87
Gavin Newsom wants to change the US constitution to stop gun violence – will he succeed?
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
87 points (93.1% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3248 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No. Dems for some reason can’t figure out that they will never win against the 2nd amendment. A dem that supports the 2nd would be able to easily win in any purple district.
Honestly if they don’t understand their potential constituents they deserve to lose.
I've always held this belief as well, if dems dropped the gun control issue, they'd basically wipe out the republican party.
It’s like he watched Beto O’Rourke commit political suicide over guns and thought “I bet I can do that on a national scale.”
I think we should have a well-regulated militia. But I don’t think that every school child should be able to wield an AR-15. I guess that makes me anti-2nd?
Yes, because you call out the ar15. Most pro-2nd people see that gun as being the same as any other rifle and find the regulations around it to be ineffective.
Well, those people are fucking stupid, and I don't intend to adjust my worldview to accommodate their stupidity. Same as the majority of Americans who believe in a magical man in the sky: The majority of people believing an obvious lie will never make the lie true, or the vile things they justify with that lie truly just.
If the AR-15 is the same as every other gun, someone needs to explain the reason why it is overwhelmingly the weapon of choice for mass shooters if they want that argument to be taken seriously.
It’s cheap and plentiful and shoots cheap ammo. That’s it. It’s the Honda civic of guns.
And insanely reliable, like a Honda Civic.
You've bought the hype. Only something like 4% of guns deaths are from long guns, of which the AR-15 is a subset. The Virginia Tech shooter got most of his kills with a .22 handgun. Shouldn't you be railing against pistols?
Also, the AR-15 has been around for civilian purchase since 1964. Isn't it odd how quickly, and how suddenly, it became popular? Maybe because the Democrats banned it? And if there's anything people want, it's what they can't have. Remember Columbine? Funny how mass shooters suddenly discovered the weapon at that time. And that leads us to...
AR-15s make headlines. Remember that nut in Maine last year or so? Isn't it odd that none of the headlines mentioned the sort of gun used? I mean, if it had been an AR-15, that fact would have been splattered everywhere, because it always is. Took me a minute to find it when the story came out, but it was an AR-10. Huh. Guess that doesn't get people's juices flowing.
I'm sure you're aware that most media in the US is owned by a couple of corporations and billionaires. Could it be that the oligarchs want us disarmed? Too much tinfoil on my hat?
I’m sure the use of AR-15s in shootings has nothing to do with its magazine capacity, firing rate, and deadliness at relatively short out to intermediate range. Not a lot of kids in elementary schools getting killed by people wielding muzzle loaders.
Poor argument. Rate, capacity, range are not unique to the ar15. Muzzle loaders aren’t common.
Okay, then. I guess I’ll ignore the muzzle loaders my dad and all his friends used to hunt with until the AR-15 became such a symbol of the “cold dead hands” crowd that they all went ahead and got one. And then a few more.
I think the AR-15 should be banned because I think any semiautomatic rifle and pistol with a magazine capacity of more than a few rounds should be banned. That’s enough for the “guns are easier than getting medicated for anxiety” crowd to feel like they can engage in deadly personal defense without making it easy for someone to walk into a school or church or business and just unload.
What? Are you saying you dad and all his friends used to use muzzle loaders before the ar-15? We've had bolt action at least since WW1 and semi-automatics have been common since WW2. There is no way you dad and his friends had muzzle loaders and only changed to AR-15 because of the popular crowd.
Or are you trying to say bolt action, but don't know firearms? Because most of the old hunting rifles were old military surplus rifles largely made popular by familiarity of those who used similar in military service and the high availability of rifle rounds in common calibers.
Things like the Civilian Marksmanship Program that got old M1 Garands into civilian hands and the ubiquitous amount of 30-06 ammo that was easily accessible to hunters all over the country lead the previous era of gun owners. The current era of vets are familiar with the m4a1, but thats not available to civilians. But the ar-15 is similar so veterans tend to pick up the ar-15.
The ar-15 is also highly module. It can be rechambered in almost any caliber, has many attachments for accessories, can have the barrel, muzzle, and stock changed making it a favorite of anyone that finds a hobby in firearms. If you picked up a complete ar-15, you can change essentially everything but the lower receiver and have it be the "same" gun.
That's why it's popular and why so many people have one. Since it's so popular and so common, it gets used in shootings. Not because of the traits you listed, but because the most dangerous gun is the one the criminal already has.
Yes. Muzzle loaders. Shoot once, then spend a few minutes loading a powder charge and a bullet down the barrel. They weren’t flintlock muskets like it was the 1700s, they were modern rifles. Just loaded through the muzzles. It gives the deer a fighting chance. You have to hit on the first shot. Did you know that people also hunt with a bow and arrow? Those have been around since the Neolithic. Sometimes not using the most advanced tech is the point.
It’s funny that you typed all that stuff trying to explain firearms to someone who you assume knows nothing about them. I’ve shot everything from pellet guns to the aforementioned muzzle loader to a .30-06 to, yes, an AR-15. I can pick up most guns and check to see if the chamber’s clear. I can disassemble and clean and put them back together.
I want these things to go away. Not just AR-15’s. Anything semiautomatic with a magazine that can hold more than, let’s say, six rounds. Anything beyond a revolver is over the top for personal protection, and if you think that’s not true you’re a lunatic or just want to cosplay army guy. Duh, AR-15’s are the most commonly used firearm in shootings because there’s a lot of them. How about we make there be less of them and other guns that can kill so many people so quickly?
The laws as they are now prevent just about every school child from buying a rifle of any kind. The cops simply hate enforcing gun laws against people they feel are just like them. How many shootings now have you read something like 'The alleged shooter was known to police' or someone had already complained or asked for wellness checks?
I mean depending on who the wellness check is for, the answer may be “they are not well, because they were shot by a cop for no reason, and whoops that was their neighbor, and also the cop shot the neighbor’s dog too”
Correct, and im no fan of the cops in general but my point mainly focuses on how so many perpetrators of these kinds of crime tend to make themselves known ahead of time so it really looks like we had enough information, and in a lot of cases we even have the law's jurisdiction too, but still failed to take the action required. If the laws that are already there arent being enforced I struggle to think we can just keep adding laws assuming those will be enforced.
Enforcement at fewer points (manufacturers, distributors) is much easier than at each individual person with a gun being evaluated.
If endorsing the heaps of dead children that the current interpretation of the 2A produces annually is how we "win", are we really winning?
You’re losing if you can’t get your rep elected.