401–410 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a non-American this statement is hilarious.
I don't see anything funny about it. What am I missing?
Are you truly telling us to care about it every time it happens when the Americans themselves clearly don’t?
I honestly think precedent and copy-cat syndrome are hugely to blame. "Shooting up a school" has just become synonymous with going on a shooting rampage. How do we go back from this? Even if we ban guns, how do we stop the determined from getting their hands on a gun so that they can shot up a school? It think it's incredibly tragic that we have gotten to the point where killing multiple primsry school aged children…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if cars were legislated like guns? Mufflers would be illegal. If you are driving between states, you need to check to see if your driver's license is accepted by each state you go through -- and some counties. Adjustable car seats are illegal. Automatic transmissions are illegal. Building your own car would be illegal. If your truck is too short, it's a felony. Unless you call your truck a car, and never put any…
But you need multiple steps including the driver’s test to get a driver’s license, then you can drive. In this recent shooting, it’s obvious the shooter got his guns way too easily. I am pro-gun but I think you should be required to have a gun license first before you can buy a gun. And a mental health test and safety test should be passed to get the license.
Canada is the U.S.'s neighbour and is probably closer, culturally, than any other nation. Gun ownership is also high in Canada. In terms of guns per capita, the U.S. is #1 by a long shot, but Canada is #7 [1]. In Canada, guns owned per capita is one third of what it is in the U.S.. Canada also has mass shootings. The annual deaths from mass shootings per capita in Canada is 0.032, which is about one third that of the…
Correlation is not causation. How many times do people need to hear it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay. In practice, how do you plan on achieving this? What steps can we take to “rewrite the constitution” (other than an actual revolution overthrowing the current political system, which… would require guns and even then would probably be impossible)
There are literally very clear steps to amend the Constitution. It’s not like Steve grabs a pitchfork and YOLOs his way to no second amendment. > An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-governm... It’s not as rare as you might be imagining. Th…
Given the structure of the political system in the US, it is impossible for a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress to agree on any even mildly controversial topic. You’ll note that the 1992 amendment was about a boring and uncontroversial topic. The last one that had anything to do with a cultural hot-button issue was the repeal of alcohol prohibition, in 1933, when the political system operated completely different to how it does now.
So, yes there’s a mechanism. But getting together enough votes to activate that mechanism is impossible in the actually existing reality of the United States. So, now what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think in this context it is used more to refer to something that ‘has functionalities that no civilian would ever need’.
Quoted post unavailable.
Are you on the right site?
What if guns were treated similarly to cars? Mandatory training, License w/ renewals, registration w/ renewals, insurance mandatory, yearly inspection mandatory, etc. Personally I feel people should be able to defend themselves while at the same time deterred from stockpiling and accessing mass casualty capable arms.
An otherwise informative article, but using the term "military-grade" seems out of place. The term has little meaning. You could call socks "military-grade" as well, and the only meaning that it really conveys is that it was cheap and barely functional enough to win a contract. And AR15s are cheap. A lot of plastic and aluminum. You could say that's a problem, if you want. But that line of argument doesn't seem to le…
There is pretty much one single feature that we've decided should be reserved for military use: selective fire, aka automatic weapons. A "military-grade semi-automatic rifle" is a contradiction in terms. I believe all standard issue military rifles are selective fire, and no civilian rifles can be outside of extremely rare and tightly regulated situations.
The AR-15 is a counterpart to the M16. It is specifically not a military gun and the major difference is that it does not have selective fire.
As a foreigner I find this subject very complex since the right to bear arms in on the US constitution. To change or "rewrite" the constitution trying to deal with this subject could dissolve the US. Banning guns altogether (rather improbable) will only leave law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals. More protection in schools could be a starting point to address these awful events. I'm still in favor of law ab…
This really isn't the shape of the policy debate in the US. Nobody is seriously talking about rewriting the constitution or banning guns outright. The fundamental issue is that there's a politically powerful minority that is able to block essentially all meaningful attempts at any kind of gun regulation and they do. That's it and it's not likely to change in the short term.
You're right that nobody is seriously talking about rewriting the constitution; rather, states and other actors are just outright passing laws that blatantly disregard the second amendment. So it's actually worse than that. It'd be better if they were honestly just trying to remove the second amendment from the constitution rather than just de-facto abolish it through ridiculous measures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should it be a right that we are bound to as modern citizens? I didn't sign off on the 2nd amendment, it was signed off on 250 years ago by a small group of pre-modern colonial elites. It originally was considered useful because colonists and local militias needed to be able to defend themselves from the British, and to not lose their means to hunt or protect themselves before police. These days, we have autonomy…
> Why should it be a right that we are bound to as modern citizens? I didn't sign off on the 2nd amendment, it was signed off on 250 years ago by a small group of pre-modern colonial elites. It originally was considered useful because colonists and local militias needed to be able to defend themselves from the British, and to not lose their means to hunt or protect themselves before police. Did you sign up for the 1s…
> "in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done."