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

  • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You use the word privilege here and firearm ownership should be a privilege.

    It’s downright nifty to feel that way.

    The reality is it’s a constitutionally-protected right.

    There is nothing in the US Constitution that guarantees the ownership and free usage of a car.

    I’m not sure you thought this through; they’re entirely unregulated in use on private property.

    Taking someone’s ability to drive has way more of an effect on the daily quality of life of a person than taking their guns away yet people often do not quibble over someone this happens to

    Lol - it’s okay because occasionally people don’t complain? Yikes.

    Have you heard of the danger of the indifference of good men?

    There are lots of democratic societies who apply this to guns. Iceland and Canada for instance still have a high level of gun ownership but it is a licencable privilege, not a right.

    Canada, in particular, is doing its best to do away with even that - it’s not a great example. I’m also not sure you can find any example that even approaches the level of ownership we enjoy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        The option always exists to ditch it as a right.

        Lol, good luck with that amendment.

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

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

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

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

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