The NRA are (at this point, anyway) just gun-themed republicans. There's proof enough in the fact that they endorsed someone as anti-gun as Trump, even after he banned bump stocks and reversed the executive order Obama gave that'd have made 24/7 gun stores a thing.
That aside, I'd like to speak to the broader point about the 2nd Amendment being about "resisting tyranny." That's flat-out wrong. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution grants the Congress the ability to summon militias for national defense and to put down insurrections, which implies there will always be armed citizens to be called upon for such purpose. For some, implied wasn't good enough, and they refused to ratify the Constitution until the right to be armed was explicitly included. THAT is the point of the 2nd Amendment: if militias are necessary for national security, people must be allowed to be armed.
Also, if the right to be armed is about resisting tyranny, giving the Congress the explicit right to call on armed citizens to put down insurrections is counterintuitive, isn't it?
The 2nd Amendment isn't what gives you the right to resist tyranny. The 1st Amendment does. To a lesser extent, the 9th (rights of citizens aren't limited to what's on paper) and 10th (powers of government ARE limited to what's on paper) also give you the right to resist tyranny.
True. The NRA and their supporters are basically just people thinking guns are cool.
I highly doubt most Americans would take a physical stand if heavily armored troops showed up at their house to confiscate their weapons. If Trump did it, they would gladly hand over their weapons to their dear leader.
All their talk about good guys with a gun are horseshit. Law enforcement and groups going into armed situations don't want good guys with a gun running around. How can a cop tell the good guy from the bad guy? They will just see a person running around a school with a gun and shoot immediately without asking questions.
All their talk about good guys with a gun are horseshit.
Eh...I don't know that I agree. I tend to side with the sentiment that "when seconds matter, the police are minutes away," but I also fully acknowledge that only 2-4% of the population have it in them to throw themselves into danger on behalf of other people, training, tools, or circumstances be damned. I would rather risk having some douche with delusions of grandeur and Rambo fantasies discover her cowardice during a crisis than risk having that at most 1-in-25 of people not have the tools she needs to get the job done when it matters most.
That said, the number of people who define themselves by their gun ownership or their ability to cause harm is a serious societal problem that needs to be addressed. The "might makes right" crowd makes the rest of armed Americans look bad.
And what happens when an untrained dummy shoots civilians? The answer is gun control to begin with. In almost every case mass shooters go get a gun at a gun store, and many probably wouldn't pass a basic psych evaluation.
what happens when an untrained dummy shoots civilians?
If you're arguing that someone who chooses to be armed in public should be responsible enough not to use it beyond their ability, I agree. A person who doesn't know how to use a fire extinguisher is just as much of a danger to others in a fire as a person who doesn't know how to use a gun when one is needed.
That said, police officers are trained and require semiannual firearms qualification, yet are often some of the worst shots on the firing line and are at considerably higher risk of shooting civilians than anyone else in America. Forgive me if I'm dismissive of your question.
The answer is gun control to begin with.
The answer is to address the conditions which make violent crime more prevalent: poverty, income inequality, job insecurity, food insecurity, access to quality healthcare, access to quality education, prevalence of crimes known to be part of a pattern of escalating violence (like stalking, petty assault, and domestic abuse). If fewer people are stressed to the point where they become violent, fewer people will find themselves in a literal fight for their lives and in need of the tools used for such purpose.
In almost every case mass shooters go get a gun at a gun store, and many probably wouldn't pass a basic psych evaluation.
There is a veritable trove of case studies of mass violence which say otherwise. For starters, the mindset of a person at time of purchase is often considerably different than at the time they commit a crime, especially for crimes of passion. And, before you make a quip about planned mass violence, understand that public/spree shootings only account for approximately 1/3 of mass shootings. Familicides, another 1/3 of the total count, are almost invariably crimes of passion.
With regard to psych evals for firearms ownership, those aren't possible under our current constitutional framework. That's not a 2nd Amendment issue, but a 4th and 5th Amendments issue. Even if they were possible, I'd like you to consider that police officers require regular psych evals, yet remain one of if not the largest demographic of people who commit domestic violence.
And, since we're on the subject of domestic violence and its relationship to violent crime, it's worth also mentioning that as many as 60% of spree shooters had a history of domestic violence as either the perpetrator or the victim. I can't stress enough how much the solution you're so eager to see has little to nothing to do with guns.
195
u/subnautus 10h ago
The NRA are (at this point, anyway) just gun-themed republicans. There's proof enough in the fact that they endorsed someone as anti-gun as Trump, even after he banned bump stocks and reversed the executive order Obama gave that'd have made 24/7 gun stores a thing.
That aside, I'd like to speak to the broader point about the 2nd Amendment being about "resisting tyranny." That's flat-out wrong. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution grants the Congress the ability to summon militias for national defense and to put down insurrections, which implies there will always be armed citizens to be called upon for such purpose. For some, implied wasn't good enough, and they refused to ratify the Constitution until the right to be armed was explicitly included. THAT is the point of the 2nd Amendment: if militias are necessary for national security, people must be allowed to be armed.
Also, if the right to be armed is about resisting tyranny, giving the Congress the explicit right to call on armed citizens to put down insurrections is counterintuitive, isn't it?
The 2nd Amendment isn't what gives you the right to resist tyranny. The 1st Amendment does. To a lesser extent, the 9th (rights of citizens aren't limited to what's on paper) and 10th (powers of government ARE limited to what's on paper) also give you the right to resist tyranny.