Guns rights are pretty obvious, it's even spelled out in the amendment:
"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."
being necessary to the security of a free State - democracies have turned tyrannical in the past, and many will likely start down that path in the future. the only true safeguard against this is an armed citizenry.
(I'm not saying anyone who disarms a country IS a dictator, but a disarmed country is easily exposed to tyranny)
and no, the USA could *NOT* easily wipe out dissidents in its own citizenry. Guerllia warfare worked well enough for the IRA for 30 years against the British SAS, some of the most well trained fighters in the world. in the USA, we have a lot more guns and a lot more people. the fantasy of planes and drones and tanks killing all the resistance denies both modern militaristic capacities as well as the historical record on these sorts of issues.
and just so we won't have other problems here:
1. yes it says "militia" but actual US code says there's an "unorganized" and "organized" militia, the latter being like the national guard, the former simply being the people of the US.
2. yes it says "well-regulated" but in the 18th century "well-regulated" did NOT mean government regulation. that term has been sued in dictionaries around the same time period to apply to clocks, and people's minds. it simply means "in functioning order" (which is why we can ban the mentally ill - a blanket term I'll admit, but if you wish to go into specifics I'm more than happy to oblige)
3. yes the founding fathers could imagine fully automatic weapons... they HAD fully automatic weapons. the Benton flintlock, the Girandoni air rifle
now sure, these are less advanced in reload times and accuracy, but the idea that the founding fathers COULDN'T EVER COMPREHEND a slightly bigger caliber bullet being fired a bit faster and further... it's intellectually dishonest.
and to say people should only be allowed to own muskets it also stupid. back then, the first amendment freedom of press only applied to printing presses, because that's all the founders could imagine, so CNN has no constitutional protections for being on TV, (ironically, the idea of a TV would actually qualify as a pretty big imagination leap for the founders, and this logic applies BETTER here than to the gun debate)
further myths:
- the NRA hasn't "bought" politicians. Rubio got something like 11,000 dollars in a campaign funded by tens of millions of dollars... it's not like the funding gets pulled and then suddenly Republicans IMMEDIATELY jump ship. that's ludicrous. if republicans said Clinton was only pro-choice because of advocacy groups paying her, I think many on the left would *rightfully* be pissed.
- the kids in this particular shooting went through and awful tragedy. the people calling them crisis actors are morons whom we should all despise. these kids are not coherent policy experts.
all three of those things are true. one of the questions is why Kyle Kashuv, a pro-2nd amendment kid who was one of the survivors is getting much less air time on this.
https://twitter.com/KyleKashuv
interestingly enough, Kyle has also been much less inflammatory, as he hasn't called Dana Loesch a bad mother for supporting the 2nd amendment, and hasn't likened Rubio to a child murderer (as two others of the survivors have). furthermore, he wasn't one of the people in the town hall who BOOED when Dana recounted a story of a rape survivor who wish she were armed (I thought pistols were common ground, but no... a rape victim having a pistol is too... right wing???)
- no I am not a member of the NRA, and I actually Dana Loesch is kind of obnoxious. saying he media "liked" these shootings... damnit woman that's low. and her comments to the NYT saying "We're coming for you" DAMNIT you can't accuse other people of being classless when you pull this shit. that said, let's not forget the NRA, after the Mandala Bay shooting came out against bump stocks and trigger cranks. they're not 100% drinking the Kool-Aid, they actually proposed restrictive legislation. why can't we accept the few moments of bipartisanship we can?
- yes strict gun bans would lower gun deaths, but they would not entirely stop all gun deaths, or mass shootings. Australia's gun ban was too recent, and mass shootings too few beforehand, to have a statistically significant observable effects. Furthermore, countries where this is more successful like Britain and Australia have MUCH better control of their borders.
Paris France has amazing gun control, but in November of 2015 130+ were killed and 400+ injured by three men with bombs and rifles. how did this happen? most indicators say the guns were smuggled up through the balkans and Eastern Europe. given that they'd still have to make it past Italy/Germany/Switzerland as the three most likely routes is worrying that that could happen.
For the USA, our southern border is several hundred times more suspect to criminal abuses. If you truly want to stop (never again) mass shootings with gun bans, you need to also secure the border. no other way around it.
- it's also interesting that this legislation doesn't seem to care about the massively higher rate of gun deaths from pistols. although I'll imagine the anti-gun lobby will switch targets once these rifles are banned. after all, banning all pistols will stop thousands more deaths every year than banning all rifles. interesting how it's never framed that way.
- there was a story going around that a kid bought an AR-15 in 5 minutes with an expired ID. this story is false, he didn't even get to the background check, he just got to hold the gun.
- Trump did NOT SAY arm ALL teachers, he said those who were trained and wanted to carry should. he went on to say "I don't know how many that is, 20%? 10% in some cases 40%?"
if anything attack his illiteracy on this issue, but please don't straw man.
- saying armed guards is a bad solution is a bad argument. it works. In Israel, where planned, carefully orchestrated terror threats are the everyday occurrence, they have armed guards at schools and only have had 2 school shootings, each of which were much smaller than the ones here. yes it's a smaller population, but in counties that have tried this, we've seen the changes.
- Police were afraid to go against an AR-15. well, then you can't make the argument that trying to resist government tyranny is impossible because clearly one kid with a rifle could scare these cops. keep that in mind for ideological consistency, but it really depends on training. a traffic cop kills 2 armed gunmen in Garland Texas who were trying to shoot up a draw-muhammad event, they had body armor and rifles, he had a pistol. better training won out.
- yes the 2nd amendment is under attack.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... 933c9c6261
63% supported the statement
"banning the sale and ownership of all semi-automatic and automatic firearms."
not only banning SALE, but banning OWNERSHIP. this would require mandatory gun seizures of ALL SEMI-AUTOMATIC AND AUTOMATIC FIREARMS.
ALL PISTOLS. At least 40% of all rifles, including your grandpa's old 22 that can't even break a plank of wood.
63% support
it also interests me, that they kept "automatic firearms" in this poll, which is interesting since they're ALREADY illegal. it's almost like... they're illiterate when it comes to guns... no it couldn't be THAT.
- even IF you pass these laws, there is still the problem of enacting legislation. try to round up 300 million guns... well, first of all there will only be 49 states left because I can legitimately see Texas leaving.
- for reference... the difference between a Glock and an AR-15 can be summed down to this.
Imagine a Glock with an elongated barrel to increase stability of the bullet. just a longer barrel.
now imagine a modified magazine to hold 30 rounds (magazines are easier to modify than you think, I can combine two AR-15 magazines into a massive one with only a saw (sharpened blade, my dad's a carpenter), knife, lighter, screwdriver, and duct tape.
now imagine it has a shoulder rest, like a cut off end of a crutch.
look at your end results. the ONLY real difference between an AR-15 and the Glock, at this point, is the caliber of bullet it can fire.
The reason why 2nd amendment activists are scared is twofold. either:
1. people don't actually understand what semi-automatic means, and are supporting legislation blindly
or
2. people DO know what semi-automatic means, and are simply anti-2nd amendment.
(if you ARE anti-2nd amendment... there's no shame in that. come out and state your argument. but I do not like hypocrites, who constantly contradict themselves)
- it's also never considered how many lives are SAVED by guns each year. it's a VERY difficult figure to find, if you look up at crime reports where a criminal was injured, shot by a homeowner... it's a smaller number than the murder rate, at (I believe) 283 in 2016.
(PS it's important to remember 60% of all gun deaths are suicides, i'm looking at aggressive behavior against others only though, I'm not banning all these guns from law abiding citizens, simply to stop the effectiveness of suicides attempts, which, frankly, I believe you have the right to end your life as you see fit, as long as it's not a public health hazard)
but how many lives do guns really save? after all, not all incidents are reported, not all incidents involved a firearm being used, but only be threatened to use, some are the verbal threat of a fire arm... etc etc.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/91da/a ... 1c1116.pdf
this is a 1995 study, that estimates between 2.2 million and 2.5 million estimates of gun protection incidents in a year. given this was roughly 3% of the population of gunowners of the course of the year, there is a distinct plausibility to this number.
now let's pretend we don't beleive this study, even though it's a compilation in its later tables of polls from the LA times, Gallup, Time/CNN, and a wide range of left and right wing hosts, to help with its accuracy.
let's say it's 10% of what it say (even though the most left wing studies I can find on this say it's more)
that's still 220,000 to 250,000 potentially life saving encounters defenders used guns for. that WELL outdoes the murder rate, and that was THREE DECADES AGO. what these numbers are today is up to speculation... a declining violent crime rate but an increase in the number of guns are both positive and negative trend effects... but the evidence we do have is still fairly clear. guns can, and do, save lives.
meanwhile, at Parkland, four deputies stood outside a school while kids were being killed and were bleeding out inside.
no, most right winger's don't trust government to be competent, and rightly so.
when it comes down to this shooting, we can SEE the failures.
the police failed, waiting outside the building as kids were being killed/bleeding out inside.
the FBI failed, having a tip from youtube he was going to shoot up the school a MONTH before, but not being able to find his name, despite his name actually being his handle.
there were 23 calls to his house, and the kids reportedly called the police HIMSELF saying he was going through some depression and worried about what he might do. (sheriff Israel should also resign for blaming everyone else at that town hall, thanks for Jake Tapper calling him out)
he had a guardian request his weapons to be seized, but protocols weren't followed and the request was lost.
many of the policies I've heard I support. The Gun-Violence-restraining-order would have prevented this, and is good policy. Clearly mental health screenings need to be more extensive, but the truth of the matter is there were legal grounds for his guns to be seized, but the law failed. raising the age to own a rifle to 21 I'm actually fine with, if that's what Florida wants to do.
but the government had legislation that SHOULD have stopped this. this was a failure of GOVERNANCE, not ideology.
but the immediate jump to attack the NRA, and say ban all guns... it's ludicrous to make even the notion that "nothing else would have prevented this."
punishing tens of millions of Americans for doing nothing wrong, and showing no intent to do nothing wrong, I find to be bad policy. Especially when there are other options on the table.