I think, right now, in the US, if we can do that, we should be very proud. They may not be the noblest ideals, but they are some of the strongest and least corruptible.
It's different to wade into the semantics of a centuries-old decree and try to "dunk" on someone or some thing, than it is to dismiss the notion that one should even debate the semantics to begin...
It's different to wade into the semantics of a centuries-old decree and try to "dunk" on someone or some thing, than it is to dismiss the notion that one should even debate the semantics to begin with. Of course once you dismiss the debating of the semantics of that particular amendment, you then enter a totally different realm of debating constitutional amendments and how you're ever supposed to realistically repeal one of the original bill of rights amendments. That's why the debating of semantics even gets to the point it does, because the alternative is so incredibly difficult that sometimes it seems easier or more realistic to try to find ways of interpreting the words differently to reach a different conclusion than there is of repealing it.
It's not just a decree though. It's absurdly difficult–many would say impossible–to amend the Constitution anymore. The last time it happened was because somebody realized the amendment had been...
It's not just a decree though. It's absurdly difficult–many would say impossible–to amend the Constitution anymore. The last time it happened was because somebody realized the amendment had been waiting around for ratification for 200 years, and it was a no-brainer.
The time before that was 50 years ago when we lowered the age of suffrage to 18, ostensibly because drafting people who can't vote on whether or not we go to war was somehow thought "un-American" or something.
I'm not a gun owner but it always seemed like the obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to allow violent insurrection, because the founders had just had been through one. Which... makes sense...
I'm not a gun owner but it always seemed like the obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to allow violent insurrection, because the founders had just had been through one. Which... makes sense but is also antithetical to the government provising general public safety.
It was also borne out a period before things like organized labor which you could argue is a far stronger lever to push for government change. Or Fox news for that matter. Or just spending millions. At least, we've seen those things have far more influence than violence has in the past 200 years.
Less violent insurrection and more preventing violent insurrection. The amendments are to be read in the context of the actual Constitution, as changes to what's already there. Article II...
Less violent insurrection and more preventing violent insurrection.
The amendments are to be read in the context of the actual Constitution, as changes to what's already there. Article II outlines, in broad strokes, what is considered a militia and that the federal government has the sole authority to "direct and discipline" it. And that it exists primarily to quell insurrection or repel invaders.
I can see how a person might think that, especially with the way some people talk about the second amendment in the news. However, that stance makes no sense in the cultural context of when the...
I can see how a person might think that, especially with the way some people talk about the second amendment in the news. However, that stance makes no sense in the cultural context of when the Constitution was written. In between the revolution and the Constitution, the United States has the Continental Congress. The Continental Congress had a much weaker roll than the Federal government does under the Constitution. For example, they had trouble getting states to actually pay taxes to the Continental Congress. The Constitution was meant to strengthen the position of the Federal government. They did not have enough support to get the first draft signed, so they created the bill of rights to address the concerns of states who refused to sign the first draft. For example, some minority religious groups feared that a stronger federal government would be a threat to their religious practices, and the first amendment was meant to allay those fears.
In this context the second amendment makes much more sense. States feared that with a stronger federal government they would no longer be able to keep their own state militias. The second amendment was meant to allay that fear, essentially codifying the right to maintain a national guard separate from the military. That's the way the law was interpreted until 2008, too.
Until the 14th amendment passed, the bill of rights was judged to be a limit on what the federal government could do. It was meant to strengthen the positions of states relative to the federal government. This notion that the second amendment was intended to promote armed rebellion by individuals is, when considering the historical context of the bill of rights, bonkers.
To be fair, it was a pretty grievous oversight. They regarded the 2nd Amendment as a dead letter and didn't foresee it being interpreted this way when they passed the 14th. It's darkly ironic that...
Until the 14th amendment passed, the bill of rights was judged to be a limit on what the federal government could do. It was meant to strengthen the positions of states relative to the federal government. This notion that the second amendment was intended to promote armed rebellion by individuals is, when considering the historical context of the bill of rights, bonkers.
To be fair, it was a pretty grievous oversight. They regarded the 2nd Amendment as a dead letter and didn't foresee it being interpreted this way when they passed the 14th.
It's darkly ironic that the very framework that enshrined equal protection under the law and made the United States an actual democracy for the first time also included the seeds of the destruction of that same goal.
I dunno about an oversight, many of the Union regiments during the Civil War were organized by the states themselves, and the militia system hadn’t yet been formalized into the National Guard...
I dunno about an oversight, many of the Union regiments during the Civil War were organized by the states themselves, and the militia system hadn’t yet been formalized into the National Guard (that would happen in 1903).
Most of the language in the constitution and early amendments is. I mentioned this in a top level response as well, but it is of utmost importance that we remember the best tool for clarifying bad...
Most of the language in the constitution and early amendments is. I mentioned this in a top level response as well, but it is of utmost importance that we remember the best tool for clarifying bad or hard to understand language: Amend!
New amendments supercede the old documents, and we've forgotten or been convinced we shouldn't use this tool. It's the only way to prevent random SC justices from enacting their personal beliefs on the country as a whole.
However, we've had about 2/3 of americans behind a lot of major things.. increased gun control, roe v wade, legal weed, gov healthcare option..... This has been the case for a while, and yet they...
large supermajority behind anything to pass a constitutional amendment.
However, we've had about 2/3 of americans behind a lot of major things..
increased gun control, roe v wade, legal weed, gov healthcare option.....
This has been the case for a while, and yet they don't get passed. This is thanks to Gerrymandering, Voter suppression, Electoral college, and Citizens united.
A supermajority in Congress. The amendment process doesn’t provide for national referenda. And the last time Democrats had a supermajority in Congress, it was: Only functioning for a few weeks,...
A supermajority in Congress. The amendment process doesn’t provide for national referenda. And the last time Democrats had a supermajority in Congress, it was:
Only functioning for a few weeks,
Included numerous rural Democrats (who trended conservative on issues like abortion and guns), and
focused on passing the ACA. They didn’t have much political capital to use beyond that.
yeah thats what i started with "however" to make the point the system doesn't work... the super majority of citizens have wanted things for years and the representatives are not doing it... so the...
yeah thats what i started with "however" to make the point the system doesn't work... the super majority of citizens have wanted things for years
and the representatives are not doing it... so the system is broken. Regardless if its because we are not being represented properly, or they are not doing their job, etc
Well, technically Congress can be entirely bypassed in creating new amendments, but to your point it's still not "the people" that would do so, it's the legislatures of the states. And even then,...
Well, technically Congress can be entirely bypassed in creating new amendments, but to your point it's still not "the people" that would do so, it's the legislatures of the states. And even then, it still requires 3/4s of them to ratify anything.
It's also thanks to the voting system too. First Past the Post is garbage and disenfranchises people by limiting their voting options. STAR voting or just about anything else is better.
This is thanks to Gerrymandering, Voter suppression, Electoral college, and Citizens united.
It's also thanks to the voting system too. First Past the Post is garbage and disenfranchises people by limiting their voting options. STAR voting or just about anything else is better.
Personally, i feel that if a tradition is causing problems, it should be examined and then either changed or gotten rid of. I think the idea of running a society based on outdated traditions to be...
Personally, i feel that if a tradition is causing problems, it should be examined and then either changed or gotten rid of. I think the idea of running a society based on outdated traditions to be ridiculous. The US is to the point of arguing over context of words written 250 years ago.
Some people (by flawed reasoning or conservative personality/temperament) think that society reached its apex at some point in the past and want to regress to that, rather than striving to make things better than they have ever been. They have no imagination for hope, only for fear. From the onset they give away any concern for how things can be improved, instead only wanting to make things as they used to be.
How they fantasize things used to be. I think they would be disappointed by the poverty, inequity, lack of ability to afford firearms and...the rural land they live on being owned by a very...
They have no imagination for hope, only for fear. From the onset they give away any concern for how things can be improved, instead only wanting to make things as they used to be.
How they fantasize things used to be. I think they would be disappointed by the poverty, inequity, lack of ability to afford firearms and...the rural land they live on being owned by a very wealthy landlord (the class the founders represented), as well as an inability to vote without being a part of that landlord class.
Or, fast forwarding to the 1800s, they'd be shocked to find that they would be required to check their guns upon entering most towns. Or that gunslingers were mostly a trope concocted by Hollywood mimicking samurai films. Or that they'd probably die of some random infection while living in abject poverty, either as a rural farmhand or worker in a factory or foundry in the days before those socialists passed modern labor laws.
The past always seems nice if you assume you'd be among the wealthiest and most powerful of the time, which was usually a much smaller group than the wealthy and powerful group that they're almost certainly not a member of in the present.
I agree. It is every United States citizen's right to keep the arms of the bear. But the government will bring the hammer of justice should you try to keep its legs.
I agree. It is every United States citizen's right to keep the arms of the bear. But the government will bring the hammer of justice should you try to keep its legs.
Whether he was wrong or not does not change the ruling of the Supreme Court.
It is very important that the Supreme Court's original purpose was not to legislate, but rather interpret the constitution and its amendments, where there was lack of clarity.
This means that even if a justice today disagrees with a previous ruling, they are supposed to generally stick to precedent. This is supposed to provide stability and prevent corrupt politicians from overriding the will of the people as laid out in the constitution and its amendments.
This is why the overturning of Roe is such an overstep. Roe was the interpretation of the constitution based on majority opinion. If the justices today disagreed, they should have stuck with precedent, instead of working for a minority.
What is our recourse then? Legislation! New amendments to the constitution overrule old ones, and even the body of the document itself. It shouldn't matter then, if a SC justice disagrees with an amendment personally. Their job is to interpret the law, not preserve the original intent of the founders in conflict of overriding amendments.
But for some reason, even though there is this mechanism in place to make the constitution more of a living document, people worship the ground of the founding fathers and act like their rules and morals from 300+ years ago should dictate us today.
The misunderstanding of course comes in that the old only needs interpretation and application today, where it is not superceded by amendments today.
This is why updating obscure and outdated language in the constitution and old amendments is so important to protect the rights and freedoms of each person in the US!
The founders were limited by their lack of knowledge of the world today. That's why they baked in this process for adaptation as the will of the people changed.
This obfuscation of such a useful tool is intentional and designed to preserve power in the hands of the Supreme Court, and by extension, the Presidency that appoints justices.
It steals power from our direct representatives in Congress and concentrates power into the hands of a select few.
To be clear, I fully agree with you about your points. The Supreme Court in it's current iteration is undemocratic and needs reform.
I do think it's very interesting though, that your opening argument is to discuss the original intent of the Supreme Court. And then, the main critique you have of the current situation is the adherence and worship of the founders and their writings.
As I said, I do think the Supreme Court is currently not very democratic, but I feel like that the lack of the will of the people should be the focal point, rather than what the founders intentioned for the court.
Founder's intent is useful for understanding the "design intention." You need that as a basis for figuring out how the different pieces are meant to work and then you can evaluate whether they are actually meeting their intended function.
I am by no means a lawyer nor an American but isn't the opening clause of the 2nd Amendment "A well regulated Militia"?
So it doesn't matter what the colloquial historical sense of the term "bear Arms" might or might not have been because it's very clearly contextualised for the purposes of this meaning elsewhere in the sentence. Not elsewhere in the document, or even paragraph, literally the one sentence that makes up the second amendment.
The intellectual hoops some people seem prepared to jump through to justify the insanity of the firearms situation in modern America is astonishing.
I agree that the hoops people will jump to in order to justify lack of gun control in the US is ridiculous, but the grammar of the 2nd Amendment is less unambiguous than that unfortunately. The exact text is as follows:
This sentence is written in absolutely abysmally poor style in the modern day and would definitely get marked off by any English teacher nowadays (two of those commas just should not exist holy shit). However, it can be rephrased without changing the meaning in a way that makes it more readable:
The existence of a well-regulated militia is clearly the justification for the right to bear arms in the text, but it's less clear from the text that it's a limitation on the right to bear arms. Hence all the arguing about the meaning of "bear arms" specifically. I do think the inclusion of "keep" makes it less likely that the right was supposed to be constrained to a militia, personally. But I think arguing about the exact semantics here is more often a distraction from the actual things both sides are actually arguing for.
I also think it specifically ignores the context of a milita to preserve a free state. We have a massive military with several redundant branches that are far more effective at securing our borders against outside invasion than private firearm-owning minutemen. This amendment came about to address an issue that doesn't really exist anymore? We are not strapped for military power, and we have better armed, trained, and expedient QRFs than a bunch of unaffiliated citizens in their homes.
I think the standard argument you'd get there is that the existence of a militia to preserve a free state isn't to secure our borders against outside invasion but rather to overthrow a tyrannical unjust government should that be necessary (much as we did in the American Revolution). But I think our massive military also serves as a good argument against that particular stance -- there is no situation in which even the most heavily armed private militia would be able to be powerful enough to remotely be a threat to our massively overfunded military. The difference in power between even a well-armed militia and a well-funded military is just FAR bigger than it was in the 18th century.
None other than George Washington himself slashed this notion to ribbons when he crushed the Whisky Rebellion. Abraham Lincoln had to go and teach the lesson again. The Constitution confers no right to engage in armed insurrection against the government of the United States and I'm not sure how many more times we're gonna need to burn down the Southern planter class' estates before the lesson finally takes.
Does the tree of liberty need to be watered once again?
This is really not an accurate representation of the argument, at least when made by the sane.
Lets get out of the way that, yes, there are nuts out there who think that they'll march on Washington and oust the evil doers with their M16's and stockpiles of ammo. It's not happening, they'll be cut to shreds.
That said, the threat is not "we'll come and get you". The threat is "we'll grind this entire country to a halt and take you with us". Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (for multiple countries) and plenty of other conflicts have shown that a armed civilian force that is not trying to take objects (and that's just sticking to US stuff off the top of my head), but rather disrupt operations and opportunistically attack targets is essentially impossible to win against. You will spend every single day bleeding lives and resources with almost no ability for the country to function.
And this is in places we were 100% willing to bomb into dust in smaller countries with less sparse targets. There is 0 way ANY military on earth could defend all the US infrastructure from a guerrilla style resistance. It would instantly take the country from a Superpower to a mess should it occur. Hong Kong is a MUCH smaller example, but their populace was not nearly as armed, and thus not nearly as able to resist (not sure if they would've wanted to use those arms even if they had them).
I will also point out I do find it odd that the political party that wants to currently strip arms from the civilian populace is both the one investigating the ex president and supposedly trying to get our police to be less violent/powerful. Arming the police/gov ONLY strikes me as turbo charging the massive systemic abuses and racism.
Because there's no way to discuss this without "what about blah" some other personal opinions that often wind up discussed-
Something needs to be done about mass shootings and gun violence (two separate issues that are too commonly combined), but I dislike seeing all the poorly researched opinions that get thrown around in this discussion. The majority of gun violence is suicide and perpetrated by handguns (a huge % of which is veterans). Ignoring suicide it's still almost all handguns. The majority of school shootings/mass shootings as people intended to discuss them (since gang violence stats are often folded in and not what people are really talking about) are done by 1-2 people usually with rifles and sometimes shotguns.
Almost no one touches on the issue of "what do we do with the guns in circulation" which is a huge huge problem. This is a genie in the bottle situation. I'm sure there could be a buyback program, but the number of guns that will not be returned, and the number of citizens you're going to turn into criminals overnight is going to be insane. The US is saturated with weapons and has a culture of "fuck you no way" to begin with.
Related to that, just like alcohol and drug prohibition, you're going to get a monumental black market. All the guns that aren't returned have now become hot commodities, and once again Canada, the coast, and ESPECIALLY mexico will become major smuggling points. Further while it takes different tools/skills to make a gun, it's not substantially harder than some drugs. You're probably not making perfectly machined M16's to sell on the market, but you'll absolutely see illegal rifles and handguns produced from within the US, probably in huge quantities. Even worse, since this is criminal action with GUNS, you're almost certainly going to get more militarization of the police to handle it. The last thing anyone wants.
I also expect that "if you're rich you can own weaponry" will still be the standard. There's 0 way that millionaires are going to be denied weaponry and private armed security. This is again focusing power in the hands that already have it, and taking one of the few (if horrific) advantages that the lower class can even access.
As for what to do about mass shootings...i'm not even sure, it's an ugly fucking subject. Uvalde is just the most horrific blight on the world and nothing has come of it. IF we could get our police forces into something more sane (the average officer NOT being armed and trained to kill everyone but instead to deescalate like most situations), I'd say you're probably going to need quick response task forces for it who are required to actually do their fucking job. If you go through win a heavy ban on semi auto rifles, I really believe we're just going to see the next double digit mass killing with handguns or shotguns or whatever else is easy to obtain. If you go for a full ban, I do believe that will lower the amount of mass shootings, but it won't stop them. As always I think this starts with much better mental and physical health care in the US, because you cannot just focus on stopping them once they've decided to go through with it. This also has the advantage of hopefully helping with the suicide part of gun violence.
Broadly, I support the rest of what you've said here, but I'd like to push back on the smuggling side of things, particularly regarding Mexico. The Mexican border police are remarkably effective at keeping guns out of their country (when they aren't paid off), especially contrasted to the other failures of their government. The border is huge, so of course if there are guns being smuggled into the US, some will come that way, but the numbers would probably pale in comparison to the ease of manufacture domestically, even in a black market.
Maybe but that’s under current demand with guns easy to obtain within borders. I suspect it’s going to change massively once you make them illegal and they’re in much higher demand
Very possibly, but the current state of affairs is that Mexico basically doesn't have guns that aren't imported. From there, it's not hard to imagine your example happening, but it also hardly seems like the easiest route. Except perhaps literally.
Sure, but mexico is one of the smuggling points for all sorts of stuff that isn't manufactured there. Some major % of the drugs coming through there aren't actually grown/created/whatevered in mexico, but if you're going to sneak a large amount of illicit cargo across the border, a country with known cartel's who do that all the time is going to be a prime target.
Guns are a lot bulkier than drugs, is really where I think our differences in intuition lies. I was mostly trying to head off people writing off your whole post as xenophobic or racist though, because I can imagine a lot of liberals seeing that "especially" and dismissing everything because of associations.
Meh. If that’s the first place they go then so be it. It has nothing to do with race, it’s an issue we helped create thanks to the absurdity of the drug war.
And while guns are bulky they break down into lots of little parts that are much much easier to move. Especially when you stop caring about easier to assemble parts like the stock.
Further I’m not sure you can easily train a dog to sniff them out. The ones that do detect weapons are trained on gunpowder, but if it’s just metal/plastic parts among other such goods it’s going you be insanely hard to detect. You can also ship legitimate goods that are easy to rework into the right piece for some parts.
And this is all external smuggling. The machinery required to make a high precision high capacity rifle is not specialized. They might not be top level quality but that quality really only matters in military applications. Basically every half serious shop in the county could and if the money is there some % will.
I think we're basically on the same page, just slightly different interpretations and expectations, and didn't mean to accuse you of anything except maybe imperfect phrasing. I see the difficulty of paying off authorities, dissembling and stowing and masking and reassembling as a lot of overhead compared to doing it domestically.
This is a terrible feature for a functioning democracy to have in my opinion.
I understand the intent, but I'd argue it's > 20:1 that someone is able to whip up a large enough civilian force for ill will versus an actual totalitarian government situation, especially given the media landscape and the essentially monolithic gun culture in the United States.
I do agree with you here, but that doesn't really alter the fact that if you were designing a free society from scratch today you wouldn't want gun proliferation. Might not be a relevant point in the US but pretty relevant for the rest of the world.
You don't need someone to "whip them up". Every cited example is mostly headless cells. You train people when you can if you can, but mostly you just distribute weaponry when you can with a general edict of "fuck things up". People seriously underestimate how insanely hard it is to handle such things on a mass scale.
Ideal societies probably don't have lots of things, but at the end of the day the automatic balancing feature of society has been that the powerful need the populace to be productive to keep them in power, otherwise their neighbors will cause them issues. If they piss off the populace too much, they will always have violence as a last resort. This was a lot easier when it was lords in castles and enough people with spears could be a serious threat, but as military tech has changes so have the methods and goals.
Every single resistance or revolution comes from an armed populace, and every single major dictatorship makes sure that's not possible. As nice as it would be to have an ideal world, I really think that a lot of people's ideas of what a society should look like, is sorta like designing your perfect beach house knowing its in Category 5 hurricane territory. You need to be aware of the potential problems, and that's what all forms of government are, various methods of mitigating. I do not think a democracy lasts if there's 0 ability for the people to keep those in power in check. Every time power changes hands you get some % chance of it being some lunatic, and the easier it is for them to take over, the more likely they will.
I think you misunderstood me, or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. It also ties in with your next point, so I'll just address both.
I think you think I'm being idealistic but in my opinion this is more a more idealistic conception of an empowered civil society in the 21st century. Totalitarian government will just co-opt any such power structure by manufacturing buy-in via media anyways. It's far more likely a US gun culture would be enforcing a totalitarian government and guarding it against perceived 'enemies' than it would be to defend itself against one, particularly when any would be demagogues know that's a requirement from conception.
Oh I definitely agree with you, it's not a great point, it's just definitely the standard talking point for that bit on the right. I grew up among conservative republicans so I learned most of their "apologetics".
Honestly I've always found arguments over the semantics silly/bad faith at their core.
If someone could 100% prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the words mean you can't have guns unless you're in a militia, would that change anyone's mind?
And if they could prove the opposite, it would be the same.
Neither side cares what it actually might mean. They just want to convince a court to somehow agree with them so they can skip the proper procedure to handle the issue.
Absolutely 100% agree. The semantics is just being used as a proxy by people who have already made up their minds about what they want the result to be for reasons totally disconnected from the semantics.
No but the semantic arguments are part of what lock people into their positions before they've made up their minds, so it's beneficial to prophylactically demonstrate that they're hogwash.
As an american, it is a tangled mass of clauses that don't parse coherently under most readings, and given its context of militias (i.e. farmers rolling out of bed to defend towns with personal weapons), that line of reasoning is incredibly unconvincing. I'd appreciate it in general if non-americans would quit ridiculing us for struggling to settle what is, believe it or not, a much more complicated matter than most foreign commenters seem to believe, regardless of how satisfying it might be to dunk on from the outside.
As an American, they kinda have a point though. It's not dunking, it's pointed criticism at our inability to resolve our epidemic of firearm violence while whinging over the semantics of a centuries-old decree. And with the flexibility and modernity we have shown to many other laws, even amendments like voting rights or freedom of and from religion, I can see how it's baffling to outsiders who don't have a booming firearms industry enmeshed in their government.
I'm certainly not quick to judge them for a lack of nuance
I'm happy to judge anybody who thinks they can just gather the gist of an issue that's been debated for over a century and meaningfully contribute to the solution. Not particularly harshly, but it's pretty rude.
I don't think it's very pointed, either. "Just do what I think is obvious" is rarely insightful or convincing rhetorically. I get it, most english speakers online think people with more to say on the matter than "just get rid of the guns" are brainwashed fools, everyone has heard it before from people who have no understanding of the nuance.
For example, I find it baffling that Europeans are fine with surrendering such rights, but my moral outrage is not very relevant to their lives, is it?
I'm inclined to believe the difficulty in our interpretation is due to deliberate 3rd party obfuscation who have a vested interest in making a lot of money off of a paranoid and violent society. And that difficulty doesn't justify value. But I digress.
One of the leading causes of child mortality in the United States is gunshot wounds, this isn't an issue in Europe, and that's a notable distinction. They also have no need for privately owned guns to form rapid response militias, like the case was here. They've had standing armies longer than we've been a nation. I guess I am trying to entertain their perspective, why they seem so frank and treat the issue with such obviousness, when from our perspective it seems so complex. They are approaching the issue from a point of social responsibility vs our mire of precedent and historical tradition. They see a law they find strange, they see its effects, and they draw a conclusion.
Let me clarify, I don't mean to imply that the situation isn't complex, just that it probably very simple to make objective conclusions based on our society without our ingrained constitutional obligation (or propaganda, depending on who you ask).
You say objective, I say cultural chauvinism. The conclusions might be "ultimately right" in some way, but I look at Europe, and am not convinced they're proceeding based on exclusively rational and humanist principles in some way that would justify such an absurd argument as "white people have had guns in Europe longer than the US, so they've come to the definite solution", as if the third thing to come up in every one of these debates isn't "guns before 1900 were just different".
FWIW I think over the long run the US needs to come to a social consensus around what the purpose of guns should be in a civilized society and that comes upstream of laws regulating them. My hope is that whatever comes out of that societal consensus is going to probably do a better job of accounting for the eventual reality of 3D-printed or robotically-CNC machined at-home firearms production than straightforward banning of sale and production of firearms is going to manage.
Granted a big part of the gun lobby's efforts revolve specifically around preventing the formation of such a consensus, because they want to assert an inalienable right to menace your fellow citizens any time you don't get your way. There is really no response to that but for civilization to simply say "Fuck you. No." Because such a mindset is simply antithetical to having a functioning society.
Yeah, I don't really disagree, and it's obviously fine for people to talk about this stuff and to think that it is ridiculous for the status quo to continue. It's just that when people with no experience or knowledge on a subject proudly announce their clear objective correctness, in almost every other domain, the culture here on Tildes recognizes that as little more than noise, but the gun control debate is so polarized that it seems like everyone forgets about basic respect.
This is life and death, almost everybody in the USA thinks that the amount of violence happening for no reason here is ghastly and is constantly being debated and discussed, and people outside of the country, or sufficiently insulated in their bubbles within the country, tend to just dismiss that because the "other side" is framing it differently. So then the discourse that floats on the assumptions of the totally naive is mostly just more fomentation of discontent without actually helping to work toward any sort of real consensus. Fundamentally, most gun nuts (and I do mean the wild ones) who are not literally brainwashed are antitotalitarian and more sincerely individualistic in attitude, culture, life, and politics than the cliches traded around. Arguing that those people should just get with the program is the furthest thing from compromise, from their perspectives, and you can't call yourself a philosophical democrat and also demand that everyone just do your thing.
I took a falconry class and learned quite a bit about how they worked, particularly that most raptors have no sense of scale (so a yak or a squirrel are basically the same in their eyes) and also that they choose to attack based on seeing the rippling pattern of something furry moving.
So I asked "Wait a minute, in Mongolia they hunt with enormous Golden Eagles that can literally carry small goats. But goats are bigger than toddlers, and they dress their kids in furry clothes. Do they not have accidents?"
And the falconry coach's response was basically that it's a different culture and they accept such accidents as part of their traditional way of life. They take reasonable precautions and tend not to send their eagles out in the general direction of their kids, but if it happens that's like how we see car accidents and (I suppose) scandalously high rates of gun violence.
As an urban American who sees the extent to which proliferation of handguns and semi-automatics has completely ravaged disadvantaged communities though, I find it deeply frustrating that rural Americans are willing to write off our deaths and safety in the name of their "traditions." I put that in scare quotes, because mass-availability to semi-automatic repeating rifles is not old enough to be a tradition, it's marketing nonsense. Traditional gun ownership involves handmade long guns meant for hunting or sport shooting, not the proliferation of "tactikool" wannabe mercenaries.
The thing is, though, that most rural Americans also perceive something as deeply wrong with the rates of violence, they just ascribe different causes entirely. And they can't (I know you aren't trying to) be boiled down to bigotry and narrowmindedness. Granted, that's most of what is discussed, but I don't see that as much more than mass media misdirection for the sake of getting attention, in the same way that semiautomatics have been treated as inducing increases in violence in broadly left leaning news.
I, personally, don't give a damn about anyone's traditions in and of themselves as traditions. That's not why I disagree with much of the discourse on limiting gun access. You're right, that would be a bad reason to "allow" these deaths. My grievances are much more specific, pedantic, and anarchist, in a way I would be happy discussing, but not publicly until I get the sense that it'd garner anything but a mix of 60-90% bad faith engagement, that the interlocutors wouldn't even notice falling into, with the remaining minority of threads turning into hours of work for everybody involved, just to probably get to a point of mutual understanding.
I suppose I have a rhetorical question here
Is this an artificial narrative? From my understanding, there is a direct correlation with the availability of semiautomatic firearms and mass shooting violence. State to state and country to country, this seems to be the case, and it's a phenomenon that has been thoroughly studied. Is this a false narrative being pushed for fear-mongering reasons to sabotage our freedom, stability, economy or what have you, or is it an alarmingly true narrative coming to light as a result of numerous violent deaths? If there was no correlation with firearm availability and firearm deaths, it would make sense that this was a false narrative.
Semiautomatic firearms have been widely accessible in the US since the late 1800s, and spree shootings, which are really the only situations that are made easier with not having to cock before every shot, have only become commonplace in the past 30-40 years. If anything, prior to the 50s, they were even easier to obtain, and prior to the 90s, far more tolerated even in small cities. My parents, who are not from remotely similar socioeconomic backgrounds or regions, both have memories from high school of students regularly keeping guns in their cars, to no distress.
I believe that! My parents and grandparents had a lot of friends who also regularly owned and shot guns, and had little difficulty in obtaining or owning them. I think mass shootings are a relatively novel phenomenon, and had little to do with firearm availability in the past. Although gun violence in general was much higher per capita during my parents and grandparents' time, and that's the correlation I'm referring to, more generic than the school shootings we're familiar with.
But guns have only become so incredibly ubiquitous and the surrounding culture has only gotten wilder in the past ~30 years. Don't these facts, all together, contradict the simple "more guns equals more violence" explanation, and especially the focus on semiautomatic firearms?
I think the glorification and identity aspect of firearm ownership has gone up within firearms communities, and by correlation those communities suffer from higher levels of gun violence, and as general firearm ownership decreases per capita across the entire country, gun violence is decreasing per capita as well. But I think the enthusiasm towards ownership is neither here nor there when it comes to the math that more guns equals more gun deaths on average. Which contradiction are you referring to?
The connection to enthusiasm I was vaguely gesturing at is how it fuels the "I'd like to buy fifteen pistols, please" habits which are the reason that there are more guns than televisions in the US. Sorry, too vague an explanation there on my end.
I'm referring to the way that gun sales have only been going up in the past generation, while absolute quantities of gun violence have fallen. The only categories that defy that trend are mass shootings, where it matters most if the gun is manual or semi/automatic, and suicide, which is a fairly distinct conversation from other forms of violence. And before the 80s, it was legal for a citizen to privately own fully automatic weapons. So, we have historic evidence that as gun ownership rose, but the accessibility to children via legal channels was restricted, gun violence fell in general, but violence specifically between children rose.
ah I see, thanks for the clarification. That is an interesting set of trends. The enthusiast portion of the market is an interesting variable that, you're right, I think limits the ability to make a direct correlation to gun purchases and gun violence, which is a common comparison. I think # of gun owners is a more useful value to watch than # of guns in circulation. If a bunch of guns are owned by a few extremely responsible individuals who keep their firearms in safes and practice extreme safety and responsibility, it's pretty obvious that will have little to no impact on violent crime in the area.
I think the more people that have access to firearms, the higher the chance a gun ends up in the hands of an irresponsible owner, or the higher chance of theft by someone with ill intent, a burglar or disturbed family member, or ending up in a kid's hands. I think these edge cases are what leads to gun crime predominantly (when it comes to legal firearms) and the only way to reduce it would be to ensure responsible ownership. The issue there is that the culture itself fights for unregulated, unpoliced anarchy. A lot of reactionary gun control measures are born from the reality that gun owners at large refuse to engage in measures of public trust.
The way that these issues are discussed really makes it a chicken-or-egg issue. Every time Joe Biden said "nobody wants to take your guns", I could sense a single-issue voter tune out, because it's bullshit. Nearly every time gun rights folks argue for their principles online outside of a conservative safe space, it's met with a massive number of uninformed individuals demonstrating perfectly why they're afraid of gun control. People mocked that one Texas politician for his wild boar story, but, while he deserved that, they were usually mocking him because they didn't believe that, sometimes, wild boars en masse do just show up, and that most guns that liberals are comfortable with are not sufficient for a homestead or farm to prevent terrible property damage, rather than the fact it was a non sequitur. People push for the AWB even though very few experts believe it had any large impact on violent crime.
Just to be clear, I am not a cryptorepublican, or NRA apologist, I'm just not going to torture myself by coming up with things to criticize in a platform made of senile piss and vinegar. There are reasonable steps toward gun control that wouldn't be totally pointless and would have a chance at doing anything beyond emboldening the nuttier side, but there's really good reason that nobody believed Biden's "promise". There are things that are universally held to reduce violent crime, everything from forms of welfare to consumer protections to labor rights, that have nothing to do with guns, but the leftish politicos think that'd be ceding ground, rather than widening the demographic. When the justification lies on fundamental ills of humanity, things that could be emulated despite a framework of gun control laws, or things that historically are so rare that arguing for restricting access at any cost isn't reasonable, it undermines any potential collaboration. Leftists (broad generalization) really seem to have no clue how many people would be voting for Democrats if their priorities weren't dismissed out of hand. How can we ever hope to destroy the "monopoly on violence" justifying the continuous heel on the throat of the worker if only the wealthy can hope to even survive a 1-on-1 encounter with the State?
amen to that, I think there's too big of a rift between firearm ownership and gun control proponents to be able to legislate a compromise at this point. It's a matter of identity and a power struggle like you say. Unfortunately, I feel like we can only support candidates that can address tangential issues like expanding support for the impoverished, expanding healthcare reforms, and addressing education disparity. Realistically, we were never in a position to survive a violent encounter with the state. Every reasonably successful insurgency has been propped up by a third party, usually a patron rival country, who will provide all the guns potential freedom fighters will need. Our best bet to heal our country from violence and disparity is the ability to set up the next generation to be more amicable to each other, to avoid the rifts we've built for ourselves.
I guess this is where we differ most. While you aren't wrong about the history of revolution, I don't accept that as justification to happily ensure worse odds. Not to imply you are making that case either, but that I'm on the extreme end of a spectrum. It seems to me that a lot of ills can be traced back to abdication of responsibility in moment to moment decision-making of everyday life, that the horrible responsibility of violence may be crucial to human development, and not something that can be entrusted and isolated to a paternal state.
I think, right now, in the US, if we can do that, we should be very proud. They may not be the noblest ideals, but they are some of the strongest and least corruptible.
It's different to wade into the semantics of a centuries-old decree and try to "dunk" on someone or some thing, than it is to dismiss the notion that one should even debate the semantics to begin with. Of course once you dismiss the debating of the semantics of that particular amendment, you then enter a totally different realm of debating constitutional amendments and how you're ever supposed to realistically repeal one of the original bill of rights amendments. That's why the debating of semantics even gets to the point it does, because the alternative is so incredibly difficult that sometimes it seems easier or more realistic to try to find ways of interpreting the words differently to reach a different conclusion than there is of repealing it.
It's not just a decree though. It's absurdly difficult–many would say impossible–to amend the Constitution anymore. The last time it happened was because somebody realized the amendment had been waiting around for ratification for 200 years, and it was a no-brainer.
The time before that was 50 years ago when we lowered the age of suffrage to 18, ostensibly because drafting people who can't vote on whether or not we go to war was somehow thought "un-American" or something.
I'm not a gun owner but it always seemed like the obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to allow violent insurrection, because the founders had just had been through one. Which... makes sense but is also antithetical to the government provising general public safety.
It was also borne out a period before things like organized labor which you could argue is a far stronger lever to push for government change. Or Fox news for that matter. Or just spending millions. At least, we've seen those things have far more influence than violence has in the past 200 years.
Less violent insurrection and more preventing violent insurrection.
The amendments are to be read in the context of the actual Constitution, as changes to what's already there. Article II outlines, in broad strokes, what is considered a militia and that the federal government has the sole authority to "direct and discipline" it. And that it exists primarily to quell insurrection or repel invaders.
I can see how a person might think that, especially with the way some people talk about the second amendment in the news. However, that stance makes no sense in the cultural context of when the Constitution was written. In between the revolution and the Constitution, the United States has the Continental Congress. The Continental Congress had a much weaker roll than the Federal government does under the Constitution. For example, they had trouble getting states to actually pay taxes to the Continental Congress. The Constitution was meant to strengthen the position of the Federal government. They did not have enough support to get the first draft signed, so they created the bill of rights to address the concerns of states who refused to sign the first draft. For example, some minority religious groups feared that a stronger federal government would be a threat to their religious practices, and the first amendment was meant to allay those fears.
In this context the second amendment makes much more sense. States feared that with a stronger federal government they would no longer be able to keep their own state militias. The second amendment was meant to allay that fear, essentially codifying the right to maintain a national guard separate from the military. That's the way the law was interpreted until 2008, too.
Until the 14th amendment passed, the bill of rights was judged to be a limit on what the federal government could do. It was meant to strengthen the positions of states relative to the federal government. This notion that the second amendment was intended to promote armed rebellion by individuals is, when considering the historical context of the bill of rights, bonkers.
To be fair, it was a pretty grievous oversight. They regarded the 2nd Amendment as a dead letter and didn't foresee it being interpreted this way when they passed the 14th.
It's darkly ironic that the very framework that enshrined equal protection under the law and made the United States an actual democracy for the first time also included the seeds of the destruction of that same goal.
I dunno about an oversight, many of the Union regiments during the Civil War were organized by the states themselves, and the militia system hadn’t yet been formalized into the National Guard (that would happen in 1903).
Let's first agree, the second amendment is grammatically nonsensical
Most of the language in the constitution and early amendments is. I mentioned this in a top level response as well, but it is of utmost importance that we remember the best tool for clarifying bad or hard to understand language: Amend!
New amendments supercede the old documents, and we've forgotten or been convinced we shouldn't use this tool. It's the only way to prevent random SC justices from enacting their personal beliefs on the country as a whole.
I don't think that's the case, it's more that there hasn't been a sufficiently large supermajority behind anything to pass a constitutional amendment.
However, we've had about 2/3 of americans behind a lot of major things..
increased gun control, roe v wade, legal weed, gov healthcare option.....
This has been the case for a while, and yet they don't get passed. This is thanks to Gerrymandering, Voter suppression, Electoral college, and Citizens united.
A supermajority in Congress. The amendment process doesn’t provide for national referenda. And the last time Democrats had a supermajority in Congress, it was:
yeah thats what i started with "however" to make the point the system doesn't work... the super majority of citizens have wanted things for years
and the representatives are not doing it... so the system is broken. Regardless if its because we are not being represented properly, or they are not doing their job, etc
Well, technically Congress can be entirely bypassed in creating new amendments, but to your point it's still not "the people" that would do so, it's the legislatures of the states. And even then, it still requires 3/4s of them to ratify anything.
It's also thanks to the voting system too. First Past the Post is garbage and disenfranchises people by limiting their voting options. STAR voting or just about anything else is better.
Personally, i feel that if a tradition is causing problems, it should be examined and then either changed or gotten rid of. I think the idea of running a society based on outdated traditions to be ridiculous. The US is to the point of arguing over context of words written 250 years ago.
Some people (by flawed reasoning or conservative personality/temperament) think that society reached its apex at some point in the past and want to regress to that, rather than striving to make things better than they have ever been. They have no imagination for hope, only for fear. From the onset they give away any concern for how things can be improved, instead only wanting to make things as they used to be.
How they fantasize things used to be. I think they would be disappointed by the poverty, inequity, lack of ability to afford firearms and...the rural land they live on being owned by a very wealthy landlord (the class the founders represented), as well as an inability to vote without being a part of that landlord class.
Or, fast forwarding to the 1800s, they'd be shocked to find that they would be required to check their guns upon entering most towns. Or that gunslingers were mostly a trope concocted by Hollywood mimicking samurai films. Or that they'd probably die of some random infection while living in abject poverty, either as a rural farmhand or worker in a factory or foundry in the days before those socialists passed modern labor laws.
The past always seems nice if you assume you'd be among the wealthiest and most powerful of the time, which was usually a much smaller group than the wealthy and powerful group that they're almost certainly not a member of in the present.
I agree. It is every United States citizen's right to keep the arms of the bear. But the government will bring the hammer of justice should you try to keep its legs.