TheaterFire

What do you think of CA Governor Newsom's Recently Proposed Gun Amendment?

Posted by Captain_Jmon@reddit | AskAnAmerican | View on Reddit | 453 comments

Link to article: https://apnews.com/article/california-governor-newsom-constitutional-amendment-guns-6895729e1c3ebee7075e28d04c500063

Reply to Post

453 Comments

Elitealice@reddit

I love it. Personally I’d remove the 2A
View on Reddit #3356156

CP1870@reddit

Easier solution: move to one of the 192 countries that have banned guns
View on Reddit #3356666

Elitealice@reddit

I will
View on Reddit #3356727

PeachConnoisseur68@reddit

Safe travels friend
View on Reddit #3585961

Elitealice@reddit

Thanks brother
View on Reddit #3585962

direwolf106@reddit

I think it's a step in the right direction civil debate wise. I support the constitution and the second amendment. The second amendment is an amendment and subject to change under the means provided in the constitution. Him proposing a new amendment basically means he finally recognizes that the majority of gun laws are unconstitutional under the current second amendment. Right now the discussion around the second amendment isn't at all a reasonable one. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Pretending it doesn't actually say that, that it doesn't mean what it means, is automatically dishonest out the gate. It's a much better take to say "it does mean that. Here's why we should change it". Anything else is just dishonest. So it's a step towards honestly to do that.
View on Reddit #3486011

SingleAlmond@reddit

It's refreshing to see a politician try to tackle the gun issue. It won't go anywhere but it's better than not doing anything His approach isn't perfect but he's doing more than most governors
View on Reddit #3336796

therealjerseytom@reddit

> It won't go anywhere **but it's better than not doing anything** Sometimes doing nothing is better than shooting oneself in the foot, which is how I foresee this panning out.
View on Reddit #3337659

SingleAlmond@reddit

So continue to do virtually nothing? Progress is hard, I get it, but we have a serious gun problem in our country If Uvalde followed the same precautions that California schools have to follow, it would have been prevented. The gun death rate in TX is 67% higher per 100,000 than in CA. Gun laws work, ask every other developed country
View on Reddit #3338068

therealjerseytom@reddit

> So continue to do virtually nothing? I never said that. I stated that shooting oneself in the foot, and doing things that will be a step backwards, are indeed worse than doing nothing. Ideally - do something intelligent and meaningful. Newsom's proposal is neither. To be perfectly honest it comes across as political positioning for himself that is guaranteed to do nothing about the actual issue.
View on Reddit #3338399

velvetcitypop@reddit

So what is your proposal of something intelligent and meaningful? Everyone says this, but no one specifies what that is. As long as it continues to be vague and nebulous what the solution is, there will never be a solution.
View on Reddit #3424568

therealjerseytom@reddit

The first thing to do is take a step back and identify the problems (emphasis on plural), then the causes and enabling factors. Only after that can someone reasonably propose solutions. I.e., solutions to address suicide (incidentally, often *double* the homicide rate) will be different than solutions to address gang violence will be different than solutions to address one-off mass shooters.
View on Reddit #3424569

WulfTheSaxon@reddit

Can’t shoot yourself in the foot if you have no guns. *taps head*
View on Reddit #3338340

moose184@reddit

We don't have a gun issue. We have a people and culture issue. Acting as if it's a gun problem will do zero to change anything.
View on Reddit #3412280

velvetcitypop@reddit

Perfectly reasonable comment that got downvoted 11 times? I'm guessing AskAnAmerican sub is politically slanted right?
View on Reddit #3388537

gummibearhawk@reddit

Overall, the sub leans left but many redditors think it's right because it's not as left as the rest of reddit. One exception is guns, where the sub has a libertarian streak.
View on Reddit #3388538

therealjerseytom@reddit

Short answer: Nothing more than a move to get attention. I'm sure he knows it will go absolutely nowhere. That being the case, I find it incredibly selfish and self-centered to somehow be advancing his own political career rather than doing something meaningful. Kind of shameful honestly. To propose *as a Constitutional amendment* what would, if anything, fit better as legislation, is like he's ensuring for himself that this will flop. Two thirds of *both* houses of Congress, or two thirds of all of the states asking for this? Not a chance in hell. Then the contents of the thing come across as not thought through at all. Examples, quoting from the California state government website: > Mandating universal background checks to prevent truly dangerous people from purchasing a gun that could be used in a crime Background checks already exist, going through the national system maintained by the FBI. Can private transfers take place without a NICS check? Yes. Of recent shootings, would this have stopped any of them? I doubt it. You either have street violence with stolen guns, or total negligence with insecure firearms that were purchased legally and passed a background check, or X-Y-Z other scenario. This also does nothing to prevent straw purchases and arms trafficking. I just don't see how this accomplishes anything. > Barring civilian purchase of assault weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time – weapons of war our nation’s founders never foresaw. The latter bit of it is trivial to shoot down. I'm fairly certain this has already been covered in at least one Supreme Court case. Basically if you were to play the "founders never foresaw this" card then you are setting precedent that the 1st amendment can't possibly apply to the internet, radio, etc - beyond the wildest dreams of people in the 1700's. Moreover, playing the bit about "these were designed to shoot as much as possible in the shortest amount of time" - when has that not been the case? You could say the same about revolvers and lever-action guns in the 1800's. So to recap - proposals that either don't make sense or won't accomplish anything, set up to be in an amendment that will never pass. All of which is blatantly obvious. Just so some guy can get some more attention for himself.
View on Reddit #3335591

moose184@reddit

> Mandating universal background checks to prevent truly dangerous people from purchasing a gun that could be used in a crime > > Background checks already exist, going through the national system maintained by the FBI. Can private transfers take place without a NICS check? Yes. Of recent shootings, would this have stopped any of them? I doubt it. Whenever they say they want universal background checks what they really mean is that they want a national gun registry. They just don't want to call it that.
View on Reddit #3412147

FanaticalBuckeye@reddit

To tack on to your last point, the founding fathers absolutely knew there would be innovations in firearms. The arquebus was the first gun in Europe and it's purpose was to punch a hole in knights armor, But to do that you had to be quite literally touching their armor with the barrel of the gun. That evolves into the snaplock which evolved into the flintlock which is approved upon extremely by the introduction of rifling (Kentucky Long Rifle)
View on Reddit #3372303

SmellGestapo@reddit

>I find it incredibly selfish and self-centered to somehow be advancing his own political career rather than doing something meaningful. Kind of shameful honestly. You can disagree with this proposal but I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that this is the *only* thing he's done with his time in office.
View on Reddit #3337824

therealjerseytom@reddit

> I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that this is the only thing he's done with his time in office. I have no such belief, nor have I stated anything to that effect.
View on Reddit #3338505

SmellGestapo@reddit

I quoted you: "I find it incredibly selfish and self-centered to somehow be advancing his own political career rather than doing something meaningful." What did you mean by that?
View on Reddit #3338798

therealjerseytom@reddit

Happy to elaborate. I tend to not be impressed with many politicians, but I find it hard to imagine that Newsom is *so* naive to think that this proposal will (a) accomplish anything of significance if ratified, (b) that it has a chance in hell of being ratified at all. So let's work under the assumption that he isn't totally stupid. What then is the motivation for this proposal? I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that it's purely a move to garner attention for himself and advance his career, possibly for a future Presidential run. I.e., "Okay I'll throw this 28th amendment thing out there... no way in hell this will actually save any lives, but hey it should benefit my career." I really don't like people who take advantage of emotionally charged topics or people dying, for the true motive of advancing their own interests.
View on Reddit #3339339

SmellGestapo@reddit

That's fair, but I guess my response would be that he has used his position as governor to enact legislative gun control measures. It's not like this amendment is the one and only attempt he's ever made at the issue. This proposal isn't what I would put forward if it were up to me. I'd just go straight for the Second Amendment, and either clarify it or repeal it entirely. So I find it hard at this point to hazard a guess as to his motivations. I do believe he wants to run for president at some point, but I don't think this proposal is necessarily a part of that effort.
View on Reddit #3340366

BIG_KMKZ@reddit

I'm curious how would you clarify the second ammendment?
View on Reddit #3356151

SmellGestapo@reddit

I think the big one is to clarify the purpose of bearing arms: is it for self-defense or for actual service in a militia/military? Or both? Then it might help to establish the scope of what constitutes arms: small arms, long guns, automatic, semiautomatic, single shot? Does it only include guns or does it include other types of explosives or even non-combustible arms like bats and swords.
View on Reddit #3356748

BIG_KMKZ@reddit

The text literally says, "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." Which is very clear if you know what they mean. The militia referred to in the text is we the people. We are the militia necessary for the security of of our states and the word arms is equally as clear; the writers knew that technology naturally advances and the weaponry of the time wouldn't be the norm forever they made sure that no matter when this is being discussed it will apply. Which to me means that arms would refer to any weaponry used against enemies foreign or domestic are protected by that right.
View on Reddit #3357702

SmellGestapo@reddit

>Which is very clear if you know what they mean. I'm sure you're aware a lot of people, including legal scholars, do not agree with you. That's why I said I would clarify it. Because it's not clear. >We are the militia necessary for the security of of our states How can we be the militia when there is no conscription? And if the purpose of the amendment is for military purposes, then laws restriction the individual possession of firearms would be fine, but the Supreme Court ruled the opposite in DC vs. Heller.
View on Reddit #3358128

FlamingSpitoon433@reddit

The first conscription in US history was conducted by the confederacy during the civil war. I can assure you that militias in the context of the constitution were volunteer-based. And there doesn’t have to be a dichotomy between militia service and individual usage. Indeed, the expectation for a militia member to maintain their own arms would imply that they must train and become proficient with them. Given that firearms at that time were expensive and usually made by individual craftsmen, most households may only have a single firearm used for hunting and self-defense.
View on Reddit #3370451

BIG_KMKZ@reddit

Ok the definition of militia in reference to the second amendment is "groups of able-bodied men who protected their towns, colonies, and eventually states" it is not about conscription, military, or anything like that is says the right of the people. What else would the militia be other than the people who own the arms this very discussion is about and what did I fail to clarify the second ammendment is referring to all arms be it fully automatic or semiautomatic firearms, revolvers and lever action rifles, swords, knives, or even as you said before baseball bats. The writers clearly state that it is a right of the people to keep and bear arms it makes no difference what those arms may be. It is not a privilege that can be given and taken away but a right that is inalienable and undeniable as citizens of this nation
View on Reddit #3358632

SmellGestapo@reddit

>able-bodied men who protected their towns, colonies, and eventually states But there is no requirement to do that. You're saying the purpose of the amendment is to facilitate the collective defense of the state or country, so then it only applies to people who actually participate in such an activity? So much gun owners aren't actually protected by the amendment because they don't participate in the U.S. military or their state's national guard? >The writers clearly state that it is a right of the people to keep and bear arms it makes no difference what those arms may be. It is not a privilege that can be given and taken away but a right that is inalienable and undeniable as citizens of this nation You asked me how I'd clarify the amendment. All I did was tell you how.
View on Reddit #3359192

TheBigCore@reddit

The fundamental problem is that we as a country are not addressing illegal guns owned by criminals, as well as the mental healthcare crisis. Law-abiding gun owners are not the ones doing mass shootings.
View on Reddit #3370431

scolfin@reddit

>The latter bit of it is trivial to shoot down. I'm fairly certain this has already been covered in at least one Supreme Court case. Basically if you were to play the "founders never foresaw this" card then you are setting precedent that the 1st amendment can't possibly apply to the internet, radio, etc - beyond the wildest dreams of people in the 1700's. That would mean passing an amendment to curtail the 1st, though. Remember that an amendment to The Constitution is exactly what it says: an amendment.
View on Reddit #3339872

moose184@reddit

He's a lying hypocrite and only cares about himself.
View on Reddit #3412069

NudePenguin69@reddit

I think he wants to throw his hat in the presidential race at some point and this is performative political theater. He knows it will go nowhere.
View on Reddit #3334594

Obligatory-Reference@reddit

He's been running for president ever since he was mayor of San Francisco, so this kind of thing doesn't surprise me.
View on Reddit #3339164

LightlyButteredCats@reddit

The best argument against newsom being in charge of anything beyond his posh vineyard/winery is a 5 minute walk in San Francisco. If the junkies don’t convince you, the minefield of human feces they laid out certainly will.
View on Reddit #3347577

Denalin@reddit

Give me a break. Come visit and you will see how wrong you are about SF.
View on Reddit #3351644

LightlyButteredCats@reddit

I’ve been to San Francisco, twice actually, and I saw some pretty heartbreaking shit there. Your city has been firmly in the democrats’ control for decades so there’s no blaming republicans. At least the red states are upfront about not giving a shit about the poor. Democrats also don’t give a shit about the poor but they still dangle the carrot to squeeze votes out of well meaning citizens or those looking for help.
View on Reddit #3352761

Denalin@reddit

Call me when Oklahoma City, a red city in a red state, figured out crime. It’s violent crime rare is something like 3x SF’s.
View on Reddit #3362432

LightlyButteredCats@reddit

Their leadership isn’t fit to run anything beyond newsom’s vineyard either. Not sure what your point is. Other shitholes exist in America, that doesn’t make Gavin any less incompetent or any less of a scumbag. Remember when he fucked his friends wife and blamed it on alcoholism?
View on Reddit #3363305

Denalin@reddit

I mean it *was* alcoholism and he has addressed it openly. Admitting your mistakes and how you’ve grown is something we should admire.
View on Reddit #3363664

LightlyButteredCats@reddit

For the average person, sure. But I don’t want the guy in charge to have that on his record. Relapses are common with alcoholics and are often triggered by an increase in stress. It wouldn’t be ethical or wise to put an addict in that position.
View on Reddit #3364968

Denalin@reddit

He’s done an excellent job since then. The state is well run and manages the budget responsibly. I believe people can change.
View on Reddit #3384908

LightlyButteredCats@reddit

Lol, you’re either stoned to the bone on some weapons grade copium or just mentally deficient. Amusing either way
View on Reddit #3411524

Denalin@reddit

Nah. He’s just a great governor.
View on Reddit #3411895

SmellGestapo@reddit

Republicans: "Liberal cities are overrun with homeless because of all the handouts they give them!" Also Republicans: "Democrats don't give a shit about the poor!"
View on Reddit #3353687

Zeanister@reddit

Na sf is going to shit bro. All those businesses and shit pulling out is only gonna make it worse
View on Reddit #3352651

Denalin@reddit

Literally every neighborhood except for Union Square is booming.
View on Reddit #3362451

Zeanister@reddit

That’s cap
View on Reddit #3364091

Denalin@reddit

No cap brah
View on Reddit #3364471

Fluffy-Promotion1630@reddit

Things are going so well in California you decided to send us your people and businesses out of good will eh? Stop trying to lie about your shit covered mess of a city.
View on Reddit #3352113

Denalin@reddit

My dude, California had more growth per capita than literally any other state in the union last year.
View on Reddit #3362587

ethanbangs@reddit

The dude is from Cali. and I'm from SF too. You're sittin on your ass having someone on the tube feed you shit about how SF is and then you talk shit like u know what u are talking about but u are just vomiting back up all that shit they fed you on this board, and I'm the one coming in having to clean it up. You have no idea what the fuck u are talking about. If u want to keep eating shit from mainstream media then do so at ur own personal risk but don't keep spreading that bullshit all over in public.
View on Reddit #3352834

SmellGestapo@reddit

Newsom hasn't been mayor of San Francisco in 12 years.
View on Reddit #3353607

LightlyButteredCats@reddit

Fair enough, let’s not blame Reagan for anything either. Everyone knows bad policies simply evaporate when a clown leaves office. Your point would be stronger if he didn’t have even more power now than he did before.
View on Reddit #3354043

SmellGestapo@reddit

What policies did Newsom enact as mayor 12+ years ago that created or exacerbated the homelessness situation? As governor Newsom has set a goal to build 3.5 million new housing units across the state and signed various bills toward that end (not enough in my opinion but I give credit where it's due), and he's created a pilot program called CARE Courts to put the most severely psychotic individuals through court-mandated treatment. Reagan actually signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act in the late 60s when he was governor. It was sponsored by the ACLU and put an extremely high threshold on involuntary commitment. Basically a person has to be an immediate threat to themselves or others before you can put them into mental health treatment against their will. There have been attempts to amend that law, but civil rights groups are still very much in support of the status quo (they opposed the CARE Courts), so no bill has yet made it to the governor. Homelessness is an issue in many cities in many states, so it strikes me as empty political rhetoric to try to tag Newsom for San Francisco's homelessness problem, especially because he hasn't been in that office in a dozen years.
View on Reddit #3355253

LightlyButteredCats@reddit

I’m not saying newsom caused homeless in San Francisco (although his predecessors did and he’s following the same playbook). And it’s not empty political rhetoric to recognize his incompetence and being unfit for the presidency, it’s just logic. He failed to clean up his city and kicked the can down the road. Why should we give him *more* power? Now I don’t know where you work but most people don’t get promoted to more demanding roles by failing at what they set out to do. Newsom used his money and connections to circumvent that so he could go on to fail on a grander stage and with higher stakes. And now he’s trying to do it again. A newsom presidency would be a disaster.
View on Reddit #3356102

SmellGestapo@reddit

> He failed to clean up his city and kicked the can down the road. Why should we give him more power? Did you experience San Francisco when Newsom was actually mayor? The city has gotten worse since he left, but that's true of most big cities in America. We have a new kind of meth coming into the country from Mexico, we have a dismantled mental health care system in this country, and 25 years of explosive job and population growth in America's superstar cities (including SF) for which housing permits haven't kept up.
View on Reddit #3356980

LightlyButteredCats@reddit

Yeah, I agree, things are getting worse all over the country. The meth and fentanyl problem is absolutely horrendous and our leadership letting it continue is a willful atrocity. If *only* we had a liberal in power in Sacramento to push for legalization of drugs, allowing US companies to produce and distribute cheap, pure, consistently dosed drugs under supervision of the FDA, which in turn would starve the cartels and street level dealers alike. Man that would be an improvement. All kidding aside, it’s really a shame that newsom’s siding with the republicans on prohibition and choosing to keep losing the war on drugs. What things has he actually done to convince you that he’s the guy to turn all the other shit around? Besides getting stonewalled on an inadequate housing plan that was really only intended to put a smiley face bandaid on a homeless problem he contributed to?
View on Reddit #3358673

SmellGestapo@reddit

> The meth and fentanyl problem is absolutely horrendous and our leadership letting it continue is a willful atrocity. If only we had a liberal in power in Sacramento to push for legalization of drugs, Aren't these contradictory ideas? How would legalization solve the fentanyl and meth problem? Making them even more widely available than they are right now seems counter productive. >which in turn would starve the cartels and street level dealers alike The problem isn't the cartels (though they are a separate problem) the problem is the fact that homelessness is being made worse due in part to how many people are completely whacked out on these new, harder drugs. Legalizing those drugs isn't going to solve anything. >What things has he actually done to convince you that he’s the guy to turn all the other shit around? I'm not saying he is. I'm just refuting the idea that Newsom is somehow responsible for San Francisco's condition in 2023, when he left the mayor's office in 2011 and when most folks would say San Francisco is worse today than when he was the mayor.
View on Reddit #3359434

Admirable_Ad1947@reddit

That are bussed out from red states/towns.
View on Reddit #3358446

LightlyButteredCats@reddit

The least he could do would’ve been to send em back, but he chose to just let his residents deal with the degradation of their city so he wouldn’t look icky in front of the other liberals.
View on Reddit #3358767

Admirable_Ad1947@reddit

That are bussed out from red states/towns.
View on Reddit #3358451

factorum@reddit

I was just in SF and literally saw nothing you described and I walked from the Bart.
View on Reddit #3354269

LightlyButteredCats@reddit

There is literally a real-time poop map of the city. You must have been using it expertly if you managed to find a shitless path to anywhere.
View on Reddit #3355448

Omega59er@reddit

I was also in SanFran last week and can say that at least 1/3 of the city doesn't have that problem. We stayed in the north side and it was really nice. Chinatown was great, even after dark. You just gotta avoid the Tenderloin and SoMa areas. My wife and I had to dodge gunfire and saw some dudes gets laid out in the street because we went a little too south on Market.
View on Reddit #3358216

olivegardengambler@reddit

idk about that. Like I doubt Newsom was the only reason San Francisco has declined.
View on Reddit #3354642

LightlyButteredCats@reddit

He’s one of many whose policies have failed there. Not only does he not have the competence to fix the problems, he couldn’t even prevent them from getting worse. I could call out London Breed for the same shit, but she’s not posturing for a presidential run so she’s nowhere near as horrifying.
View on Reddit #3355576

schlockabsorber@reddit

You're right, but maybe not for the reasons you think.
View on Reddit #3355410

SanchosaurusRex@reddit

Don’t overestimate the critical thinking skills of the average voter. Stomp your feet loud enough and talk about the other side, you’ll get the vote.
View on Reddit #3349210

LilyFakhrani@reddit

So he’s Tommy Carcetti?
View on Reddit #3345021

SanchosaurusRex@reddit

That was Eric Garcetti lol
View on Reddit #3349236

CP1870@reddit

Bad way to do it. Beto going after guns is the main reason he has lost all three of his elections
View on Reddit #3338523

Burden-of-Society@reddit

Yeah, telling the truth sucks.
View on Reddit #3351354

4514N_DUD3@reddit

Except he wasn't; like other generic politicians, he's a two face liar that will say anything to get elected. He keeps bouncing back between "No one's gonna take you guns" to "Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47". Like which is it?
View on Reddit #3358492

Burden-of-Society@reddit

Well as long as you have A-gun the requirements of 2a are fulfilled. So he wasn’t lying.
View on Reddit #3358646

Admirable_Ad1947@reddit

Yeah but that was in Texas which is hyper pro gun. Nationwide most people actually support gun control.
View on Reddit #3346717

alkatori@reddit

Eh, Texas claims to be hyper pro-gun, but there are many states that relaxed gun laws long before Texas did.
View on Reddit #3349868

Saltpork545@reddit

This. Perception isn't reality. Texas tends to be pretty middle of the pack on actual gun rights. The only thing Texas has that's unique is being able to use lethal force in property theft crime at night. That's it. In other words if someone tries to steal your car(that you're not in or driving) you can legally shoot them. In most states you cannot, including states with better gun rights than Texas. It was legit a decade behind the 8 ball on constitutional carry.
View on Reddit #3353198

alkatori@reddit

Yeah, I remember being in Texas for travel and the waitress saying we boys from New England better be careful since all the Texan's carry pistols. At the time NH was already a constitutional carry state, and gun ownership is very common (if not talked much about).
View on Reddit #3355585

johnhtman@reddit

For a long time California had looser gun laws than Texas.
View on Reddit #3353632

05110909@reddit

Although I'm glad he said the quiet part out loud. So whenever anyone says "No one is trying to take your guns" I can point to Beto specifically bragging about how he wants to take guns from people.
View on Reddit #3349598

Mav12222@reddit

Didn't he make the gun comment after the 2018 Senate race?
View on Reddit #3339360

AngriestManinWestTX@reddit

The one he’s famous for came after his senate race. During his senate race he was just a garden variety AWB supporting democrat instead of one supporting confiscation.
View on Reddit #3349277

azuth89@reddit

He did, yeah. Right after the El Paso shooting.
View on Reddit #3339600

HereComesTheVroom@reddit

South Texas is also vastly different from the rest of the country when it comes to that
View on Reddit #3340817

jck30@reddit

I think also part of Beto’s problem was he said all of that while running for office in Texas, the state with literally more guns than people. After that, his political career in Texas was basically over.
View on Reddit #3339511

trevordbs@reddit

Left Ronny D
View on Reddit #3355644

ev_forklift@reddit

Gavin Newsom, the insufferable bastard, can blow a stadium full of dudes. I don't think he realizes that the country is closer to a *reiteration* of the 2nd Amendment than its abolition. 26 of 50 states have Constitutional Carry laws
View on Reddit #3411293

OnlyStandard@reddit

As others have said, it's political virtue signaling. He knows it's not going to pass. There may be some merit to background checks/raising the minimum age to 21, but assault weapon bans are stupid. In a way though, it's great, because he is shooting his eventual presidential campaign in the foot before it even begins.
View on Reddit #3336330

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

Why is it stupid to ban the rifles?
View on Reddit #3346413

OnlyStandard@reddit

Because it's not going to stop the shootings. AR and AK pattern rifles (typically so-called assault weapons) don't CAUSE shootings, so even if we could make them all disappear overnight - which we can't even get close - the next shooting would be committed by a lever- or bolt-action rifle or pump action shotgun or semiautomatic handgun. It might have a lower body count, it might not, but I think it's guaranteed that shootings will still continue. All the other stuff commonly said about AR and AK pattern rifles - can't be used for hunting or self defense because they are too powerful, or that their only use is to kill as many targets as possible - are false at best, a flat out lie at worst. For example, I have a lever action rifle chambered in .357 Magnum. 131 year old weapon design, almost a 100 cartridge. The amount of muzzle energy per round from that rifle is equivalent or nearly so, to that of an AR. I wish it was as easy as banning and turning in those rifles, but I just don't see how that could be possible.
View on Reddit #3347204

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

I didn't say anything about shootings?
View on Reddit #3347461

OnlyStandard@reddit

The reason they say they want to ban the rifles is because of the high-profile shootings.
View on Reddit #3347755

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

Nothing can be done about that. People are awful regardless.
View on Reddit #3348558

pieonthedonkey@reddit

This is absolutely false. There's mountains of evidence to the contrary. Mass shootings do not need to be an unfortunate fact of everyday life. 1 shooting/day is much worse than 1/week, just because something doesn't work in an absolute vacuum doesn't mean it's not worthwhile and successful.
View on Reddit #3350284

johnhtman@reddit

Mass shootings have killed about twice as many people a year on average as lightning over the last 20 years.
View on Reddit #3353895

pieonthedonkey@reddit

Maybe worldwide or something but here in America less than 30 people die from lightening per year on average. Last year there were 647 mass shootings (defined as a shooting involving 4 or more deaths). So not even close to double in 2022. That doesn't even consider the suicides that may have been prevented if the attempters were forced to use less lethal methods. Or that we can't legislate mother nature. Or that the relative likelihood of death via lightening strike is of absolutely no consolation to those grieving. Just a verifiably false non-sequitur.
View on Reddit #3370114

johnhtman@reddit

That's actually 4 or more people shot, regardless of context, not just deaths. Most of those are either gang violence, or domestic homicides, not Sandy Hook/Pulse Nightclub style attacks. Its the equivalent of if Fox News started tracking "Islamic terrorism" and included any murder committed by a Muslim. I'm talking about Sandy Hook style shootings, where a lunatic starts indiscriminately shooting up innocents in a crowded area. [The FBI has been tracking those events since 2000.](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-20-year-review-2000-2019-060121.pdf/view) In the 20 years from 2000 to 2019, the FBI recorded 1,062 people killed in 333 individual shootings. That is an average of 53.1 people killed a year, in 16.65 individual shootings. Meanwhile an average of [28 people a year die from being struck by lightning.](https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/lightning/victimdata/infographic.html)
View on Reddit #3396557

pieonthedonkey@reddit

Oh ok so domestic homicides, suicide by firearm, and gang shootings aren't problems at all linked to gun violence, and gang members don't qualify as people so their deaths are meaningless. Thanks for clearing that up.
View on Reddit #3403988

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

I agree with you. I've never owned a gun and never will. But people are people, unfortunately. I'm not trying to make anyone mad. But some things are out of reach and control. Sorry.
View on Reddit #3350509

OnlyStandard@reddit

Sadly, that's true.
View on Reddit #3350177

angrysquirrel777@reddit

Because rifles are of almost no harm to America but are owned and used by tens of millions of people
View on Reddit #3346750

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

But why would anyone need one in California? Doesn't seem like much of a hunting state.
View on Reddit #3346941

TheSilmarils@reddit

Your right to arms isn’t just for hunting
View on Reddit #3353142

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

What year was that decided, and what was the current technology at the time?
View on Reddit #3355777

TheSilmarils@reddit

At least in the American concept of rights, it has always been. For instance, in the Declaration, Jefferson mentions that in order to secure rights, governments are instituted among men and the root of the revolution in general was what the Founders saw as the violation of their natural rights as Englishmen. As for the technology at the time of that rights codification(which is not a limit on rights, btw), it was mainly muzzle losing muskets with some repeating arms around. However, the Constitution is a living document. Our rights are not tied to a time or place. Much like our rights outlined in the 4th amendment aren’t tied just to written correspondence that was the limit of technology at the time, nor is our right to arms. Rights advance along with the rest of society. They don’t go away.
View on Reddit #3356000

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

Ok, so you agree with the fact that a flint lock is the same as a current semi-automatic rifle? No difference, none at all. The founding fathers knew in foresight that our current arms would be equal to the arms of the day when they signed it?
View on Reddit #3358058

blackhawk905@reddit

You could go out and purchase the same arms that the army could buy at the time and there were already early repeating and multi shot firearms/cannons out there so yes, the muzzleloaders you could buy then we're that times equivalent of being able to go and buy whatever the current military service rifle is so an M4, which you cannot buy as a civilian, or the XM7, which again you cannot buy as a civilian. You could go buy a Pickle Gun then but you can't go buy a Bushmaster M242 as a civilian. I can go buy a M16 like we used 50 years ago in Vietnam if I want to spend tens of thousands and spend a year or more waiting on paperwork.
View on Reddit #3395881

TheSilmarils@reddit

Obviously not. As I clearly stated, the Constitution is a living document. The rights codified in it advance with society. Your rights don’t go away in the future. In 1791, flintlocks were the height of technology available to average citizens. In 1860 it was a lever action and percussion revolver. In 1920 it was a 1911 and a Springfield 1903. In 2023 it rifles like the AR-15 and Glocks. And that right will again advance in the future like the rest.
View on Reddit #3358163

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

So, when dark energy is available, all civilisations should have access to it, right?
View on Reddit #3358432

TheSilmarils@reddit

Not even sure what dark energy is but if you’re referring to like energy weapons in general(probdbly the next step in small arms evolution), yes, you have a right to them as well.
View on Reddit #3358508

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

Ok, so anything available is approved for anyone's use. Should work out well 👍
View on Reddit #3358752

TheSilmarils@reddit

Oh don’t be pedantic. No right is unlimited. However, when people like you hear that, you take it as an invitation to essentially restrict a right out of existence. Can the access and use of firearms be regulated? Absolutely, and they already are. There is a plethora of laws at the local, state, and federal level. However, the default is still the ability to own and use firearms and the govt must have a compelling reason and due process to take them away and the restrictions on type, access, and use cannot be so restrictive that the right is impossible to use or toothless in its practicality.
View on Reddit #3358848

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

I'm not against you, brother. I'm with you, but let's be logical. Technology will destroy us all. Let's begin to think about it now. Forget the fears of yesteryear. Firearms are the beginning of a devide. Guns are prehistoric at some point. They'll end us.
View on Reddit #3359013

TheSilmarils@reddit

Getting real big Brotherhood of Steel vibes here.
View on Reddit #3359047

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

I'm not familiar. Please fill me in?
View on Reddit #3359216

TheSilmarils@reddit

In the Fallout universe the Brotherhood of Steel are an organization that blames technology, especially weapons technology, for the conflict that created the setting for the Fallout games and seeks to remove it from the populace and monopolize it in their benevolent hands to prevent more conflict in the future.
View on Reddit #3359261

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

Have you ever seen the film, Threads?
View on Reddit #3359389

TheSilmarils@reddit

Can’t say I have
View on Reddit #3359408

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

I suggest it heavily. Please do
View on Reddit #3359528

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

So, when dark energy is available, all civilisations should have access to it, right?
View on Reddit #3358447

MrAnachronist@reddit

What does hunting have to do with the ownership of rifles?
View on Reddit #3350269

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

I assume that's why a person would need a rifle?
View on Reddit #3350397

MrAnachronist@reddit

There are many reasons to own a rifle, hunting being one of them. However, gun owners do not have to justify their “need” for firearms any more than a person would be required to justify their “need” to vote or speak freely. Why would anyone need a rifle in California? There is no better weapon for self-defense in the home, and given some of the wild videos I’ve seen of armed home invasions in California, I’d want the best defensive tool I could afford.
View on Reddit #3350949

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

I'd prefer a shotgun in that situation.
View on Reddit #3351473

MrAnachronist@reddit

Are you making a Biden joke or are you serious? A shotgun indoors is never the answer. It’s too long, capacity too limited, the recoil is excessive, its too loud. Also, it’s really hard to mount a light on a shotgun, so what you are really proposing is shooting blindly into the dark. Not only is that stupid and illegal, but it breaks one of 4 rules, know your target and what’s behind it.
View on Reddit #3358237

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

Fair enough. But a 400 yard range weapon is better for close combat?
View on Reddit #3358715

blackhawk905@reddit

A 16" AR in .223 is much more effective than a 20 gauge shotgun with bird shot and a much better choice.
View on Reddit #3395702

MrAnachronist@reddit

Well, “Rifle” is a category that encompasses everything from elephant guns to AR-15s. For home defense, I would select a compact, magazine fed semi-auto rifle in an intermediate caliber. Obviously I wouldn’t rock a Remington 24” 700 for home defense, that would just be silly.
View on Reddit #3358958

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

20 gauge will suit just fine in a persons face 👍
View on Reddit #3359061

LightlyButteredCats@reddit

What? It’s a massive state with vast forests, mountains, deserts, chaparral, lakes, rivers, etc. Do you not think there are deer there? And for those who live in the cities and live a more urban lifestyle, they need a way to defend themselves against home invaders and muggers.
View on Reddit #3347437

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

I'd rather defend myself in close quarters with a home invader with a shotgun. But I guess that's just me. There's no need to get defensive. Just a simple question, that's all.
View on Reddit #3347688

LightlyButteredCats@reddit

I realize that the shotgun is the Biden approved weapon for home defense, but there are a number of reasons why it’s a poor choice for the average person. In fact that’s why the government feels comfortable with you having one. A weapon that is less effective against lowlife home invaders is also less effective against military, police, and FBI spooks should they decide to use force against you. Shotguns have a lot of recoil, even for a large man. A small woman is liable to be knocked over or disarmed completely by the recoil. They don’t hold that many rounds as compared to a rifle, and reloading is much slower. Most shotguns available are pump action, with a pretty stiff spring. That means you better hit your assailant the first time despite being half asleep or otherwise handicapped (don’t have time to find your glasses). If you do need to fire a follow up shot, you have to fully pump the weapon (difficult without regular practice) and retrain your sights. All of this is very bad when you’ve just shot at someone and now they’re even more motivated to kill you. Gun control advocates often talk about FMJ rounds over penetrating and hitting bystanders through apartment walls, car doors, or even the person you intended to neutralize. This is less of a problem with shotguns assuming you’re not loading slugs, but that also makes them less effective against body armor. If the US government ever wants to use force against its own citizens, its agents will be armored. Another reason why they would much rather you keep an unwieldy boomstick instead of a lightweight, fast firing, accurate, 30 round capacity AR15 with armor piercing ammo. So I wish you luck with your 12 gauge but I’m not taking any chances when it comes to my family and myself.
View on Reddit #3348831

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

Man, you guys sure are caught up on the government and current events. I'm just trying to be honest. Some bird shot in a doorway at 3 am is affective. Let's not act like it's not. It's easy to miss a target with a single projectile. I've seen many a shot missed on ranges. Now put yourself in a scared, high pressure situation.
View on Reddit #3349162

blackhawk905@reddit

Bird shot isn't guaranteed to stop a threat and at the ranges of shooting someone inside your house it isn't going to have a large pattern anyways.
View on Reddit #3395636

LightlyButteredCats@reddit

I’d rather have 30 tries to hit the guy but it’s your life and you have the right to gamble with it.
View on Reddit #3349481

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

Fair enough. I've seen guys waste 30 rounds trying to hit one target. But I understand what you're saying. Take it easy buddy.
View on Reddit #3349948

RutCry@reddit

Who are you to decide what other people “need”?
View on Reddit #3348262

angrysquirrel777@reddit

That's just wrong
View on Reddit #3347143

EpicAura99@reddit

It has a degree of my support *in theory*, but the fact of the matter is that assault weapons have been banned since the 80s. They need to use more precise language.
View on Reddit #3338130

Zac_Anarumo@reddit

Assault rifle just means scary black gun
View on Reddit #3339230

EpicAura99@reddit

Further, I’m annoyed by them called 30 round mags “high capacity”. I want them banned too, but call them what they are: standard capacity mags!
View on Reddit #3339674

Zac_Anarumo@reddit

Damn I’ve never seen someone so informed about guns that wants 30 round mags banned
View on Reddit #3340350

EpicAura99@reddit

I love guns, I’ve probably almost watched Forgotten Weapons’ entire library of videos, but I’m tired of people dying. Every time there’s a mass shooting, I give fewer and fewer shits about having guns and care more and more about solving the fucking problem at any cost. Especially when the people who most want guns are the most likely to use them to prop up an oppressive government, which is the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It’s like those people that say trans people are molesters, then mandate genital inspections to “stop” them. The satire writes itself.
View on Reddit #3341510

FlamingSpitoon433@reddit

The most rabid and insane bastards like that will still try to keep their weapons and try stupid shit. Are you willing to keep yourself vulnerable against them? Because I’m not.
View on Reddit #3370556

EpicAura99@reddit

The number of shootings stopped by a citizen with a gun is little more than a rounding error.
View on Reddit #3384255

FlamingSpitoon433@reddit

Police are citizens and their firearms training is subpar. I don’t give a fuck.
View on Reddit #3395707

EpicAura99@reddit

[So literally just this exact satire from South Park](https://youtu.be/vwkjpc5GQbk) Cut to 3:33 for the most apt part
View on Reddit #3395991

FlamingSpitoon433@reddit

I mean, that’s true if nobody knows how to de-escalate a conflict. Which seems to be our biggest issue as a country of late. Conflict resolution and healthily dealing with negative emotions are things we need to teach our kids and adults.
View on Reddit #3396359

OfficerBaconBits@reddit

Virginia tech used handguns and is one of if not the most deadly school shooting. 17 rounds is standard full size 9mm capacity, 15 is standard compact 9mm capacity. Charles Whitman in the 60s killed 15 and wounded 31 others with a bolt action 6mm, a 15 round m1 carbine (WW2 era rifle), a 35 and 357 revolver, 12ga Sears shotgun, luger 9mm, 25 auto pistol and a machete. All this to say your 30 round restriction is arbitrary. Outside of Las Vegas capacity was not a significant factor in producing casualties. They aren't dumping mags into crowds. It's small pockets of unarmed people cowering with a gunman moving through without resistance. For practically all the major shootings you could accomplish everything with 15 round magazines. Assuming your wish to ban 30 goes through you'll call for the banning of 15 next. I assume your next arbitrary limit would be 10 rounds. >solving the fucking problem at any cost 30 round restriction wouldn't solve your problem. People would use 20 round magazines. Magpul already sells those. There's no significant difference in a 20 or 30 when we're talking about 5th graders, people attending worship or grandmother's going to the local grocery store. An armed predator with unarmed victims is the problem.
View on Reddit #3359398

JustSomeGuy556@reddit

At *\_any\_* cost? There's ways to stop them, but you won't like them. And it's going to start with the 4th amendment, not the second.
View on Reddit #3342196

EpicAura99@reddit

Nah not any, that was hyperbolic. But I couldn’t think of a different phrasing.
View on Reddit #3344094

Fantastic_Parfait761@reddit

It's like saying I'll cut my dick off to stop rape. Ok you do you. Just don't tell me what to do.
View on Reddit #3347671

EpicAura99@reddit

The implication that a gun is a an integral part of your being is hysterical and very very telling
View on Reddit #3349050

SmellGestapo@reddit

Yeah that was quite the admission.
View on Reddit #3353786

Fantastic_Parfait761@reddit

It is not but that is what you're getting at.
View on Reddit #3349235

johnhtman@reddit

They shouldn't be banned, virtually all gun deaths involve fewer than 10 rounds of ammunition fired.
View on Reddit #3353695

EpicAura99@reddit

I’m not concerned with “all gun deaths” so much as mass shootings. A large portion are suicides or accidents that happen on private property, I’m not worried about that because I’m concerned with people feeling safe in public, when they aren’t choosing to be around firearms.
View on Reddit #3354325

johnhtman@reddit

Mass shootings account for less than 1% of overall murders. They are pretty much one of, if not the rarest types of gun deaths. Even among mass shootings though, the impact of a magazine limit is questionable. Some of the deadliest mass shootings have been committed without the need for "high capacity" magazines. The Virginia Tech Shooting is the best example. The shooter was equipped with two handguns, a 9mm and .22 arguably the least powerful firearm regularly available. The 9mm had 15 round magazines, and the .22 had 10 round mags. The shooter carried a duffel bag of extra magazines, and switched them out before being emptied. The responding officers found dozens of half spent magazines throughout the scene. Despite not using assault weapons, or high capacity magazines, at the time the Virginia Tech Shooting was the deadliest U.S mass shooting on record, and to this day it still ranks as number 3.
View on Reddit #3356427

EpicAura99@reddit

Integrated magazines You don’t need detachable mags to hunt deer. If you can’t load ‘em one by one like great gramps did in the trenches of Paschendale, what kind of hunter are you? Lol mostly joking. But still, integrated magazines.
View on Reddit #3357063

johnhtman@reddit

The Texas University Sniper used a rifle with a 5 round internal magazine. He was able to kill 17 people in what is tied with Parkland as the 10th deadliest mass shooting in U.S history. So every 5 rounds fired, the gun had to be manually reloaded bullet by bullet. Guns are also far from the only mass murder weapons available. Vehicle attacks, arson, and explosives have all proven to be deadlier in mass murders than guns. What's stopping someone like the Pulse Shooter who is unable to get a gun, from setting fire to the nightclub? What's stopping someone in a car from mowing down children as they leave school at the end of the day?
View on Reddit #3358747

EpicAura99@reddit

This is preposterous. Mass shootings still happen in Europe. It’s impossible to eliminate them, nobody on earth is saying otherwise, but it’s possible to dramatically reduce them. Stop being obtuse.
View on Reddit #3359416

johnhtman@reddit

Not really, people are always going to want to kill each other in mass, and Americans more so than many other countries. The Americas I.E North and South America are the most violent region on earth.
View on Reddit #3360035

EpicAura99@reddit

So your argument is that people from the Americas are genetically predisposed to murdering each other and we shouldn’t try to help I was gonna make a joke, but nah. What a fucking shit argument lmao
View on Reddit #3360405

johnhtman@reddit

Not genetically dispositioned, but more influenced by various socio-economic factors. Worldwide certain countries are more violent than others. The U.S and Latin America have a much bigger problem with organized crime than Asia or Europe do.
View on Reddit #3360722

Fluffy-Promotion1630@reddit

You know who gun laws like this mostly affect? Law abiding citizens. The people that aren't likely to go out and use these weapons maliciously. The people that ARE going to go out and use these weapons maliciously don't care about the laws.
View on Reddit #3341109

808hammerhead@reddit

Everybody is a law abiding gun owner until they shoot up a school…
View on Reddit #3348847

johnhtman@reddit

Innocent until proven guilty.
View on Reddit #3353813

808hammerhead@reddit

True but having basic safety measures in place helps more people than it hurts. Kinda like seatbelts and helmet laws.
View on Reddit #3365515

johnhtman@reddit

We have tons of gun laws in place already.
View on Reddit #3393847

808hammerhead@reddit

Just not effective ones.
View on Reddit #3395417

EpicAura99@reddit

Many of these shootings are done by kids who aquire their parents’ legal firearms. Perchance, what action would you take that DOESN’T affect law abiding citizens more? That’s how preventative laws always work. To preface, I like the second amendment. But it’s waaaaaaaaaaaay too strong. At the end of the day, something needs to be done. If anyone’s proposed solution is to throw their hands up and say “what could we possibly do?” and make no laws, then said person is actively saying they value semi auto firearms and the like over thousands of lives, including children. To quote the famed Onion article, “‘There’s nothing we can do’ says the only nation where this regularly happens”. It’s like a guilty plea. Either help pass laws now, or wait for people to get angry enough to make laws gun people will hate waaaay more.
View on Reddit #3341110

Fluffy-Promotion1630@reddit

Lets outlaw narcotic medications because if someone's kids get into them they could OD. Lets outlaw cars because if someone's kids steal the car keys they could hurt someone driving said car. Makes so much sense. Go back to California.
View on Reddit #3342590

historyhill@reddit

Both of those examples have a lot of regulations and restrictions though? And those regulations and restrictions have statistically protected everyone?
View on Reddit #3347757

Fluffy-Promotion1630@reddit

I have a great idea, what if we outlaw wars and nuclear weapons! We'll have world peace tomorrow!
View on Reddit #3373390

historyhill@reddit

Outlawing and regulating something aren't the same, my dude. No one said anything here about outlawing anything.
View on Reddit #3373391

Fluffy-Promotion1630@reddit

Fine then, lets regulate warfare, we can have the same affect! Oh wait! That didn't work either. Weird.
View on Reddit #3393272

historyhill@reddit

We do. Most nations adhere to the Geneva conventions during war now.
View on Reddit #3393273

EpicAura99@reddit

I actually am, just haven’t bothered to change my flair. Your comparison to cars is rich because if guns were treated like cars I’d be a happy camper.
View on Reddit #3344174

Fantastic_Parfait761@reddit

A kid can buy a car. Why do cars go over 25MPH? Do you need that sports car? I can operate a car on private land without a permit. I can build fast cars. I can make quiet cars and loud cars. Common you gotta do better.
View on Reddit #3347808

EpicAura99@reddit

Do guns require a license and aptitude test to own one? I figured limiting firearm availability would be more palatable than that. But if you want…
View on Reddit #3349113

KaBar42@reddit

>Do guns require a license and aptitude test to own one? Literally neither of those are required to own a car. All you need to own a car is the title.
View on Reddit #3349271

EpicAura99@reddit

Operate. Whatever. Semantics.
View on Reddit #3349997

vargr1@reddit

op·er·ate verb (of a person) control the functioning of (a machine, process, or system). own verb have (something) as one's own; possess. Big difference between them. Laws are all about semantics.
View on Reddit #3359882

Fantastic_Parfait761@reddit

No it's not. You also don't need tests and the such to operate a car on private property.
View on Reddit #3351222

Fantastic_Parfait761@reddit

Cars don't require a test to own. Neither a background check.
View on Reddit #3349278

johnhtman@reddit

Guns are far more regulated than cars. For instance it takes 4 DUIs in a 10 year period where I live to permanently lose your drivers license. Meanwhile, it's a felony to own a gun if you use marijuana, even with a prescription. A single felony is all it takes to lose your ability to own guns for the rest of your life.
View on Reddit #3353790

EpicAura99@reddit

That DUI thing is rather concerning, but then again don’t know the laws here. I don’t drink lol.
View on Reddit #3354351

johnhtman@reddit

My point is that it's far easier to lose your ability to legally own a gun for life, than your ability to drive a car.
View on Reddit #3356463

MrLeapgood@reddit

I think this is the first time I've ever seen a pro-gun-control person accept the comparison to cars.
View on Reddit #3352747

EpicAura99@reddit

Really? I see it quite a bit, but then again I don’t really the topic a lot
View on Reddit #3354207

MrLeapgood@reddit

I see the comparison a lot, but almost always the response is "cars aren't designed to kill people."
View on Reddit #3354722

nemo_sum@reddit

This but unironically.
View on Reddit #3342591

115machine@reddit

“We’ve done nothing else to ensure safety, so the best route is to take away people’s rights”
View on Reddit #3348389

EpicAura99@reddit

Everything that makes people saver takes away their rights to some degree. Everything. It’s about finding balance, and the statistics clearly show we haven’t.
View on Reddit #3349171

Dramatic_Ir0ny@reddit

No, not really. You just have a very liberal mindset. Plenty of things that make people's lives safer are left up to private individuals. When did the country become so hellbent on putting their citizens in diapers with this weird idea that nobody can think for themselves with the government there to wipe their asses? Regardless, targeting guns is nothing more than an attempt to blame the symptom rather than the cause. People use tools for a reason; they aren't just shooting up schools because they touched a gun, and it's like jumanji or some shit. Did he even try to...idk...address mental health at all? Past, of course, saying some shit on TV about it and then doing a 180 and never actually acting on those words.
View on Reddit #3370718

EpicAura99@reddit

I’m fucking sick and tired, revolted frankly, of a dozen children being fucking MURDERED every few months, not to mention every other shooting, and everyone going “Aw thoughts and prayers 😢 so tragic 😭 nothing we can do though 😜 no reason to try” and then it happens again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and AGAIN. Does that not fucking kill you inside? Makes me lose all hope in humanity. Makes me spiteful when people care less about human lives than their rinky-dink pew pew machines which they are more likely to use AGAINST the second amendment’s purpose than FOR it. If people would collaborate and compromise maybe I wouldn’t be asking for so much. But if people can’t see a problem, then they don’t deserve a moderate solution if they’re going to fight it as if it’s an extreme one. I’m fucking MAD. If you aren’t, I don’t even know what to do. Guess I’ll fucking join the gun death statistics because I can’t live in a world where people care so little about the lives of those around them. I’m aware mental health is an issue, but seeing as how our government is composed almost solely if a generation that thinks mental health doesn’t exist and healthcare is communism, and are paid off to ensure that every single cent in this country is funneled into the 1%, I figured going after the impossible issue would be easier than the unfathomable issue.
View on Reddit #3384195

Dramatic_Ir0ny@reddit

You're taking a problem and imposing your own beliefs onto it and are trying to shame me into following. I don't know why people like you misinterpret what is very obviously said: everyone hates that people are dying; the problem is, you seem to think there is only one single way to solve it. Someone suggesting you try another route does not equate to them being fine with innocent people dying. Stop trying to guilt me into following your idiotic beliefs.
View on Reddit #3392092

EpicAura99@reddit

My only beliefs here are that people shouldn’t be dying, and that it’s probably easier to fight gun people than it is to fight capitalism. Path of least resistance. I just want to solve the problem ASAP. That is my one and only goal. If that is possible without additional gun laws, sure! But the numbers suggest that’s not probable. Plenty of places in Europe have high gun ownership, and Sweden even has right to bear arms. But I wouldn’t fathom that gun people would enjoy how they have prevented deaths, so I don’t dare suggest it (compulsory military service, usually). But the reality is 99/100 lawmakers don’t give a shit and that’s the depressing part. I don’t want to hear a single “thoughts and prayers” again if it’s not accompanied by some kind of passed legislation that aims to solve the problem.
View on Reddit #3392721

yukoncornelius270@reddit

In my opinion this line of thinking is similar to what led to prohibition of alcohol. Alcohol is legal and as long as it is legal some minute percentage of scumbags is going to get drunk and either kill themselves, beat their spouses and children, kill other random citizens by drunk driving or fighting or some other horrible shit that shouldn't happen. Many of these shootings are preventable by either having people properly secure firearms so that minors don't have unauthorized access to them or by having police officers of sufficient courage and skill at the school to respond if something terrible happens. Additionally the current background check system for some reason fails to flag some people who should have been flagged. Multiple perpetrators of mass shootings have had psychological issues that should have caused them to fail the FBI background check. However for some reason they were not flagged by the system. We can reduce the amount of these shootings without stamping all over the rights of the 99.999 percent of us who use firearms for self defense, target shooting, collecting, and other lawful purposes.
View on Reddit #3342500

neenadollava@reddit

Exactly with the FBI check, they have thorough background checks on hiring someone to work for them at the FBI . So they are capable, it should be the same standard for a person acquiring a firearm more or less.
View on Reddit #3361152

SmellGestapo@reddit

>Multiple perpetrators of mass shootings have had psychological issues that should have caused them to fail the FBI background check. However for some reason they were not flagged by the system. This is why the Second Amendment should go, in my opinion. It's immoral to claim something is a right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and then be okay with infringing on the rights of people who have "psychological issues" (however you choose to define that term).
View on Reddit #3343683

EpicAura99@reddit

Exactly. The 2A is fine in theory but it’s way too strong.
View on Reddit #3344202

JadeBeach@reddit

The 2A was fine until Hiller
View on Reddit #3347691

alkatori@reddit

Heller\* Which was in line with previous court rules on 2A.
View on Reddit #3349986

JadeBeach@reddit

Spelling noted. Heller completely changed the interpretation of 2A.
View on Reddit #3353115

alkatori@reddit

It really didn't. It's in line with the previous rulings going back as early as Georgia v. Nunn in 1846. Which held that the 2nd amendment prevented the Georgia State legislature from enforcing a ban that was passed on private ownership of pistols.
View on Reddit #3355518

Fluffy-Promotion1630@reddit

I don't think its strong enough. I think most of your arguments about why the 2A needs to be weakened stem from an infantilized view of the people. If you want your nanny state, go back to California and only legislate on your state. Leave the rest of us alone.
View on Reddit #3349022

EpicAura99@reddit

My brother in Christ, California is beholden to the second amendment. We can’t legally legislate against it. We’re not an independent country. Infantilized? If the events of the past decade have told me anything, it’s that someone who is “infantile” is above average maturity. You know what’s infantile? The only time that the NRA has ever lobbied for gun control, with the help of patron saint Ronald Reagan, was when Black Panthers in California started using the second amendment for it’s intended purpose. They were legally following cop cars to ensure that they didn’t beat innocent people to death for fun. But god forbid the second amendment actually get used against government overreach. So good ol’ Ronnie himself started the trend of strict gun control law in California. That’s why I find anti gun control laws bullshit. If gun control saves lives, it’s evil! But if gun control hurts minorities, we’ll that’s just common sense! Not to mention I’d bet everyone on Capitol Hill during the insurrection believed that 2A protects against a tyrannical government, while trying to install one. Fucking degenerates. You keep saying go back to California. I keep saying I’m in California. Read please. Also you’re not even in Ohio, by the same logic you use against me why should you care. But anyway I’ll fix my flair since you care so much. Finally, [71% of Americans want stricter gun laws](https://apnews.com/article/gun-violence-covid-health-chicago-c912ecc5619e925c5ea7447d36808715), so you’re in the minority if I’m reading you correctly.
View on Reddit #3349023

Fluffy-Promotion1630@reddit

I get it, you're a liberal. Stay in California. Wallow in the results of the policies which you have espoused. I'm frankly baffled though how you cannot make the connection between the people that will actually obey this law are not the kind of people that you have to pass this law for and the sort of people that are going to disobey this law are the kind of people that don't care about the laws to begin with. Do you really think that someone that's going to go out and shoot people is going to care about firearms laws? No. Not in the slightest. They'll get them how they can from where ever they can, and if that's illegal, so what. I wonder what your objective is in this whole thing. Are you afraid of black guns with magazines and pistol grips?
View on Reddit #3353995

EpicAura99@reddit

>I get it, you're a liberal. I’d wager I’m a tad less liberal on this topic than you project me to be. >Stay in California. Wallow in the results of the policies which you have espoused. You and I have very different definitions of “wallow”, I fuckin love my home. >I'm frankly baffled though how you cannot make the connection between the people that will actually obey this law are not the kind of people that you have to pass this law for and the sort of people that are going to disobey this law are the kind of people that don't care about the laws to begin with. >Do you really think that someone that's going to go out and shoot people is going to care about firearms laws? No. Not in the slightest. They'll get them how they can from where ever they can, and if that's illegal, so what. You’re getting this backwards. I see that people legally obtain weapons, then go out and commit mass shootings. Firearms used in mass shootings are overwhelmingly legally purchased. Ergo, making tighter gun laws would help. Nobody’s a mass shooter, until they suddenly are. Mass shooters aren’t some special kind of person, they’re just ordinary people who happen to lose their marbles. >I wonder what your objective is in this whole thing. Fewer gun deaths. Very simple. We’re the only developed country that has this problem, clearly there are obvious solutions that everyone else has figured out. >Are you afraid of black guns with magazines and pistol grips? No I’m not. I think laws that ban based on appearance or nonfunctional parts are stupid. The mag, action, and barrel are the only things that should be legislated around. Maybe overall length too. I’ve already said I’m a huge gun nut.
View on Reddit #3353996

TheSilmarils@reddit

Would you be willing to give something up for universal background checks and raising the age to purchase?
View on Reddit #3353092

EpicAura99@reddit

Elaborate on “give something up”, I’m always willing to negotiate if it means action is taken.
View on Reddit #3354229

TheSilmarils@reddit

For instance, removing silencers or short barreled rifles from the NFA or repealing the 1986 machine gun ban in exchange for universal background checks and raising the purchase age.
View on Reddit #3354355

EpicAura99@reddit

Yes on suppressors and barrel length, suppressors especially seem rather silly because some countries actually require them. Really can’t emphasize enough how much I’d like suppressors lol. My gut says no on lifting the machine gun ban…..buuuut the facts say that the shooting that inspired the ban was the first in like 60 years or something. Forgot exactly. So that’s a maybe, considering the increase in shootings in the past decades. Perhaps a compromise of a highly limited number per year? So that numbers would still be low but not finite.
View on Reddit #3354721

TheSilmarils@reddit

Kudos for being the first person to actually positively engage with that question.
View on Reddit #3354819

EpicAura99@reddit

Lol thanks. I try
View on Reddit #3355284

zapporian@reddit

To be clear about this, the gun violence issue in (and outside of) the US is complicated because (1) the majority of gun violence in the US (excluding suicides) is, probably, criminals and/or gang violence who are using guns illegally (whether legally aquired or not) (2) virtually all non-gang-related mass shootings and/or domestic terrorism in the US (and potential domestic terrorism) is perpetrated by people who *are* law abiding citizens, often with no criminal track record, prior to going and shooting up a school, or gay bar, or what have you And complicating things further, obviously (3) most gun owners *are* law abiding, statistically speaking, and don't ever shoot anyone with them Though also (4) keeping unsecured guns in a household with children is a statistical (and obvious) risk to them (5) domestic abusers are probably *not* people that should have guns (but are legal, law abiding citizens who *incidentally* tend to complain constantly about red flag laws) And (6) Mexico's cartels are arming themselves almost exclusively with US guns bought legally on the civilian market. Including (hilariously, sort of) things like 50 cal Barrett rifles that are great if you want to outgun LEO (and bits of the Mexican military, probably) Personally speaking I'd at least somewhat unironically defend the right of any US citizen to own a 50 cal semi-automatic anti-materiel rifle, tank, ad-hoc IFV, or jet fighter (and think it's deeply unfortunate, albeit sensible, that CA flat out bans private ownership of 50 cals within our state borders) That said, anyone talking about "but muh legal gun owners" is missing half the point, *as is anyone* who ignores the fact that *most* gun violence (and mass shootings, technically) in the US is crime / gun related. And instead of addressing or acknowledging the complexity of this issue, *both sides* are generally just talking past each other. The argument w/r restricting *legal* gun owners is that *every* (unhinged) mass shooter is a legal gun owner (or the kid of one) until they have a psychological break and start killing people. Whether we should flat out ban certain kinds of weapons (and/or heavily restrict ownership) to try to prevent that is obviously highly debatable.
View on Reddit #3366971

RasAlGimur@reddit

Can’t you buy an AR-15?
View on Reddit #3348184

EpicAura99@reddit

A semi auto one. Assault weapons by definition must be full-auto.
View on Reddit #3349124

AngriestManinWestTX@reddit

Assault weapon is a politically contrived term that has a varying and often ever expanding definition that includes most to all modern (since 1960) semi-automatic rifles. Assault *rifle* is a centerfire, select-fire/fully auto capable rifle, chambered for an intermediate cartridge.
View on Reddit #3349461

EpicAura99@reddit

Agreed
View on Reddit #3350017

OnlyStandard@reddit

That's part of the problem. He doesn't really know what he's really trying to legislate it.
View on Reddit #3341519

EpicAura99@reddit

Or at the very least, appealing to those that don’t know.
View on Reddit #3344051

RasAlGimur@reddit

In you opinion, why would people need assault weapons? According to this article from the WP, 1 in 20 Americans has an AR-15. I find that pretty unnecessary and scary.
View on Reddit #3348267

blackhawk905@reddit

If there are tens of millions of AR in the US why is it that rifles aren't even the leading firearm in murders let alone ARs.
View on Reddit #3395943

johnhtman@reddit

Rifles are one of the least frequently used guns in crime.
View on Reddit #3353921

OnlyStandard@reddit

The same reason anyone decides for themselves why they need any other type of firearm, I suppose. They are not really any more scary than any other type of firearm. Statistically, they are used extremely rarely in crimes or homicides. I have one. It's a relatively light, accurate rifle. Contrary to popular opinion, the round is plenty capable in terms of defense or hunting (depending on what you are hunting, of course). Since it's so popular, finding ammo or repair parts is easy. The appeal to me specifically is that they are very modular. Don't like the grip, stock, trigger, or sights? A screwdriver and a few minutes, and you can swap it out for a completely different one. Mine was bought in parts and pieced together over time, so there is no rifle quite like mine. It fits me quite nicely.
View on Reddit #3350519

alkatori@reddit

They are a lot of fun. It's a general purpose rifle that is easy to customize how you like it. That's the appeal and why they are popular with gun owners in the US and elsewhere.
View on Reddit #3350192

Souledex@reddit

Rifles secure the safety of people experiencing discrimination. And being as armed (or just threat posturing) as the police has secured workers rights, and things like the million man march and other civil rights actions. People talk about the army or the national guard, but even when literal battles were fought over this in the past it’s a matter of threat and restraint. Few people ever died, all they needed to do was scare the police- who are largely cowards just remember Uvalde. But the left has largely neglected or abandoned this history when it turned against “crime” in the 90’s. And none of the shit we did in that crime bill did anything but put more black men in prison for victimless crimes, and crime dropped for far stranger reasons. All restricting them typically does is ensure the rich, or at this point crazy militia groups have them. There’s certainly a bunch more gun control we should do but these or similar weapons are seen as a scapegoat. It may be good to ban the AR-15 just for its symbolic value but all banning rifles does is make it more expensive to make the exact same thing rather than maintain the market that exists and much more heavily regulate it. I used to agree with you but looking at statistics of how many mass shootings are conducted with handguns (we just don’t talk about them as much) and knowing we aren’t gonna ban those means this is a moving target. It’s always important to note other countries don’t have these problems, but these problems don’t exist in a vacuum and unless we are addressing all of them at once regular people are just abandoning their security against the most armed paramilitary force in the world, who if we are being blunt currently trend massively conservative and could support any future trumpian wackaloon in their next coup attempt. Cops need reform, elections need reform and we can do lots of gun control without disarming.
View on Reddit #3349286

SafetyNoodle@reddit

I don't think it's shooting himself in the foot. This sub is very pro-gun but pretty much everything in it has a good majority of the public in support. As for it being virtue signaling, yeah sure, but if people only advocate for things that can be done immediately before moving on to the next thing progress will move a lot slower.
View on Reddit #3346083

angrysquirrel777@reddit

Pushing to amend one of the bills of rights will definitely turn a ton of people off.
View on Reddit #3346726

SafetyNoodle@reddit

The large majority of 2nd amendment absolutists seldom vote for Democratic presidential nominees no matter what their specific policy positions are. The second amendment was never intended to be an absolute and unregulated right to own any handheld weapon.
View on Reddit #3346895

FanaticalBuckeye@reddit

Civilians were and are legally allowed to own cannons and armed merchant ships. If I wanted to, I could build a first-rate ship of the line with over 100 cannons and it would be 100% legal. If I wanted to mount a cannon to the top of the stairs and then load it with grapeshot in the event of a home invasion, I can do that
View on Reddit #3372728

SafetyNoodle@reddit

Civilians in much of the early United States were also banned from open carrying. Is your point that the Second Amendment ought to allow the use of all military technology? I for one am strongly against letting Musk get nukes.
View on Reddit #3382360

angrysquirrel777@reddit

Can you tell me where in the amendment it says that?
View on Reddit #3347182

SafetyNoodle@reddit

At the time the Constitution was written its rules bound laws made by the federal government, not the states. This only changed later with the 14th amendment (which while including the 2nd as written wasn't interrupted as doing so when written and passed). With this context the reading is clear. "A well regulated [state] Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed [by the federal government]." Basically as intended the second amendment meant the federal government couldn't prevent the states from allowing their people to arm themselves and join the equivalent of their state National Guard. The worry of military conflict between federal and state governments is not a common one today. This amendment basically plainly allows the federal government to engage in the regulatory oversight of firearms which was always intended to be done by the states but was technically banned as written by another later amendment meant to deal with a completely different issue.
View on Reddit #3347579

115machine@reddit

Ah yes, I’m sure the document enumerating *natural born rights* hinges one in particular on the membership of a state entity
View on Reddit #3348434

SafetyNoodle@reddit

I'm sure they added the part about a well-regulated militia because they hated the idea of regulation.
View on Reddit #3348478

115machine@reddit

I’m sure “well-regulated soldiers” meant equipping them with less than the most effective weaponry of the time…. Everyone knows that an army functions best when soldiers are poorly equipped
View on Reddit #3348728

SafetyNoodle@reddit

And everyone knows the National Guard hasn't modernized since the 18th century and still expects soldiers to BYOB (bring your own bombs).
View on Reddit #3348797

115machine@reddit

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country” It says in the first clause that it is the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms. “The people” is composed of every US citizen. The 2nd clause says that the militia exists to protect freedom. Threats to freedom can come from entities both foreign and domestic.
View on Reddit #3349061

alkatori@reddit

That matches the 19th century understanding. Georgia v. Nunn (which is interesting since it's prior to the 14th amendment) held the state of Georgia could not ban pistols under the 2A. The 2A protects the right of the people to have arms, and there is no requirement that they be in the militia to do so.
View on Reddit #3350108

RutCry@reddit

It’s in there right to abortion.
View on Reddit #3348146

SafetyNoodle@reddit

At the time the Constitution was written its rules bound laws made by the federal government, not the states. This only changed later with the 14th amendment (which while including the 2nd as written wasn't interrupted as doing so when written and passed). With this context the reading is clear. "A well regulated [state] Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed [by the federal government]." Basically as intended the second amendment meant the federal government couldn't prevent the states from allowing their people to arm themselves and join the equivalent of their state National Guard. The worry of military conflict between federal and state governments is not a common one today. This amendment basically plainly allows the federal government to engage in the regulatory oversight of firearms which was always intended to be done by the states but was technically banned as written by another later amendment meant to deal with a completely different issue.
View on Reddit #3347552

ivan34@reddit

Really? Please give us your sources on why you think that the 2a wasn't intended that way
View on Reddit #3347572

RutCry@reddit

A politician restricting the rights of citizens is not something any American should think of as “progress.”
View on Reddit #3348093

05110909@reddit

Plus a convention of the states has never happened. It's certainly not going to happen today. I have a feeling he specifically called for a convention because he knows it has no chance of happening. Then he can say "See! I tried!"
View on Reddit #3349490

The_Bjorn_Ultimatum@reddit

The fact that he thinks it will help get him votes is scary. My natural rights are not up for debate. This isn't just an amendment like the 18th and 21st. This is one of the bill of rights, which has long standingly *recognized* my inherent rights. Anyone proposing to amend one of the 10 is for tyrany in my opinion.
View on Reddit #3336510

SmellGestapo@reddit

How can owning a gun be a natural right when guns don't exist in nature?
View on Reddit #3337909

The_Bjorn_Ultimatum@reddit

The right to bear arms. I have the natural right to defend myself and my freedoms with arms. Guns are the arms of the day, just like if I were alive back before guns, I would have had a natural right to bear arms, which would have been a sword, spear, etc.
View on Reddit #3340747

Duke_Cheech@reddit

Natural rights don't exist. There are privileges the government *says* are rights, and it's fair to argue that they shouldn't be infringed, but I'm so sick of the "oh this old document from the 18th century says I have this right so anything even remotely trying to alter that is tyranny." There are plenty of weapons that you can't have so I don't see why assault rifles or anything other weapon for that matter gets an exemption.
View on Reddit #3356929

The_Bjorn_Ultimatum@reddit

No. Natural rights exist naturally. The government does not grant me these rights, they recognize that I have them. That 18th century document also gives you the freedom to say what yoy just said. I don't hear you complaining about that. As far as weapons we can't use, things like nukes cannot be used in defense of our freedoms and self defense. They would destroy what you're trying to defend as well. Same goes for things like genetically engineered bioweapons, etc. You can't say the same thing for firearms.
View on Reddit #3382372

Duke_Cheech@reddit

Look I'm not inherently opposed to the 2nd amendment. I just think arguments about natural rights and constitutional rights is all playing pretend. These are privileges that the government says we have. If you want to argue that something should be legal, let's compare the world where that thing *is* legal and the world where it isn't, and think about which one would be better to live in. I enjoy having the 1st amendment but I also recognize it isn't some natural right I'm given by god or the constitution or anyone. It's a privilege that can be taken away. I certainly hope it isn't taken away, but when push comes to shove no amount of natural rights rhetoric is going to matter. And the 1st amendment has been violated by the US government time and time again. Ultimately they're imaginary privileges that we get to enjoy because powerful institutions don't infringe on them currently.
View on Reddit #3383625

blackhawk905@reddit

So if no government existed you wouldn't have the right to your life? You wouldn't have the right to privacy in your papers or right to say what you want?
View on Reddit #3401000

Duke_Cheech@reddit

I believe I deserve to live and deserve to have privacy, and semantically yeah that's similar to a right. But I just take issue with the rhetorical argument that rights are some immovable, unchanging fixture when in practice that obviously isn't how they work. Jews in Germany had certain rights that ceased to exist under the Nazi regime. We can play pretend about our rights but at the end of the day they exist at the whims of the powerful. Look up George Carlin's bit on this subject. He hits the nail on the head.
View on Reddit #3403181

The_Bjorn_Ultimatum@reddit

The distinction that the government recognizes right and doesn't grant them is a massive one. You may not believe that, but that ideology is the reason we can enjoy our rights. It was the ideology that was had when writing the constitution. Priviledges are distinctly different, and are what is called a positive right. Those really is not rights at all, whereas negative rights are, but the distinction between them is useful for understanding what a natural right is. It's why hardly anyone has turned in their pistol brace. It is why, even with a constitutional amendment, people will not let the government have their firearms. And while "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes," if there is no further recourse to secure these rights, it is the duty of citizens to "throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." >We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government You can disagree, but this is the foundation of America and the foundational ideology that recognizes the rights you have.
View on Reddit #3384518

Duke_Cheech@reddit

I just think that's all imaginary rhetoric. Ultimately, rights and the law are privileges that are given by whoever has the most power. The moment the US government doesn't want that ideological framing to exist anymore, it won't. And people aren't going to turn in their guns because, ultimately, they like to have them and don't want to give them away. Most gun owners are not using such complex ideological framing.
View on Reddit #3385221

The_Bjorn_Ultimatum@reddit

You can believe that, but it doesn't make it true, or practical in any way, given that our laws are based on the premise that I share. >Most gun owners are not using such complex ideological framing. They are though. They understand that owning guns is their right, and the government can only infringe on that.
View on Reddit #3388908

SmellGestapo@reddit

I still don't see how owning a gun can be a natural right when guns are manufactured and don't otherwise exist in nature. Self defense is a natural right, but you can defend yourself with or without guns. You can defend yourself with a lawn dart, too, but owning a lawn dart isn't a natural right and the sale of lawn darts is banned.
View on Reddit #3343402

The_Bjorn_Ultimatum@reddit

Your phone doesn't exist in nature. Do you not have freedom of speech to say what you want on it? The right to arm yourself for defense of your self and your freedoms is a natural right. That doesn't change because we use guns now.
View on Reddit #3344908

SmellGestapo@reddit

Are you suggesting that humans have a *natural right* to own a phone? Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom to own a phone.
View on Reddit #3345470

The_Bjorn_Ultimatum@reddit

Humans certainly have the natural right to speech in any medium they have at their disposal. So, yeah, I would say that outlawing phones would be infringing on freedom of speech, same as outlawing the printing press would have been back in the 18th century. Same with defense. Outlawing the firearms they had in the 18th century would have been infringing on their natural rights, just like outlawing ar-15s would be today.
View on Reddit #3346403

SmellGestapo@reddit

>Humans certainly have the natural right to speech in any medium they have at their disposal. And yet you need a license from the government to broadcast over the air. So while you have a natural right to speech, the First Amendment does not specify any particular medium for that speech. You can stand on a street corner all day long practicing your speech but if you want to buy a transmitter and broadcast over the airwaves, you need the government's permission. It's the difference between protecting an action and protecting an object. The First Amendment protects an action: speech. The Second protects an object: arms. It actually makes no mention of self defense (only defense of the state). Eliminating the Second Amendment would not eliminate your natural right to defend yourself. If a burglar broke into your house and threatened to kill you, you would still be allowed to defend yourself, even in a world without the Second Amendment.
View on Reddit #3346696

The_Bjorn_Ultimatum@reddit

>And yet you need a license from the government to broadcast over the air. That's more of a matter of there being a limited spectrum to broadcast radio over, and national security issues to take into account. For more unlimited resources, I agree, you shouldn't need a license to broadcast. >It's the difference between protecting an action and protecting an object. So you think it would be okay for the government to outlaw every form of media except handwritten letter? You can't seriously believe that that would only an object being outlawed and not an infringement on speech. Same with defense. >The Second protects an object: arms. It actually makes no mention of self defense (only defense of the state). No. Bearing arms is not an object, it is an action. The right to bear arms is the right to defend yourself and your freedoms. This is clear from other state constitutions, writings of that time, historical law leading up to it's conception, and alss the simple notion that this is a free state. It is clearly also a right to individual self defense. >Eliminating the Second Amendment would not eliminate your natural right to defend yourself. I agree. If the second amendment was abolished, I would still have the right to keep and bear my firearms regardless of whether or not the government recognized that right. >If a burglar broke into your house and threatened to kill you, you would still be allowed to defend yourself, even in a world without the Second Amendment. Practically speaking, I wouldn't have that right though. I'm not going to risk my life just so a burglar can have a "fair" fight with me to the death. I'm gonna shoot him before he can hurt me. This goes especially for disabled people and women, who most likely don't have the necessary strength to fight off a man with ill intent. I won't be giving up my guns. I have a right to keep and bear them, regardless of whether the government recognizes my right to do so.
View on Reddit #3348021

SmellGestapo@reddit

>That's more of a matter of there being a limited spectrum to broadcast radio over, and national security issues to take into account. For more unlimited resources, I agree, you shouldn't need a license to broadcast. Even in a world where there is unlimited broadcast spectrum, try to erect a radio tower in a residential neighborhood and see how far you get before the local government shuts you down because the neighborhood isn't zoned for that. >No. Bearing arms is not an object, it is an action. The right to bear arms is the right to defend yourself and your freedoms. It's a distinction without a difference. The amendment does not say you have the right to defend yourself. It says you have the right to own a gun. Yes, ownership is an action, but the action is only protected in relation to one specific object, a gun. You could defend yourself with a lawn dart, but you don't have the right to bear lawn darts under the Second Amendment. >I would still have the right to keep and bear my firearms regardless of whether or not the government recognized that right. And if you shot and killed an intruder in your home, you wouldn't face murder charges, because you have the right to defend yourself, although you may face charges related to unlawful possession of a firearm, depending on that state's particular laws. Thus, the Second Amendment does not protect your right to self defense, only your right to own a gun. >I have a right to keep and bear them, regardless of whether the government recognizes my right to do so. That is a civil right, not a natural right.
View on Reddit #3349226

The_Bjorn_Ultimatum@reddit

>Even in a world where there is unlimited broadcast spectrum, try to erect a radio tower in a residential neighborhood and see how far you get before the local government shuts you down because the neighborhood isn't zoned for that. I never claimed we were perfect. >It's a distinction without a difference. Sure bud. Keep going against all evudence to the contrary. >Yes, ownership is an action, but the action is only protected in relation to one specific object, a gun. No. You can own other types if arms. Madison even wrote a letter to a merchant telling him that he of course could own a cannon for self defense >And if you shot and killed an intruder in your home, you wouldn't face murder charges, because you have the right to defend yourself, although you may face charges related to unlawful possession of a firearm, depending on that state's particular laws. Thus, the Second Amendment does not protect your right to self defense, only your right to own a gun. You said one thing in the first half and the opposite in the second. >That is a civil right, not a natural right. No. It is a natural right, by which I mean a negative right. It has nothing to do with equality under the law. I have the inherent right to arm myself for the protection of my self, and my freedoms.
View on Reddit #3350748

SmellGestapo@reddit

>I never claimed we were perfect. But you did say, "My natural rights are not up for debate." But clearly they are if you're not even allowed to erect a simple radio tower on your roof to exercise your First Amendment rights. >You can own other types if arms. I could bludgeon an attacker with a giant box of child pornography, but that doesn't mean the Second Amendment allows me to have it. >You said one thing in the first half and the opposite in the second. The paragraph is consistent. Your right to defend yourself doesn't go away just because, hypothetically, guns have been outlawed. If you're a convicted felon who is not currently allowed to possess a firearm, and you and your children are attacked at home by an intruder, your right to defend yourself doesn't suddenly go away. You could use your illegally held gun to kill the intruder and you wouldn't get in trouble for defending yourself. You'd only get in trouble for possessing the gun, not how you chose to use it. >No. It is a natural right, by which I mean a negative right. It has nothing to do with equality under the law. I have the inherent right to arm myself for the protection of my self, and my freedoms. Natural rights are those that are inherent to your humanity. You can go anywhere in the world and not lose your right to defend yourself. But some countries will have different laws on the tools you might use for that end. Gun possession is legal in the U.S. because it is a civil right granted by the laws of this country.
View on Reddit #3354841

The_Bjorn_Ultimatum@reddit

>But you did say, "My natural rights are not up for debate." But clearly they are if you're not even allowed to erect a simple radio tower on your roof to exercise your First Amendment rights. Governments can certainly infringe on rights. That doesn't mean we don't have them. >Natural rights are those that are inherent to your humanity. Such as arming myself with todays weaponry. I can do that naturally, unless the government intervenes. It is a natural right that the US recognizes (imperfectly) and other countries actively oppress.
View on Reddit #3382955

YoloSwaggins991@reddit

I don’t think lawn darts, kinder eggs, and other things like that should have been banned.
View on Reddit #3344091

FlamingSpitoon433@reddit

Weaponry has been part and parcel of humanity from the beginning. It’s an equalizer for many. By simple virtue of being capable of its construction we have a basic inalienable right to it. Not from any sort of philosophical argument, but purely because we are capable.
View on Reddit #3370749

thisisausername100fs@reddit

The people who wrote the constitution knew weapons didn’t exist in nature yet still put the right to bear arms. I agree with Bjorn. The writers knew what it meant when they wrote it, and they definitely knew technology would advance beyond their current era.
View on Reddit #3347277

SmellGestapo@reddit

Gun ownership is a civil right in the U.S. Not a natural right. That's all I'm saying.
View on Reddit #3348951

saludenlos_chucho@reddit

He is, ironically, anti-choice and transphobic.
View on Reddit #3338269

4x4Lyfe@reddit

> Anyone proposing to amend one of the 10 is for tyrany in my opinion. I don't think I'm for tyranny at all but I wholeheartedly think we should amend the 7th. Seriously a $20 limit is crazy why is shit like this never indexed to inflation?
View on Reddit #3337574

The_Bjorn_Ultimatum@reddit

By one of the ten, I mean the bill of rights. I'm up for hearing arguements on other amendments. I wouldn't necessarily support them, but I would at least hear you out. Try changing one of the bill of rights, and I will not even consider it, because you would be trying to control my freedoms. The only reason I would hear out the side trying to amend 1-10, is to help convince others not to embrace said tyrany
View on Reddit #3341023

4x4Lyfe@reddit

The 7th amendment is part of the bill of rights.... maybe read what you're trying so hard to defend
View on Reddit #3341151

The_Bjorn_Ultimatum@reddit

Ah, I thought you wrote 27th. I must be blind, lol. As far as the 7th goes, you aren't actually proposing that the right to a jury be taken away or limited, just that the amount of money be set to something reflecting the change in inflation. I suppose that sort of thing I would be down for hearing, as it would actually be to recalibrate a mathmatically calculable variable to be more in line with original intent. So let me rephrase to make my meaning clearer. Any rights listed in the bill of rights, I will not entertain the idea of limiting or abolishing them.
View on Reddit #3342658

scolfin@reddit

What, exactly, do you think amendments are?
View on Reddit #3339970

The_Bjorn_Ultimatum@reddit

They change the document. My point is that the bill of rights has never been amended, for good reason.
View on Reddit #3340533

Burden-of-Society@reddit

It’s a start, a step in the right direction, it’s someone attempting to do something about gun violence. I applaud him.
View on Reddit #3351263

blackhawk905@reddit

Except "assault weapons" aren't even the most common category of firearm used for gun violence, most criminals get their guns illegally anyways.
View on Reddit #3402665

Burden-of-Society@reddit

You’re right on both counts. However, assault weapons are the weapon of choice to those who commit mass murder. More then enough children have been killed by .223 to warrant removal, don’t you think? Although I haven’t looked at the data, you’re probably right criminals do get a large percentage of their weapons illegally. However, gun crime is also a crime of passion. There is a large percentage of gun crime committed with legal guns and shattered emotions. Those crimes can be avoided with red flag laws.
View on Reddit #3403079

Admirable_Ad1947@reddit

I'm for it, of only to piss off Conservatives. I'll never own a gun regardless so it really doesn't affect me either way.
View on Reddit #3346801

blackhawk905@reddit

First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me
View on Reddit #3402463

stangAce20@reddit

Can’t be any smarter than his idea to have us all driving electric cars by 2035 completely ignoring the fact our power grid can’t even handle us all using the AC at the same time! I mean things got so bad last summer, that he even issued a public statement asking people NOT to charge/drive their electric cars as much! SMH
View on Reddit #3336734

SmellGestapo@reddit

>Can’t be any smarter than his idea to have us all driving electric cars by 2035 completely ignoring the fact our power grid can’t even handle us all using the AC at the same time! The problem isn't that the grid "can't handle" ACs. It's that on those super hot days, everyone runs their ACs at the same time and we simply run out of supply. [Electric cars can actually help with that.](https://www.nrdc.org/bio/max-baumhefner/how-electric-cars-and-trucks-improve-grid-reliability) They can be programmed to charge overnight when there is plenty of excess power supply, and in times of constrained supply they can send power back out. And the EV mandate is only on new car sales. People will still be driving gas guzzlers well beyond 2035. They just won't be able to buy a new one. >The guy is an absolute joke/Hypocrite! He must be doing something right because he's won three elections for governor and none of them was particularly close.
View on Reddit #3398103

blackhawk905@reddit

They could only put so much power back into the grid unless everyone is fine with being left with a short range vehicle to leave home with in an emergency.
View on Reddit #3398104

jyper@reddit

>Can’t be any smarter than his idea to have us all driving electric cars by 2035 completely ignoring the fact our power grid can’t even handle us all using the AC at the same time! Not his idea, it's the basic trend of the industry. Gas cars are going the way of the horse and buggy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles The EU also has a 2035 limit for new ICE cars. Norway is planning 2025 for new personal vehicles and for commercial ones. Germany, Greece, Israel and Sweden are planning for 2030. 2035 isn't bold or unrealistic it's a solid target. If it had been 2030 then maybe you could say he was pushing it. Companies understand the trend and are planning on phasing out ICE cars. > In 2021, General Motors announced plans to go fully electric by 2035.[165] In the same year, the CEO of Jaguar Land Rover, Thierry Bolloré also claimed it would "achieve zero tailpipe emissions by 2036" and that its Jaguar brand would be electric-only by 2025.[166] By March, Volvo Cars announced that by 2030 it "intends to only sell fully electric cars and phase out any car in its global portfolio with an internal combustion engine, including hybrids".[167] In April 2021, Honda announced that it will stop selling gas-powered vehicles by 2040.[168] In July 2021, Mercedes-Benz announced that its new vehicle platforms will be EV-only by 2025.[169] In Oct 2021, Rolls-Royce announced that it will be fully electric by 2030.[170] In November 2021, at 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, car manufacturers including BYD Auto, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Jaguar, Land Rover, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo have committed to "work towards all sales of new cars and vans being zero emission globally by 2040, and by no later than 2035 in leading markets".[171][172]
View on Reddit #3340243

stangAce20@reddit

I’m sure it will happen eventually, but you can’t phase out gasoline cars when you don’t have the infrastructure or hey, sufficient power supply to allow EVs to take over! Like what does he expect people to do in the summer With the current power grid? push their Teslas everywhere?
View on Reddit #3340430

Tychotesla@reddit

I'm sorry, but this is practically the definition of good leadership. He sees what needs to happen, and in his position he has both the ability and responsibility to push for it happening in a relatively timely and orderly fashion. This signals to companies/investors that they can invest in infrastructure and be rewarded for it, thus allowing the goal to be reached faster and with less waste. Predictability reduces risk and allows for productive investment towards a goal.
View on Reddit #3349353

weirdclownfishguy@reddit

A) it will go nowhere. B) the wording is nothing like a constitutional amendment
View on Reddit #3396036

Marti1PH@reddit

He’d have to overturn the 2A first for it not to be illegal, wouldn’t he?
View on Reddit #3391716

CarolinaKing@reddit

The argument for removing “assault weapons” from citizens because the founding fathers never foresaw semi-automatic weapons is absolutely laughable and asinine.
View on Reddit #3339924

Dramatic_Ir0ny@reddit

I find it so laughable that people hold our founding fathers in such high regard yet make the assumption that they couldn't think critically enough to imagine literally any form of advancement in firearm technology. These people are acting like the founders just thought we'd have muskets for all eternity or something.
View on Reddit #3370857

CarolinaKing@reddit

The real irony is that early semi-automatic weapons existed in their time, and were kinda cutting edge of military technology. Ya know, something that a burgeoning nation with threats on all sides, who might have to fight off the strongest military in the world AGAIN to avoid repatriation, the leaders of such a country might be privy to new tech like that. Especially considering one of them was an academic and inventor.
View on Reddit #3391128

AngriestManinWestTX@reddit

I've always thought, what do you think the Founders would find more difficult to understand? A modern cartridge that combines powder, primer, and projectile (things they're familiar with) into a package and a rifle that harnesses recoil energy to load a new cartridge from a small metal box with a spring inside...*or* a wireless communications system that relies entirely on electricity (which was known but not really possible to harness) to send invisible signals across the Earth or even out into the cosmos? Not only can we send words and letters with these devices but we can speak through it and send pictures. But wait! Surely it's only the elite who have them right? Nope, there are seven year olds running around with this technology in their pocket. Out of all of the innovations that have come about since 1791, cartridges and self-loading firearms would be among the least difficult to understand for the authors of the Constitution.
View on Reddit #3375013

Zac_Anarumo@reddit

The government can ban the internet because it didn’t exist
View on Reddit #3342810

FlamingSpitoon433@reddit

The worst part is that these authoritarian shitheels would do it in a heartbeat if they could.
View on Reddit #3370636

Lux_Aquila@reddit

Well, very clearly he is trying to restrict rights.
View on Reddit #3386515

Duke_Cheech@reddit

At least he's suggesting something. 2nd amendment fanatics seem to have their heads in the sand about how bad gun violence has gotten in this country. This is the only developed country where school shootings are a common issue. I see no reasonable solutions coming from that camp. They talk about mental health, but I don't see any sweeping mental health institutional reforms. It seems to me that we have an epidemic of gun violence and some people (especially on this subreddit) are so in denial of that fact because they enjoy guns recreationally. That's fine, guns are cool, but other hobbies don't jeopardize the lives of school children, do they? This country has a real obsession with guns and it directly leads to thousands of deaths every year. I appreciate the need for self defense but any form of semi-automatic weapon isn't really necessary for that. I also think the argument that the 2nd amendment defends us from government tyranny to be laughable. For one, most other developed countries have stricter gun laws than the US and it's not as if New Zealand and Denmark are tyrannical dictatorships. And no amount of personal firearms is ever going to stop the US military from doing what they want. Good luck shooting down state of the art jets with your AR-15. I also do not care about the 2nd amendment inherently as it is an archaic document written in a time where everyone just had muskets. I can enjoy aspects of gun ownership while still recognizing that this country has a massive gun problem, and until people suggest a better solution, kudos to Gavin Newsom. At least he's suggesting something. It seems to me that the opposite camp is perfectly fine letting kids get shot in school because they get to play action hero rebel fantasies in their head.
View on Reddit #3384011

Wadsworth_McStumpy@reddit

Good for him for identifying the only method (Amendment) that would work for what he wants to do. That's better than a lot of politicians (on both sides) who want to do stuff they're not allowed to do by the Constitution. No chance he's going to get 2/3 of the states (34) to call a convention on that, let alone get 3/4 of them (38) to ratify it. Right now, the states seem to be moving the other way, with over half allowing some form of "Constitutional Carry." In short, it's a publicity stunt, and nothing more.
View on Reddit #3338540

butt_honcho@reddit

And even if it did manage to pass, it's pretty toothless - probably deliberately so.
View on Reddit #3383134

LocoinSoCo@reddit

Ridiculous. It’d never even come close to happening. He’s a narcissist who loves seeing his face constantly on the news for, “What’s the next unrealistic thing I can propose that will never happen but get everyone whipped into a frenzy and fighting so they don’t realize I don’t care to do anything about the real problems in my state”.
View on Reddit #3380501

kirklennon@reddit

If nothing else it helps shift the Overton window. Our current gun discussions range from defeatism on the left over the most modest regulations imaginable to insane fascists on the right who are literally plotting for violent revolution and oppose any restrictions on guns at all. Put the crazy people on the defensive at least.
View on Reddit #3380195

Smilwastaken@reddit

Won't happen. Plus I think it's stupid. Guns are a right of the working class
View on Reddit #3377348

Cassanova1226@reddit

I say “come and take it”
View on Reddit #3375278

Dramatic_Ir0ny@reddit

Empty legislation made to make headlines rather than actually work. That's literally all it is.
View on Reddit #3370307

TheBigCore@reddit

Ultimately, the scourge of mass shootings needs to be dealt with by addressing the serious mental health crisis in the US. If this is not done, nothing will change on the mass shooting problem. Adding more gun laws on **law-abiding** gun owners does **not* and will **not** deter crazy people and criminals from killing people. Congress needs to get off its ass and do something on the bizarre lack of mental health care in this country.
View on Reddit #3370291

FlamingSpitoon433@reddit

A political stunt more than anything. In the current political landscape there’s thankfully no way it could pass. Frankly, I’d probably vote democrat the majority of the time if it weren’t for gun control. I agree with them at least partially on quite a few issues, but I’m not going to actively vote away my rights. It’s the same reason I don’t vote for the evangelical republicans as a matter of principle. In general, I’ve grown tired of this ever-worsening slide into authoritarianism since the early 2000s.
View on Reddit #3370093

dethb0y@reddit

Typical non-sensical grandstanding by a politician.
View on Reddit #3368512

Shuggy539@reddit

No. I won't give them to you, or anybody else. Go fuck yourselves. Oh, hang on, I didn't mean to imply that I actually HAD any guns! No, no, not me, officer! All my guns were lost in a boating accident, along with all the ammo! Honest!
View on Reddit #3367378

Apopedallas@reddit

It’s a smart move that a vast majority of us gun owning Americans support. If politicians were brave enough to resist the gun lobby and pass effective legislation, thousands of lives would be saved. It is absolutely unconscionable that the number one cause of death among young Americans is gun violence. But after Sandy Hook, it became official that guns are more important and need protection more than children.
View on Reddit #3361235

BEGGK@reddit

You legitimately believe the vast majority of gun owning Americans support repealing the 2nd Amendment?
View on Reddit #3361236

TheNigelGuy1@reddit

It’s an infringement of a constitutional right
View on Reddit #3361096

DeathToTheFalseGods@reddit

Almost every single one of the gun laws implemented in California, are circumvented by having enough money to be compliant. Whether that’s buying guns that were grandfathered in, purchasing modifications that barely alter functionality, by paying more for ammo, etc. The only gun laws California implemented have resulted in turning law abiding lower to lower-middle class citizens, into criminals. Criminals are still criminals, and the wealthy don’t care. So my perspective is that he either doesn’t pay attention to what is going on in his own backyard(which I know is true, anecdote to follow) or he just genuinely doesn’t care about anyone that isn’t wealthy. Anecdote time! So I’m in the National Guard. Don’t join. I thought it would be sweet to be in an organization that is dedicated to helping the local community. Sometimes you do, most of the time it’s playing office politics minefield once a month. When the George Floyd riots kicked off, I was on one of the teams there in Sacramento in case it got crazy. Thankfully it didn’t on any large scale. We had a few people jeer, throw trash, or a rock or two at us. Most were happy to see us and tried to offer us water, energy drinks, etc. Couple days into the posting, Mr. Newsom came out to do a photo shoot with some distant relative of George Floyd. I don’t remember if it was him directly or one of his aids, but a soldier in my platoon was told to stop cleaning graffiti off the side of a building and to stand somewhere else. Newsom and Floyd’s relative picked up this soldier’s cleaning supplies and pretended like they were cleaning for photos. After the photo op was done, Newsom asked this soldier why our unit specifically was there. The reason this is so absurd, is the National Guard is mobilized on that scale by order of the governor. More California National guard soldier were activated for those riots than anything else in almost 30 years. He approved it, and didn’t realize it. So while it may not be empirical proof, I personally know for a fact he is rubber stamping whatever his aids put in front of him.
View on Reddit #3360552

mtcwby@reddit

Positioning for a run at President and praying Diane Feinstein makes it through her term so he can run for Senate as a stepping stone. Gavin is a slick weasel who slept with his campaign manager's wife and met with PG&E at the French Laundry while the rest of us were stuck home during Covid. They need to put his face next to "narcissist" in the dictionary.
View on Reddit #3359772

Baymavision@reddit

All for it. No, it will never happen but that's not the point. Most initiatives by politicians have no realistic chance of actually happening, but it gives you insight into where they stand and how they think (or don't as demonstrated by Republicans).
View on Reddit #3358213

Logicist@reddit

Raise the age of adulthood to 21. If people don't think people are adults until 21 then raise it.
View on Reddit #3342197

Ct-5736-Bladez@reddit

Then raise the age of enlistment and voting to 21 if you do that
View on Reddit #3353681

Logicist@reddit

I've been saying we should do exactly that. We should make it illegal until you are an adult at 21 that you can't - * Vote * Get married * Be tried as an adult * Join the army * Sell your body If people want to include other things like alcohol & firearms, I'm ok with that. But I think it's ridiculous that the courts can try you as a grown man, throw you in jail like a grown man, but you can't drink like one.
View on Reddit #3357945

Not_Discordia@reddit

I love it
View on Reddit #3357367

alkatori@reddit

It's virtue signalling. The 2nd amendment is fine as it's written. It protects the rights of individuals to own arms, specifically arms that are suitable in service of a militia (though hard to think of something that wouldn't be suitable for service in a militia). 1 in 20 American's own an "assault weapon", they aren't going to want to give them up. Nor is there any reason to think that it's necessary. Plenty of European nations have individual ownership of 'assault weapons' without these problems. Maybe look at something like oh, single payer healthcare and universal basic income so that people are less desperate trying to find some stability in life.
View on Reddit #3350350

tylermm03@reddit

I’ll be honest I don’t agree with all of your solutions, but I’m happy that you’re noticing that gun violence is a socioeconomic and a health issue. I think if we were to address the socioeconomic and mental health factors that are causing people to make the decision to go kill others or themselves, we’d see a big reduction in firearm related deaths in the US.
View on Reddit #3356745

alkatori@reddit

There's a pipeline that's getting people to radicalize and decide to try and kill a large numbers of strangers. That's relatively rare (I use the Mother Jones criteria vs GVAs). You are seeing more manifesto's being written by shooters. They are the ones I was talking about above. While you might not agree with the particular policies, we need to better understand the pressures that are getting susceptible people in to that pipeline. The more 'normal' gun deaths (suicide, homicide) would drop drastically with better access to healthcare and less socioeconomic stress (which is probably higher now than it's been since the great depression).
View on Reddit #3357273

FirelordDerpy@reddit

Perhaps he should try getting his own state in order before trying to force the rest of the country to follow his vision.
View on Reddit #3357220

ToneGloomy@reddit

I think the dude is a future Batman villain.
View on Reddit #3356918

Figgler@reddit

I think it’s just to get national attention on himself. There’s no chance of any amendment passing with our level of division, and this one would be vehemently opposed by hundreds of millions of people.
View on Reddit #3334735

C21H27Cl3N2O3@reddit

“Hundreds of millions” is definitely an exaggeration. I doubt that guns are as popular as you make it seem.
View on Reddit #3345844

angrysquirrel777@reddit

Guns are owned by 32% of Americans and in over 40% of households.
View on Reddit #3346829

C21H27Cl3N2O3@reddit

Which just barely tops 100k.
View on Reddit #3347959

angrysquirrel777@reddit

That's over 100m people who own a gun but not even including everyone who would support the right without ownership.
View on Reddit #3351446

C21H27Cl3N2O3@reddit

That still isn’t the “hundreds of millions in vehement opposition” the other person was claiming.
View on Reddit #3352312

angrysquirrel777@reddit

Okay sure, one hundred million people.
View on Reddit #3352505

C21H27Cl3N2O3@reddit

Which leaves 230 million in support or unknown on the issue.
View on Reddit #3352855

johnhtman@reddit

A good portion of those are children too young to make a decision.
View on Reddit #3353988

C21H27Cl3N2O3@reddit

There are roughly 70 million children in the US, and a sizable portion of them are in high school. Guns are continuing to fall in popularity among younger generations so it’s likely that the gun debate will continue to shift further toward the negative as more of them enter the voting base.
View on Reddit #3354712

johnhtman@reddit

This is anecdotal, but I'm part of the younger generation, right in between a millennial and Gen Z. I grew up in a suburb outside of Portland Oregon one of the most liberal cities in the country. Tons of people I grew up with, on all ends of the political spectrum are very pro gun rights.
View on Reddit #3356521

C21H27Cl3N2O3@reddit

This is anecdotal as well. I went to school in an area where several kids got in trouble for having rifles and shotguns in their trunks at school so they could go hunting. The school I graduated from staged a walkout against gun violence in schools and in support of stricter gun control this school year.
View on Reddit #3356749

pieonthedonkey@reddit

So not hundreds of millions then?
View on Reddit #3349808

angrysquirrel777@reddit

Do you think that nobody supports gun ownership but doesn't own one themselves?
View on Reddit #3351481

RTR7105@reddit

That identity themselves.
View on Reddit #3349906

thisisausername100fs@reddit

Based off the numbers alone, if we toss non gun owners that support 2A like myself, I’m saying 200m Americans TOPS likely more 120-170m
View on Reddit #3347162

ishouldbestudying111@reddit

What annoyed me about the whole story was him talking as if he has to talk about the possibility of mass shootings with his kids every day. Like, no, you don’t. His kids are more likely to get struck by lightning than killed in a mass shooting, especially given they’re the kids of Gavin Newsom and I’m sure are pretty well protected most of the time.
View on Reddit #3356649

tylermm03@reddit

My thoughts are he can fuck right off if he thinks he can mess with the people’s constitutional rights.
View on Reddit #3356609

RunFromTheIlluminati@reddit

> It would institute what he called a “reasonable” waiting period for all gun purchases Define reasonable and we're good > ban so-called assault rifles throughout the country, The fact it's 'so-called' highlights the problem here. > require universal background checks Good, *now enforce it* > raise the minimum age to buy a firearm to 21. So you can handle a gun in the military and be potentially shot at, but not out of it? You want to restrict *rifles* to 21, now that's at least considerable.
View on Reddit #3339294

Zac_Anarumo@reddit

Age restrictions for constitutional rights makes no sense I can vote, be drafted, be called for jury duty at age 18 But I can’t own a firearm
View on Reddit #3339401

tylermm03@reddit

Exactly. A right delayed is a right denied.
View on Reddit #3356448

GodofWar1234@reddit

- So 18 year old lil Timmy can go to the recruiting office and sign up to potentially go shoot some other asshole halfway across the world wearing a different set of cammies but he can’t own a gun until he’s 21? - “Assault rifles/weapons” don’t exist.
View on Reddit #3356075

RemoteCompetitive688@reddit

It's ridiculous It will go nowhere It's pointless
View on Reddit #3355345

HPayne62@reddit

I do not trust the government to limit which citizens have the power to defend themselves from tyranny and anyone who does is a fool.
View on Reddit #3354748

EcoBlunderBrick123@reddit

With more than half the country being constitutional carry I doubt it will pass.
View on Reddit #3354224

Wespiratory@reddit

F- idea.
View on Reddit #3353876

CassiusCray@reddit

It's funny because the President can't do anything to amend the Constitution.
View on Reddit #3353787

Ct-5736-Bladez@reddit

I think he needs to learn what “shall not be infringed” means
View on Reddit #3353723

Gone213@reddit

I love it. All these ammosexuals want to jerk off with their guns and not come to the table to pass sensible and realistic gun control reform. Fuck them time to start passing shit without them.
View on Reddit #3353524

-Handsome-Jim-@reddit

I have little opinion on any amendment that's clearly not going anywhere HOWEVER it does feel like further proof that he's running for the nomination. I'm a little surprised he hasn't formally announced yet. It might be a bit of a dick move to primary a sitting POTUS who is a fellow party member but I have to assume he would win that primary handedly with a better shot at the general election than Biden.
View on Reddit #3334736

Figgler@reddit

California politicians are pretty negatively viewed in a lot of states within the center of the country.
View on Reddit #3334889

-Handsome-Jim-@reddit

That's because they're Democrats. I'm pretty confident neither Biden nor Newsom are planning an election strategy that hinges on Democrats winning North/South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Californian or not, Newsom is bound to poll better in swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and suddenly Georgia then Biden plus anywhere else Biden is expected to win.
View on Reddit #3335169

Saltpork545@reddit

No, it's because they think they know what's best for us. Just because you run NYC or CA doesn't mean you get to tell the rest of the US what to do or that we should be like you. Many of us *don't want* to be like you. We have our own subcultures. The D behind the name matters to people who don't pay much attention. The authoritarian 'we know what's best for you' attitude is why the rest of us simply tell your leaders to get fucked.
View on Reddit #3353339

bub166@reddit

In the end it didn't matter, but there were a lot of projections for the last election where winning Nebraska's First District could have actually been a deciding factor. I get what you mean, and it's just one vote, but Nebraska is a little unique in that parts of it are definitely in play for both parties because of how it distributes electoral votes.
View on Reddit #3336341

Admirable_Ad1947@reddit

Dems have no chance there anyway. PA, GA and AZ are the real electoral battlegrounds at present.
View on Reddit #3346659

4x4Lyfe@reddit

Can't blame them our last president from California has a pretty spotty record. Then there's the despised Nancy Pelosi who was speaker from 07-11 and from 19-23 which were wild times with a lot more attention being paid to the legislative branch than typical. I bet most people can't name more than 3 speakers of the house and they all know Pelosi.
View on Reddit #3337315

The_Real_Scrotus@reddit

> but I have to assume he would win that primary handedly with a better shot at the general election than Biden. I think it's *extremely* unlikely that Newsom could successfully primary Biden.
View on Reddit #3336014

-Handsome-Jim-@reddit

*An* incumbent usually does but this one doesn’t. This is going to be a very difficult election for Joe Biden - even if Trump is the nominee, with all of his legal trouble.
View on Reddit #3341416

Captain_Jmon@reddit (OP)

I agree with your entire comment but the end. From my anecdotal experience, Newsom is not well like outside of the Pacific Coast. Even my Democratic friends here in CO don't like him from his COVID policy during the height of the pandemic.
View on Reddit #3335058

Obligatory-Reference@reddit

Even a lot of Democrats I know here in California don't particularly like him - 'slimy' is a word that gets thrown around. They'll vote for him for governor, but I have a feeling it would be different if he ran for President.
View on Reddit #3339271

-Handsome-Jim-@reddit

It's not really a matter of being well liked. It's a matter of being liked more than Trump and Biden. The bar isn't set that high.
View on Reddit #3335306

Captain_Jmon@reddit (OP)

I still wouldn't say he does. Biden is the favorite because he can do better in the Great Lake states that swung back to the Democrats in 2020. I don't think Newsom has that draw Biden did for those voters
View on Reddit #3335667

pirawalla22@reddit

I think it's more likely he is setting the table for a run in the future, not necessarily in 2024. I could be wrong. But I think he is smart enough to know that Kamala Harris will be in a stickier situation in 2028 than Biden is now - if she even decides to run for the nomination. If she doesn't, it could be wide open and Newsome wants to start staking out territory now.
View on Reddit #3336742

Steamsagoodham@reddit

2028 yeah, 2024 not a chance. The party is pretty firmly entrenched behind Biden so he’d almost certainly lose while burning a bunch of the bridges he’d need for a successful run in 2028.
View on Reddit #3335546

R0b0Saurus@reddit

I hate it and hate him.
View on Reddit #3353062

TheySayImZack@reddit

I don't own a gun, yet. Gun bans won't work. I would co-sign any of the 3 other stipulations of his proposal. It's somewhat shocking to me that as a nation we're still into the "banning" of things. That never works, and only drives the black market to unfriendly places. With that all being said, this is political theater. He knows this is going to go absolutely no where.
View on Reddit #3352674

P0RTILLA@reddit

I feel like it’s performative just like Desantis’ anti-woke nonsense. I honestly hope neither gets anywhere near the white house. We need an operator in the White House not an performance artist.
View on Reddit #3352008

Dark_Mandalore@reddit

It's got a snowball's chance in hell considering over half the states are now constitutional carry. It'd never get ratified. In practice it's probably just the lizard man trying to fire up people for 2024.
View on Reddit #3351024

Snarlynx@reddit

The epitome of politics. Find something that will never happen and then say you’ll fight for it.
View on Reddit #3350970

SeventhSea90520@reddit

Two things. 1) limiting people's ability to get ahold of weapons as an adult is still infringement and 2) at 18 you're old enough to be officially part of the "militia" and be a soldier dying with a rifle in your hands plus being able to hunt on your own and at 18 if you're a man you're forced to "volunteer" for the draft if you want commodities like a driver's license, job, vote or bank account so you deserve to be able to own a rifle even if recreationally or for home security. Essentially it's a bad idea for anybody to test the waters with treason and just like Canada they'll go from slowing adding limits to completely trying to take them away which means if your government becomes a tyrannical reign you can't fight back as easily which is the entire reason of the 2a so all adults 18+ can access even true military equipment and own it to defend internally and externally
View on Reddit #3350809

The_Toyotomi@reddit

I think it's a good idea.
View on Reddit #3343198

Newatinvesting@reddit

Why
View on Reddit #3348433

The_Toyotomi@reddit

I don't really feel like getting deep into the conversation, because in the end I won't change your mind and you won't change my mind. It's a bit pointless. If you live in this country and seeing what is happening here doesn't give you a change of heart, then I don't think words will do anything.
View on Reddit #3349584

Newatinvesting@reddit

I wasn’t saying “convince me” I just wanted to know your motivations for your opinion. I try to absorb a variety of takes on issues.
View on Reddit #3350028

The_Toyotomi@reddit

I think that gun culture is absolutely out of control in America, I feel that the second amendment was one of the most poorly written of all amendments. I feel that nobody is looking at the constitution as a living breathing document that was MEANT to be changed to match the ever evolving society it is meant to last down law for. I believe that gun manufacturers have a vested interest in selling as many weapons as they possibly can and that American made firearms are where the cartel and gangs get their weapons. I believe that the argument of "it will only affect gun abiding citizens" is a bad argument when the target of gun legislation should be put on the manufacturers. Criminals aren't manufacturing their guns, they are acquiring them from the manufacturers one way or another. I think that with free access to firearms mixed with the wealth inequality, failed medical system, failed mental healthcare system, and failed education system in America you should expect mass carnage, and a constitution written 300+ years ago, with none of these issues and none of the technological and social developments in mind is a poor defense for such a situation. I think that there are limits to rights, and that those limits should be set based on the situation society finds itself in at the time. I have freedom of speech, yet I cannot threaten to kill a person, I cannot scream fire in a movie theater. I have the right to vote, but I just register to do so. Therefore, the right to bear arms should also be approached the same way. But we cannot, because a subsection of society has been told that it is an attack on them as a people and that to limit that right means that some tyrant has a conspiracy to Lord over them. It's absolute nonsense.
View on Reddit #3350763

w3woody@reddit

To be blunt, I think it's a publicity stunt. In order to pass an amendment you need both the House and Senate to approve the amendment by a 2/3rds vote--then you need 38 out of 50 states to approve the proposed amendment in their own legislatures. And in general recent amendments put a time limit on their ratification--which is why in nearly 240 years, we've only passed 17 amendments, not counting the Bill of Rights. And under the time limit regime, the last amendment we passed was the 26th Amendment, passed more than 50 years ago. (The 27th Amendment was proposed in 1789, but never established a time limit on its passage, allowing it to be passed in 1992. And I remember when it was passed--the biggest question on folks' minds was "wait, is this... legal?") On the other hand, it will get to join the rest of the [proposed Amendments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution).
View on Reddit #3350201

mustang6172@reddit

I don't have time to read that whole article. What's the proposed text?
View on Reddit #3350185

san_souci@reddit

It’s political masturbation. It’s just intended to signal that he is a leader of the progressive wing.
View on Reddit #3350070

OceanPoet87@reddit

It will never happen.
View on Reddit #3349638

coccopuffs606@reddit

It’s purely performative; if this amendment somehow gets the votes to become law, gun rights groups will sue to have it repealed. Newsom isn’t stupid, he knows this is what will happen.
View on Reddit #3349307

furiouscottus@reddit

Don't care. California can mismanage itself all it wants.
View on Reddit #3349165

Not_JohnFKennedy@reddit

Cringe.
View on Reddit #3348591

i6am6the6thorn@reddit

I'm not. I just asked a simple question.
View on Reddit #3348509

115machine@reddit

It’s political theater. There isn’t a snowballs chance in hell of something like this going through. He knows it isn’t going to pass; he’s just doing it so he can go through the usual speech of “look what we’re trying to do! It’s the republicans who don’t care about kids!”
View on Reddit #3348300

Airbornequalified@reddit

Besides my personal beliefs, 1. Are you adult at 18 or not? There should not be age tiers for rights 2. Language is incredibly vague, and has been issues with amendments in the past So overall, shitty admendmebt that has no chance of passing
View on Reddit #3347681

UCFknight2016@reddit

Its just the democratic version of the political posturing we have been seeing from the right. I dont take it seriously.
View on Reddit #3347547

5amporterbridges@reddit

Being as one who lives in California, I think he’s a terrible offshoot of Jerry Brown and I think he couldn’t run a circus much less a state. He’s the epitome of an elite politician that thinks he’s better than everyone else but so is Joe Biden and he’s somehow president.
View on Reddit #3347064

GovernorK@reddit

I mean, this is just the start of what could possibly be an end to the 2nd if conservatives and the NRA don't come to the table to discuss meaningful legislation to address the epidemic of gun violence in the US.
View on Reddit #3346967

Salvage_Gaming99@reddit

Absolute bull fucking shit
View on Reddit #3345439

forwardobserver90@reddit

I think hes a petty tyrant that wants to run for president.
View on Reddit #3336057

HowdyOW@reddit

Proposing a constitutional amendment, a process that requires a ton of support to pass, seems like the opposite of what a tyrant would do.
View on Reddit #3337347

forwardobserver90@reddit

It’s what his amendment will do (in the highly unlikely chance it passes) that makes him a petty tyrant.
View on Reddit #3340497

HowdyOW@reddit

> Newsom’s proposed 28th Amendment has four prongs: It would institute what he called a “reasonable” waiting period for all gun purchases, ban so-called assault rifles throughout the country, require universal background checks and raise the minimum age to buy a firearm to 21. Assuming that the amendment passed (which meant it had broad appeal), which of these part of the amendment would make him a tyrant? If this passed wouldn’t that simply be the normal democratic process by which our republic amendmends laws?
View on Reddit #3343164

forwardobserver90@reddit

Banning the most popular and widely owned rifle in the US is, opening the door to a nation wide gun registry, restricting the right’s of legal adults, and allowing the states to push even more draconian laws? Ya that’s pretty tyrannical.
View on Reddit #3344464

WulfTheSaxon@reddit

What about trying to pass an amendment that abolishes the entire Bill of Rights and replaces elections with a monarchy based on yourself? I don’t think using the amendment process completely insulates somebody from claims of tyrannical ambition.
View on Reddit #3338139

CP1870@reddit

Which is why the founders made the process extremely difficult
View on Reddit #3338826

amcjkelly@reddit

It likely won't pass. But, it will bring him a lot of money to run his campaign which is probably his main objective.
View on Reddit #3336365

SmellGestapo@reddit

He's using leftover money *from* his campaign to launch this.
View on Reddit #3343894

Wolf482@reddit

Not worried, but Newsom can fuck all the way off.
View on Reddit #3343245

brutusofapplehill@reddit

Only 7% of ALL gun crimes (nationally) are done by legal gun owners. It's a dog whistle political stunt but a political c☆nt.
View on Reddit #3342806

Regular-Suit3018@reddit

Something has to be done to confront mass shootings. I applaud him for taking an bold stand.
View on Reddit #3342393

scolfin@reddit

Doesn't seem like anything that would require an amendment. I'd also say the quickest way to get rid of guns would simply be to give storage requirements some teeth (incl. annual surprise inspections). Remember how offended the gun owners on this sub got about a parent not wanting his 5yo to go on a playdate to a household in which guns were left lying around everywhere?
View on Reddit #3339611

Figgler@reddit

Annual surprise inspections for storage seems like a pretty open and shut case for violation of the 4th amendment.
View on Reddit #3342280

JustSomeGuy556@reddit

It's political theater and attention whoring and has zero percent chance of happening.
View on Reddit #3342123

WhatAreYouSaying05@reddit

He’s definitely putting his hat in the ring for 2028. If this amendment manages to get passed, it would be a major political win for him
View on Reddit #3341924

GrimNark@reddit

Californian here he’s testing the water see if anyone bites
View on Reddit #3341481

Partytime79@reddit

I don’t have a particularly high opinion of it because I tend to be closer to a 2A absolutist than most. I also think it’s a stunt more than a real push to shore up our nation’s gun laws. Not only is it not happening but there are dangers in having a constitutional convention of the States. There is no guarantee that they’d stay on topic about gun control. A lot could get changed quickly. However, I do appreciate that he’s going about it in the proper way. The 2A is in the Constitution and altering it requires amending it. It’s better than passing some performative law that’s going to be struck down and wasting your taxpayer’s money in doomed court battles.
View on Reddit #3341479

Cherry_Springer_@reddit

Everything being proposed would help to bring down gun violence/homicide rates overall, as has been demonstrated in other countries around the world. That said, it has no chance of passing so long as the U.S tolerates daily mass shootings and the highest homicide rates in the developed world because a large portion of the population is paranoid about some hypothetical future government crackdown on its citizens and sees guns as the most viable solution rather than actually strengthening our institutions and demanding more from office holders.
View on Reddit #3341293

MortimerDongle@reddit

I do not think specific regulations should go in the Constitution, on any issue. It's dumb.
View on Reddit #3340443

HoldMyWong@reddit

How to destroy your presidential campaign before starting it
View on Reddit #3340441

Chimney-Imp@reddit

I haven't read anything about it so I'm completely qualified to comment on it and tell you that it won't work
View on Reddit #3339721

shamalonight@reddit

Not much.
View on Reddit #3339609

MorrowPlotting@reddit

For my entire lifetime, both sides of the political spectrum had “constitutionalists” — people who might not agree with every specific thing in the US Constitution, but who would defend every part of it, and would defend the people exercising rights granted them by the Constitution. People on the Left might not like the gun rights protected by the Second Amendment, but they respected the constitutional right to bear arms. People on the Right might oppose Abortion as a policy matter, but they accepted *Roe v. Wade* as settled law, and respected the constitutional rights it recognized. Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell blew up that balance. On both reproductive rights and voting rights, Republicans have decided to win at any cost. The cost is they’ve put gun rights in the realm of “constitutionally protected, for now.” Newsom is just the first of what we’re going to see a lot of in the near future. The Left will no longer respect the second amendment as unchangeable and in any way sacred. They’ll treat it exactly like the Right has treated “their” constitutional protections. Personally, I’m a constitutionalist. But the Constitution has to be for everyone. What Newsom’s doing is the predictable result of the GOP success at politicizing constitutional law. Enjoy your AR’s while you can!
View on Reddit #3338701

trer24@reddit

If Sandy Hook, Vegas and Uvalde could not get people to think differently about guns, then it's never going to happen in this country.
View on Reddit #3338572

CP1870@reddit

Bad and will never pass. You need 3/4 of the states to vote for this and currently 26 of them don't require a permit to carry a gun in public
View on Reddit #3338437

machagogo@reddit

Nothing more than political grandstanding. Agree with it or not.
View on Reddit #3338407

codan84@reddit

I can support constitutional amendments that grant more powers to the government and restrict the rights of individuals. That being said it is good to hear a gun control advocate proposing a constitutional amendment and calling for changes through a legal process rather than ignoring the constitution as it currently is. It does seem to be almost an admission that an amendment is needed and current gun control laws are not constitutional. I wonder if Newsom will speak on how calls for an amendment line up with his government’s defense of California’s gun control laws in the courts.
View on Reddit #3338346

WashuOtaku@reddit

Well, he could not use "Reparations" again.
View on Reddit #3338019

Spokane_Lone_Wolf@reddit

Disagree with it completely but also not worried at all. Just Beto-style publicity stunt to get brownie points from the base, clearly not a real attempt to actually do anything.
View on Reddit #3334556

4x4Lyfe@reddit

> publicity stunt to get brownie points from the base, clearly not a real attempt to actually do anything. Nothing to see here folks just the two party system working as intended. I don't care what the issues is at hand this is the majority of what our politicians do with their time.
View on Reddit #3336991

maxman14@reddit

I have not been a fan at all of when they tried to "Fix" problems that affected me personally so I can't say I'm too upset with that. Send them to LARP in the capitol and let us solve our own problems...
View on Reddit #3337805

noobish-hero1@reddit

Everything was so nice up until "weapon ban." The weapons ban is enough for me to say no to this since I know he won't compromise. Any chance he had of me voting for him ever again is gone. I'm disappointed but not really surprised.
View on Reddit #3337765

SkiingAway@reddit

He has correctly identified where to change things in order to have the kind of gun control he wants. So in that sense, I applaud a politician for admitting the level at which things would need to be changed. I don't think it has the slightest chance of making it to the point of becoming law, nor do I think it will significantly change any discussions at state levels.
View on Reddit #3337744

GreatSoulLord@reddit

Unconstitutional effort and won't survive a challenge in the courts. Also, it takes a lot to get an amendment passed and there's no way something like that will pass. He's showboating for political attention. He might run for President.
View on Reddit #3337557

LivingGhost371@reddit

If he hates that we have constitutinoal rights in America that much maybe he should find another country to live in.
View on Reddit #3337302

Zona643@reddit

I think about as much of it as his adventures into reparations.
View on Reddit #3336920

HowdyOW@reddit

Good, but I’ll be downvoted for saying that. I volunteer with a few organizations one for gun regulation and one focused on better mental health access, and nobody that I’ve met at either is a gun owner. Gun owners don’t want regulations but many many (the majority?) also don’t want to offer or find any solutions that could possibly reduce gun violence. From my liver experience gun owners are okay with the status quo of kids dying as long as it’s going to cost them tax money or their guns.
View on Reddit #3336642

GreatSoulLord@reddit

Unconstitutional and won't survive a challenge in the courts. Also, it takes a lot to get an amendment passed and there's no way something like that will ever pass.
View on Reddit #3335903

The_Bjorn_Ultimatum@reddit

It isn't unconstitutional to amend the constitution, but yeah, the rest of your statement is spot in.
View on Reddit #3336624

TillPsychological351@reddit

I don't really care either way about guns, but I know this proposal will never go anywhere in my lifetime. I don't love the maximalist interpretation that some 2nd Amendment supporters insist on, but on the otherhand, I'm not on favor of altering an existing amendment without an existential need. Otherwise, parts of the Constitution that I find much more important could also be potentially fair game if the political whims of the moment find parts of the text inconvenient for their purposes.
View on Reddit #3336354

Zac_Anarumo@reddit

Not interested I prefer to keep civil rights as strong as possible
View on Reddit #3336267

BaltimoreNewbie@reddit

Political grandstanding that don’t appeal the country, but to Anti-gun democrats he wants to court for a future presidential run.
View on Reddit #3336233

harley9779@reddit

It's just for attention. Not even worth giving it any attention. The process to Amend the Constitution is insanely difficult. Government can't agree on anything, there's no way they would be able to pass any Constitutional Amendment.
View on Reddit #3335908

cschoonmaker@reddit

Political grandstanding and possibly political suicide. An amendment would take a 2/3 vote from Congress (hint: ain't gonna happen) OR he has to convince 33 states (well, 32 states because he's a given) to call for a constitutional convention. Know how many of those have ever happened? And how long ago? Yeah that ain't happening either. So it's just lip service in the end. Before he keeps pushing the issue, he should talk to Eric Swalwel and Beto O'Rourke and see how well that platform worked out for their political careers.
View on Reddit #3335848

GOTaSMALL1@reddit

My dog is going to get a job. Let’s all just say things that will never happen!
View on Reddit #3335502

The_Real_Scrotus@reddit

He's grandstanding for anti-gun democrats. There is zero chance of anything he's proposing actually happening.
View on Reddit #3335341

JudgeWhoOverrules@reddit

Absolutely outrageous but it's incredibly refreshing to see anti-gun advocates actually take the mask off and be honest about their intentions.
View on Reddit #3335004

Salty_Lego@reddit

What he’s calling for has been supported by gun control advocates for years. There is no mask.
View on Reddit #3335328

Salty_Lego@reddit

1. In order to pass more comprehensive gun control we’re going to have to amend the constitution. That is years, decades away from happening. 2. His proposed amendment is good. I wouldn’t have any problems with it. Republicans have wanted to call a constitutional convention for years. 3. It’s just a publicity stunt for his 2028 presidential campaign. Though I do not want him as the dem nominee. It would be a great way to lose every swing state.
View on Reddit #3335248

Steamsagoodham@reddit

It’s just a symbolic move since there isn’t a realistic path to amending the constitution. Personally I’m not a gun owner and don’t have a strong stance either way on the 2nd amendment.
View on Reddit #3335124

Atlas_Colter@reddit

I think he's a dummy.
View on Reddit #3335034

TrixieLurker@reddit

It's a bit too vague to be a good amendment, also it is never going to happen, so to me this is just another publicity stunt.
View on Reddit #3334741

Curmudgy@reddit

It may create some interesting discussion nationwide, to put it mildly, but I doubt we’ll see any action on it for at least 10 years, if ever.
View on Reddit #3334592

AutoModerator@reddit

This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder: * Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view. * Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted. * Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently. * Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.** If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
View on Reddit #3334433