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

  • oxjox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Personally, I find the “gun debate” very interesting. On one hand, you have common sense. On the other hand, the constitution.

    Being that in 2006, four Democratically appointed justices acknowledged the second amendment is in regard to state militias and five Republican appointed justices essentially affirmed state militias aren’t even mentioned in the second amendment (barely an exaggeration), the right to protect yourself with a firearm is going trump someone else’s right to not be afraid of being shot by a known aggressor.

    As it is, on paper, I side with someone’s right to protect themselves, even a domestic abuser. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think everything but six shooters and hunting rifles should be banned and melted down.

    Which brings us to the topics of mental health, human decency, the oppression of the poor, police brutality, underfunded school systems, the breakdown of supportive family structures, lack of constructive outlets, religious zealots, inflation, gender roles, fear of irrelevance, exportation and robotization of jobs, etc, etc, etc. As has been in the headlines, do people really have free choice when “the system” steers them down a path?

    It’s a quandary.