Robb Elementary School shooting - May 2022

[Infidel144]

The process provided for changing the Constitution is by Amendment (see Article 5).
Hoplophobes can get work on getting an Amendment passed to repeal the 2nd Amendment (or the 14th), any time they want.

[Prodromos]

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

Who has the right to food: "a well-balanced breakfast" or "the people"?

[antaeus]

The process provided for changing the Constitution is by Amendment (see Article 5).
Hoplophobes can get work on getting an Amendment passed to repeal the 2nd Amendment (or the 14th), any time they want.

Ironically, a well crafted amendment could even work to the gun lobby's advantage, by clarifying their right to sell specific kinds of weapons to the public or by opening up markets that are currently biased against them, or even opening new potential demographics currently closed to them because of the present polarising all-or-nothing scenario.

While the divisive nature of the current situation tends to advantage gun manufacturers bottom lines amongst certain demographics, it damages them in others. A polarised situation prevents those who are mixed or nuanced in their thinking on both sides from considering compromised solutions that might benefit many more people.

Like many issues... a system that was designed for compromise is being used by those who are all-or-nothing in their thinking.

[Infidel144]

The Second is well crafted.
The compromise is provided for in Article 5.
(And the hoplophobes already got their compromises.)

[Cope]

Ironically, a well crafted amendment could even work to the gun lobby's advantage, by clarifying their right to sell specific kinds of weapons to the public or by opening up markets that are currently biased against them, or even opening new potential demographics currently closed to them because of the present polarising all-or-nothing scenario.

While the divisive nature of the current situation tends to advantage gun manufacturers bottom lines amongst certain demographics, it damages them in others. A polarised situation prevents those who are mixed or nuanced in their thinking on both sides from considering compromised solutions that might benefit many more people.

Like many issues... a system that was designed for compromise is being used by those who are all-or-nothing in their thinking.

The existing federal and state limits on the 2A are the compromise. Liberal opposition to the amendment will inevitably lead the US down the path of the rest of the Anglosphere where the ability to possess firearms as a right (descended from the English Bill of Rights) has been effectively extinguished.

[antaeus]

The existing federal and state limits on the 2A are the compromise. Liberal opposition to the amendment will inevitably lead the US down the path of the rest of the Anglosphere where the ability to possess firearms as a right (descended from the English Bill of Rights) has been effectively extinguished.

You assume that a single compromise is all that is ever needed. Closing the book after a single iteration falls into exactly the same trap that was sought to be avoided by allowing for amendments in the first place.

It doesn't really matter whether it is a liberal or a conservative or what ever issue. Conservatives can seek to amend and change either interpretations of existing elements of the Constitution, or seek to amend them. But I would argue that gun access lobbyists feel they are advantaged by the current set of disagreements on interpretation, as this embeds a status quo that they feel is favourable to their bottom line.

[Coughdrop addict]

"hoplophobes"

Let me try to explain things in a way the pro-school shooting lobby might understand. You see, we liberals feel sad when our children are murdered. We don't want them to be murdered. We have this liberal emotion called love that we feel for them. We see our children to be just as important and irreplaceable as you do your guns.

Now I know your type thinks you need an assault rifle on you at all times in case you become angry or are told no, or for when Obama/Clinton/Gates/Soros comes to put you in the 5G vaccine white genocide sharia death camps, but I promise you there are other ways to deal with problems and frustrations besides pulling out your gun and firing wildly at anyone you can see.

[conon394]

If you’re suggesting states should be training male adults to form militias like the old days, that’s cool and all, but that would only further underscore the “shall not be infringed” part since the idea was oftentimes BYOG. Not sure how the lack of formal militias nowadays is “ignoring the first half” either since the premise is to have a well armed citizenry to call upon if needed. Point being the first part strengthens the second in any event, as Cope said. Neither do I follow the idea that technology invalidates constitutional rights. I’m sure the Founders weren’t thinking about the dangers of global terrorism, the internet, or social media and disinformation when they included the other 9 amendments either, but we still have them, luckily.

The first half makes it clear in simple English the right to arms is linked to a well regulated militia be federal or state does not mater. Was the kid in Texas part of a well regulated militia? And you know as well as I do that was meant to refer to state militias not just yahoos with guns. We know that because the GW and Hamilton put down the whiskey rebellion quite promptly.THat seem to both fit the bill of founders/framers if you want to go the originalist route

[antaeus]

"hoplophobes"

Let me try to explain things in a way the pro-school shooting lobby might understand. You see, we liberals feel sad when our children are murdered. We don't want them to be murdered. We have this liberal emotion called love that we feel for them. We see our children to be just as important and irreplaceable as you do your guns.

Now I know your type thinks you need an assault rifle on you at all times in case you become angry or are told no, or for when Obama/Clinton/Gates/Soros comes to put you in the 5G vaccine white genocide sharia death camps, but I promise you there are other ways to deal with problems and frustrations besides pulling out your gun and firing wildly at anyone you can see.

Yet to get your desired goals, you have to offer enough compromises to the folks you are talking to, that they will come to a willing agreement with you. So to a degree, you have to step back from the passionate calls to action, because they don't get you the outcome you want. Instead you need to look at the reasons why they might want their guns, and mitigate some of their fears from losing them, and put your compromise to them without making them dig their heels in, in response.

Compromise is tough.

[Cope]

You assume that a single compromise is all that is ever needed. Closing the book after a single iteration falls into exactly the same trap that was sought to be avoided by allowing for amendments in the first place.

It doesn't really matter whether it is a liberal or a conservative or what ever issue. Conservatives can seek to amend and change either interpretations of existing elements of the Constitution, or seek to amend them. But I would argue that gun access lobbyists feel they are advantaged by the current set of disagreements on interpretation, as this embeds a status quo that they feel is favourable to their bottom line.

There have been innumerable legislative acts and court rulings which have defined the limits of the 2A over two centuries, complete with significant variation by state. There is not - and never was - a "single iteration" of compromise. The transparent liberal objective to eradicate gun ownership as a fundamental right via incrementalism is not a compromise and can no more be reasonably entertained than demands to add "disinformation" or "hate speech" exceptions to the 1A.

[antaeus]

There have been innumerable legislative acts and court rulings which have defined the limits of the 2A over two centuries, complete with significant variation by state. There is not - and never was - a "single iteration" of compromise. The transparent liberal objective to eradicate gun ownership as a fundamental right via incrementalism is not a compromise and can no more be reasonably entertained than demands to add "disinformation" or "hate speech" exceptions to the 1A.

And yet, it is not a settled issue.

[Coughdrop addict]

Yet to get your desired goals, you have to offer enough compromises to the folks you are talking to, that they will come to a willing agreement with you. So to a degree, you have to step back from the passionate calls to action, because they don't get you the outcome you want. Instead you need to look at the reasons why they might want their guns, and mitigate some of their fears from losing them, and put your compromise to them without making them dig their heels in, in response.

Compromise is tough.

That assumes their reasons are in any way rational or grounded in reality.

Most just need guns to feel like tough men and turn the tables on the world that frightens them. A gun is what they use as a substitute for courage and self confidence. Case in point: Big tough MAGA warrior Rittenhouse was afraid of nothing and ready to start blowing off heads if anyone so much as looked at him wrong when he had his gun, but without it he was a whimpering little boy, a blubbering puddle of tears pleading not to go to big boy prison where he knew he'd be eaten alive.

The rest think they need guns for their Turner Diaries fantasies where they overthrow the government and kill anyone who is not like them. The shooter in Buffalo, Anders Brehavik, and Brenton Tarrant are examples of this type of gun fetishist.

Simply put, compromise with the right is impossible and would only allow them to continue to cause pain and injury to those who don't deserve it.

[antaeus]

That assumes their reasons are in any way rational or grounded in reality.

For them, they are, and based on the current status-quo, they hold enough levers of power to maintain their view of the status-quo.

The rest think they need guns for their Turner Diaries fantasies

You make a mass/group judgement, and apply it with weasel words. Which plays into the hands of people who may their way of life and cultural identity is being challenged by you. You literally gift them a rally cry.

Without reassessing your approach, you will lose this debate, simply because you assume that you're arguing with a monolith, not a complex set of people with differing motives, fears and rationales.

[Cope]

And yet, it is not a settled issue.

Remarking on the fact that the issue (like all other issues) remains "unsettled" isn't an argument in favour of "compromise". If there is some legislative proposal that could form the basis of a bipartisan agreement, then by all means, present it.

[Cope]

You make a mass/group judgement, and apply it with weasel words. Which plays into the hands of people who may their way of life and cultural identity is being challenged by you. You literally gift them a rally cry.

Without reassessing your approach, you will lose this debate, simply because you assume that you're arguing with a monolith, not a complex set of people with differing motives, fears and rationales.

He isn't participating in a debate; he's being abusive and insulting. Though for the record, I don't view him as any sort of standard-bearer for liberalism.

[Coughdrop addict]

For them, they are, and based on the current status-quo, they hold enough levers of power to maintain their view of the status-quo.

You make a mass/group judgement, and apply it with weasel words. Which plays into the hands of people who may their way of life and cultural identity is being challenged by you. You literally gift them a rally cry.

Without reassessing your approach, you will lose this debate, simply because you assume that you're arguing with a monolith, not a complex set of people with differing motives, fears and rationales.

If someone's values and cultural identity start at "murdered schoolchildren is a small price to pay as long as I can feel tough with my gun." Then those values should be challenged and that cultural identity is something that should be fought against, not pandered too.

And I think you're wrong, we can win by changing the values of society as a whole so that those who cling to the bad old ways become pariahs. We did it with slavery (which was a similar pillar of right-wing cultural identity at the time), Jim Crow (ditto), miscegenation laws (same), sodomy laws (of course), and more. If we had compromised then, we'd still have slave traders operating openly, blacks wouldn't be citizens, interracial marriage would be illegal, and gays would be thrown in prison.

Some issues are indeed black and white, right or wrong. Moral relativism or trying to find common ground with those who's beliefs require that others be harmed is just to roll over and accept the status quo.

He isn't participating in a debate; he's being abusive and insulting. Though for the record, I don't view him as any sort of standard-bearer for liberalism.

I'm sure the parents of the murdered children of Robb Elementary School feel a bit more than "insulted" that the nation's gun fetishist cost them their children. But sure, gun fetishists are the real victims here, as always.

[antaeus]

Remarking on the fact that the issue (like all other issues) remains "unsettled" isn't an argument in favour of "compromise". If there is some legislative proposal that could form the basis of a bipartisan agreement, then by all means, present it.

Oh I agree. Unsettled doesn't mean there should be compromise. But it does make it more likely at some point, and preferable to one side or the other coercing a solution.

If I was to spit-ball my solution to gun access debates... it would have to enshrine the rights of as many people as possible to relatively freely own guns, but might have to treat guns more like cars... in that things like registration, licensing, and requirements for ongoing maintenance might be considered. But I don't think there needs to be a Constitutional mechanism to reach this place, just legislative and SC agreement - which would in turn allow the compromise to be reviewed by future governments if it was causing undue harm to gun owners, or hadn't contributed to any reduction amongst gun related incidents.

But as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I don't think gun access changes are the sole pathway to a solution for mass acts of violence. Access restriction is an approach to limit the availability of the tools of death, but it doesn't solve the question of why these attacks occur. So it's just a piece of a larger puzzle.

[Cope]

Oh I agree. Unsettled doesn't mean there should be compromise. But it does make it more likely at some point, and preferable to one side or the other coercing a solution.

As above, every issue is "unsettled" in the sense that lawmakers can revisit any/all policy/legislation (or lack thereof) at their leisure.

If I was to spit-ball my solution... it would have to enshrine the rights of as many people as possible to freely own guns, but might have to treat guns more like cars... in that things like registration, licensing, and requirements for ongoing maintenance might be considered. But I don't think there needs to be a Constitutional mechanism to reach this place, just legislative and SC agreement - which would in turn allow the compromise to be reviewed by future governments if it was causing undue harm to gun owners, or hadn't contributed to any reduction amongst gun related incidents.

But as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I don't think gun rights are the sole pathway to a solution for mass acts of violence. Access restriction is an approach to limit the availability of the tools of death, but it doesn't solve the why.

Not sure how these suggestions (vague though they are) would have prevented the Uvalde killer, given that (to the best of my knowledge) he had no criminal history, no documented history of poor mental health, no history of protective orders and no documented history of domestic violence. There isn't an obvious reason why a license requirement would either have deterred or prevented him from acquiring a firearm (on the contrary, it may have served only to improve his firearm proficiency).

[Cyclops]

....
But as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I don't think gun access changes are the sole pathway to a solution for mass acts of violence. Access restriction is an approach to limit the availability of the tools of death, but it doesn't solve the question of why these attacks occur. So it's just a piece of a larger puzzle.

Pretty much. As an outsider like you I look in on this atrocious situation, and there's so many parts that are shocking. Is racism part of the picture? The US is hardly the most racist place in thee world (I mean Australia gives them a decent run for starters) and frankly there are places that are many times worse so it can't be that, or just that.

Is it wealth? Seriously the US is hugely wealthy and has huge wealth gaps. It is a highly successful more-or-less capitalist system, I think this is part of it, but how could I prove that?

Is it global hegemony? I can't see how but its a unique attribute of the US.

Is it the Constitution? Plenty of other countries have hidebound legal systems so I doubt it. I don't think school shootings and the flood of guns are a problem from the 18th century, its a late 20th century onwards problem IIRC.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The first half makes it clear in simple English the right to arms is linked to a well regulated militia be federal or state does not mater. Was the kid in Texas part of a well regulated militia? And you know as well as I do that was meant to refer to state militias not just yahoos with guns. We know that because the GW and Hamilton put down the whiskey rebellion quite promptly.THat seem to both fit the bill of founders/framers if you want to go the originalist route

I was following your line of reasoning, but it seems you may have lost it? Owning assault weapons has nothing to do with the whiskey rebellion, and the idea Americans were only allowed to have guns if they were a formal member of a state militia is ahistorical and unconstitutional.

Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

https://constitutioncenter.org/inter...-ii/interps/99

The traditional militia angle hurts, not helps, your position, but that was mentioned already. The relevant court cases have typically revolved around the government’s ability to regulate guns, not citizen’s right to own them. It was a relatively moot point until state and local authorities started taking specific and invasive action against gun owners, and SCOTUS has since affirmed that the 2A protects the individual right to own lawfully guns without any specific connection to militia service.