Kelly Roskam of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions discusses a Supreme Court case that will decide if a federal law prohibiting possession of firearms by people subject to domestic violence protection orders is constitutional

  • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes you do enjoy high levels of ownership in the US. You also enjoy extreme numbers of firearm related homicide and spree killing all in the name of an antiquated and poorly grammarically construed piece of legislation made by paranoid rebels back before the average rifle had rifling much less high capacity magazines.

    There’s this fantasy that has been planted in your head that you need this security blanket of complete unrestricted access to firearms to uphold your democracy… But just like a child’s security blanket it is a fantasy of false security. What would happen if you and a bunch of your buddies decided to turn on your own government and plan an insurrection or resist a sitting government directive? If it comes to resources you would have to create concensus for enacting violence all under the spectre of surveillance and then you would be facing one of the most milliterized nations in the world on their home turf. Your right to carry does less to protect you than the reluctance and image concerns of a governing body that calls itself “free” to fire on it’s own citizens…

    This isn’t the 18th century anymore. What makes a constitutional right is a CURRENT agreement by the standing government body. Dynamic rules that exist to modify it. That document can be amended AND repealed. Saying “It’s a constitutional right!” as though that is immutable isn’t a reason in itself. The option always exists to ditch it as a right.

    • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes you do enjoy high levels of ownership in the US. You also enjoy extreme numbers of firearm related homicide and spree killing all in the name of an antiquated and poorly grammarically construed piece of legislation made by paranoid rebels back before the average rifle had rifling much less high capacity magazines.

      I see we’re going for most level-headed ex-Redditor - hit me up when you’ve got a point instead of a hyperbolic rant.

      The option always exists to ditch it as a right.

      Lol, good luck with that amendment.

      • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Give it long enough and enough people will stop gulping down 2nd Amendment flavoraid and realize how many stable democratic societies exist where the kids have never had to participate in an active shooter drill.

          • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ah yes, good old “we just have to focus on mental health bandaids because it’s miserable people who are the problem, not easy access to weapons to enact their misery on others!”

            Heads up, no matter how much you increase access to therapists miserable people are still going to exist. Society’s focus on psychiatry as a catch all leaves a lot of people in the lurch as therapy providers are already overwhelmed with paitent backlog. You can’t even get the US to agree to fund accessable health care, you think they are gunna find success in the pro-gun politicians somehow funding any kind of public mental health initiative?