Families upended by school shootings share trauma in push for gun law changes, but get mixed results
Families upended by school shootings share trauma in push for gun law changes, but get mixed results
Throughout the corridors of many state Capitols, families are sharing emotionally gutting stories of tragedy caused by mass school shootings with the hope that revealing their trauma will convince lawmakers on either side of the political aisle to reconsider firearm policies.
You're viewing a single thread.
inb4 gunheads seeth over their right to carry murder tools is better than a childs right to not be shot
As long as the 2nd amendment is in place it's not possible to ban guns. It will not happen.
Now, that being said, if you don't like that, there is a process to fix it:
-
Get two thirds of the House to agree on a new amendment. 290 votes out of 435. The problem with that is the House is currently struggling to get a 218 vote simple majority on basic things, like "Who is the House leader?" or "Can we fund the government?"
-
Once you get that, then you need 67 votes in the Senate, the same body incapacitated by a 60 vote majority to overcome the filibuster placed on, well, everything. The Republicans in the Senate block everything.
-
Assuming you get enough people for 1 and 2, now it goes to the states for ratification. You need 38 out of 50. To put that in perspective, in 2020 Joe Biden won 25 states + Washington DC. Donald Trump won 25 states. To pass a new gun amendment, you would need ALL 25 Biden states + 13 Trump states. Any Biden state that refuses to ratify means you need an extra Trump state. There are only 19 states with Democratic controlled state legislatures, which means a likelyhood of needing 19 Trump states instead of 13.
Most people are not asking to "ban guns." Most people are asking for restrictions that keep people safe, not least our school children, and a ban on military-style weapons like AR-15s. That's not unreasonable nor impossible.
No no, you see, we can't do that because of -insert bullshit here-
they'll argue their critics don't understand firearms, or the difference between semi and full auto, or that AR describes armalite rifle not assault rifle... because they have no response to the actual issue - we're a country of 330 million that possesses 400 million + firearms. Too many people with ready access to firearms is the problem, but they can't address that so they'll change the subject to apocrypha.
Not impossible with any other Supreme Court, but this one is vastly different from the one that ruled during the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004.
Since then, ruling after ruling, the court has re-enforced and expanded gun rights. It's going to get ugly when they hear the AWB and high capacity bans out of California.
Here's a primer on how things have changed, I'll need to save this because it will come up again:
D.C. Vs. Heller - 2008:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller"The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
You can't ban an entire class of weapon, in this case handguns. But that would apply to ANY class, such as banning rifles, shotguns, and, yes, semi-automatic rifles.
McDonald vs. City of Chicago - 2010
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago"the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense" (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that "individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right"
Needed re-stating because D.C. is a unique legal entity and not a state. McDonald exists to say "Yes, states too."
Caetano v. Massachusetts - 2016
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._MassachusettsThis is actually my favorite one of these because it goes in an unusual direction. Woman was being threatened by an abusive ex and bought a taser for protection.
MA charged her saying that tasers didn't exist at the time of the 2nd amendment, so she had no right to own one.
Enter the court:
"the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any ""[w]eapo[n] of offence" or "thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands," that is "carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action." 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[10]
Anything you take into your hands for defense is allowed under the 2nd amendment. So, no, you don't have the right to a cruise missile or a tactical nuke, but if you can carry it, it's yours.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen - 2022
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._BruenThis is the recent ruling that has everyone in a tizzy. First, because for concealed carry, it converted New York from a "may issue" state to a "shall issue" state:
"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.' We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."[26]
And second, it sets a new standard by which all gun laws will now be measured:
"When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "'unqualified command.'"
Sure, so go vote for people who want reasonable restrictions. The SC will eventually follow. It's not impossible, but people have to remember to go vote on election day. Even when it seems impossible.
Huh. I remember some laws in my state about knuckledusters and switchblades changing around 2017. Do you think courts would apply the logic from Caetano v Massachusetts to some of the oft-prohibited items, like 'clubs' and such?
Good question, no clue.
Those fall under "destructive devices", and with the exception of grenades aren't "bearable" arms as defined by the court.
Gish gallop.
Laws aren't real.
LOL - try that in court and see how far you get. "I don't need a lawyer, man, laws aren't real..."
I'm picking up some sovereign citizen vibes there!
I mean, banning military-style guns is a ban though.
Realistically we need regulation on who can own guns, not what guns they can own.
That’s semantics. Banning specific people from owning guns is still a ban by your same logic?
We already ban people from using guns. Felons, drug users, spousal abusers, etc. That's all part and parcel of filling out the purchase form.
Fucking bullshit that holding a medical card prevents me legally owning a firearm but Cletus next door owns an arsenal and HAS TO DRINK TO STAY ALIVE BECAUSE HES AN ENDSTAGE ALCOHOLIC WETBRAIN WITH NO IMPULSE CONTROL.
It's going to be interesting to see the lawyers challenge that for Hunter Biden's coke habit.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/09/hunter-biden-second-amendment-legal-defense.html
I think equating cocaine and cannabis is pretty silly. Regardless, people of perfectly sound mind and judgment use recreational drugs, of which alcohol is one. My point is that what I choose to ingest shouldn't disqualify me from a right the rest of the "drug free" community does not. The status of my mental health is what should disqualify me.
If you want a real, actually solution, then you must go all the way.
In your eyes, what makes the AR-15 more dangerous than a Glock 19 handgun? They are both semi-auto in functionality. In fact, most handguns are semi-auto, along with quite a few shotguns. Both can have a magazine loaded with 30 rounds. The AR is a civilian produced weapon that the military sought to use with multiple modifications. The AR does not have these modifications.
You say no one wants to ban guns but then your very next sentence states banning a model of gun. If you can factually answer what makes it more dangerous, I just might agree with you.
Yeah, you could have just said you have no idea what you're talking about. Step one, realize that the rifle the military uses and the rifle you're so scared of are not the same. They look very similar, so I can see why you would think so. You want to talk disingenuous, why don't you have any rebuttal to the things I mentioned but instead want to go on to your own diatribe? Come back with something intelligent and then we'll talk.
2nd Amendment wasn't a big thing until the Supreme Court decided in Heller that the whole 'well-regulated militia' part was a nothingburger. Then the floodgates opened.
All you need is for another Supreme Court to put that part back in and restrict gun use to 'well-regulated militias.'
It's a lower bar than a constitutional amendment, but good luck putting the genie back in the bottle.
Oh, absolutely agreed, but keep in mind that Heller was in 2008 and the court has only gotten MORE conservative since then, not less.
Here's a fun stat:
Looking just at the Supreme Court in my lifetime (have to start somewhere!), we have had 8 Republican Presidential terms and 6 Democratic ones. Not a dramatic difference, right? Now look at the Justices placed on the court:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx
Nixon - 3
Nixon/Ford - 1
Reagan - 1
Reagan - 2
Bush Sr. - 2
Bush Jr. - 0
Bush Jr. - 2
Trump - 3Carter - 0
Clinton - 2
Clinton - 0
Obama - 2
Obama - 0*
Biden - 154 years, 14 Republican Justices to 5 Democratic ones.
I've never heard a single politician propose banning guns. I've only ever heard Republican pundits SAY that Democrats want to take away your guns.
Sensible gun regulation can be enacted without banning all guns. It's only the extreme right that interprets the 2nd amendment as disallowing ANY regulations.
The right uses the 2nd amendment to cut off ANY discussion of gun reforms, and the eventual result COULD be that the 2nd amendment is eliminated using the methods you described, since it could be seen as the only way to enact sensible restrictions.
I don't want to lose the second amendment, do you? I'd rather see sensible regulations put in place while still largely retaining the right to bear arms. If those of us who are interested in gun ownership fight tooth-and-nail against ANY regulations, then it will make efforts to eliminate gun ownership entirely more likely to eventually succeed.
I'd prefer be part of the conversation to determine where the right line is on gun rights, rather than trying to cut off the conversation entirely by invoking the 2nd amendment.
Beto O'Rourke is probably the most notable:
Biden too:
https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
Which has since been taken offline and now has the best 404 ever... CNN archived parts of it here:
https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_b584f336-923d-49d9-98c5-d82883116eb4
"Along with banning the "manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines," Biden's plan includes mandating that people who own assault weapons either sell theirs to the federal government or properly register them with the authorities."
Of course I'm aware of the calls for banning assault weapons and that we had an assault weapon ban for many years. Certainly a reasonable discussion should be had about where the line is. I'm not sure whether I agree with the assault weapon bans or whether they have a good classification, but either way they aren't calling for banning ALL guns, they're calling for banning certain types of guns.
This just proves my point that the 2A crowd is shooting themselves in the foot by not being willing to discuss reasonable reforms.
If you insist that the 2A allows you to have a gun that can shoot up a football stadium, then people are eventually just going to eliminate the 2A altogether, which would be harmful IMO.
Instead we should acknowledge that there IS room for sensible reforms. For example, people should not be able to have nuclear missiles. Seems like common sense to me, maybe that's a good place to start? Maybe there we can work our way down through artillery and figure out where the line is on guns that can shoot up massive crowds of people.
Instead of insisting that a sentence written hundreds of years ago means you can do whatever you want with no restrictions, maybe come up with a reasonable argument as to why it is important for our democracy for you to bear those particular arms.
Also, if you're going to take on the tyrannical government, you'd probably need those nuclear missiles.
they aren't calling for banning ALL guns, they're calling for banning certain types of guns.
From a rights oriented perspective "that's how it starts". Especially for the folks online calling for an Australia style ban.
people are eventually just going to eliminate the 2A altogether, which would be harmful IMO.
That would require a new amendment and that's just not possible given the current governmental dysfunction. You'd have to start by getting 290 votes in the House, the same folks who needed 15 tries to get the 218 votes needed to decide who their own leader would be. :(
Instead of insisting that a sentence written hundreds of years ago means you can do whatever you want with no restrictions, maybe come up with a reasonable argument as to why it is important for our democracy for you to bear those particular arms.
People confuse semi-automatic rifles for fully automatic rifles. I was uneducated myself, until I went out and bought an AR-15 myself and ran through a training class with it. I felt I needed that experience to speak intelligently about it.
Like any other semi-automatic, it fires one time every time you pull the trigger. It's not dramatically different from other kinds of rifles, other than it automatically ejects the shell and loads the next round instead of the shooter having to do it manually with a lever, pump or bolt.
But man, have you SEEN some of those non semi-auto shooters?
Pump:
https://youtube.com/shorts/TUSjkwGopdw
Bolt:
Unfortunately this argument is another can of worms with the hardliners, but it also highlights their hypocrisy.
It goes something like this:
Me, a moderate: "You always conveniently leave out the 'well regulated' part when you use the 2A as a shield that prevents all gun regulation"
Hardliner: "Well actually the phrase 'well-regulated' meant something different at the time it was written, and it was not intended to refer to restrictions. Generally, well regulated meant "in good working order" so we interpret that as referring to the militia itself being functional, and not that restrictions would be placed on individual gun owners."
So now you can start to see the hypocrisy with these constitutional literalists, because they insist that the text should be strictly interpreted based on what it meant at the time... but at the time, the only "arms" were single shot muskets that weren't accurate at all. So they are trying to burn the candle at both ends by at the same time applying a modern and historical interpretation of the text. Clearly the founders did not anticipate modern weapons.
The whole idea that the 2A precludes ALL restrictions is bullshit. Should individuals be able to own nuclear warheads? Obviously not. I'm personally really tired of people who (instead of engaging in a rational argument about which restrictions are appropriate) just use the 2A as a shield so that they don't have to justify their views.
Oh, yeah, but as the court veers more conservative, that's not going to change any time soon.
Maybe once Thomas and Alito are gone, assuming that happens under a Democratic President and they don't have their picks blockaded the way McConnell did to Merrick Garland.
You are correct, but it’s all about the interpretation of the law. Remember that the assault weapons ban, federal legislation on all the various tchotchkes, and the state laws on weapons and licenses have all been found constitutional. And while it won’t happen in this court, this court did establish the principle that they can reverse a decision that has historically guided laws and interpretations in this country for decades as being fundamentally flawed. The path to getting 50 votes in the senate to kill the filibuster, then expand the court with new appointees to turn the balance, then wait for the firearms cases to come in is easier than changing the constitution. I mean, we can’t even do that much at this point, but the math is easier.
They were found Constitutional before Heller in 2008... that's the problem. The court has only veered harder right since then.
California's AWB and magazine size restrictions are being challenged, I don't expect them to survive. The magazine limit has already been struck down by lower courts, I don't see the current Supremes being more favorable to it.
So you saying your governmental structure is shit?
And intentionally so. :)
Good, long live the second amendment
Long live the school shooters that don't get shot down by the cops! They used the second amendment too.
I'm not going to say it's "good" or "bad". It's the law, and the law is the law. It's a separate axis from good or bad. :)
The law is not just the law. The law is very much up for interpretation. Which is why it has been McConnell's main objective throughout his career to get the SC to sway conservative.
Maybe we should think about the morality of them before implementing laws rather than doing it because we can.
-
That's right. You anti gun people sure seem to be the ones seething tho 😌
I mean, we're the ones with the dead kids.
Cry about it
Bless your little ol' soul
How sad must your life be, really, and how little must you amount to, for you to feel like you need to be such an asshole in order to make an impact in the world?
Of course we seethe that, once again, someone got access to a murder weapon that really shouldn't have. Like all the fucking times people used "mah self defense amendment gun" offensively. Like all the other times that show just why a centuries-old amendment is outdated in the modern age. Like all the other times PEOPLE FUCKING DIED YOU HEARTLESS PIECE OF-
Seriously? Smug emoji on a post about kids getting shot?
Seethe some more, I'm still gonna get more guns
You have no right to own a gun. As long as any cop can get away with killing you in self defense in your own home because you're armed (just happened again this month), you have no right.
let's dodge the argument by changing the subject!
Dunno what you are talking about. 2nd amendment gives me the right to own guns and I definitely exercise that right. 😌
Is it still a right if a cop can justify killing you for doing it?
Maybe I don't understand what a "right" is. I thought it was something you were free to do without government stopping you. Being dead is pretty stopped, and the cops are an arm of the government. So...
Legally, yes. I'm not sure what you're arguing.
If it's legal to drink beer, but you get thrown in jail when you drink beer, then it's effectively not legal to drink beer, even if the law says you can.
You have a right to own a gun. But when a cop can kill you for exercising that right, effectively, you don't have that right.
Yeah I do, I own guns, legally. No cops are killing me over it.
Lemme gues.. you're one of the paler shades?
betty white
Liberals straining not to mention race:
No need to start insulting me mate.
Did Philando Castile have that right?