7422

Setting aside the detailed merits of this particular bill (like Tom, I’m mainly confused at the automatic assumption that its goals are intrinsically insane) I guess what I am wondering is where is the venn diagram overlap between “meaningful gun legislation” and “doesn’t make gun nuts flip out”? I mean, as far as I can tell, any solution in the remote ballpark of what other developed nations achieved after their respective mass shootings is going to be utterly unacceptable to these folks. But those of us who are not interested in either tepid lip service or cynical shrugs are left with the same old option - play a long game and don’t retreat.

I’m half tempted to just drop the issue given that, say, climate change is of vastly greater moment, but I don’t know why I need to concede to the NRA’s reframing of the 2A issue over the last few decades and I admit having a kid about to go into the school system (whenever Covid lifts) adds a sense of personal urgency.

7423

This is a compromise position that could potentially work. It revives the idea of “you need a driver’s license and a basic proficiency test to drive a car, why don’t you need the same to own a gun?”

7424

This makes a lot of sense to me… if you are going to allow guns to be a part of your society - and that’s an ‘if’ so big you could see it from the moon - they should at least be as well regulated as vehicles. So a proficiency test and revocable licence required to own and use guns, an ownership registry, annual registration fees (or road tax equivalent) per gun, mandatory insurance…

Responsible gun owners should be for these kind of regulations, if it helps reduce the number of irresponsible and criminal gun owners from bringing criticism and shame on their hobby. Make gun-owning a respectable pursuit! Regulate militias well!

7425

It’s rather hard to believe that the gun nut coalition — which rejects the idea that guns should be registered — will embrace the idea that people should be registered. And — if I’m reading it right —it’s a recipe for the unconstrained sale of semi-automatic guns without any vetting or tracking at all, since it absolves the seller of any responsibility. I can freely sell you a semi-automatic gun, even though you aren’t licensed for one, because the licensing enforcement applies to you, not me. If you ever get caught with the gun, you’re the one in trouble, not me. All you need is a fake license, and I’m free and clear, since there are no background checks or other hurdles in the actual sale of the gun, to confirm the validity of the license.

7426

Liberals have been bad at framing gun control - to the point of basically ceding the problem forever at this point. There’s really only two realistic paths forward; simply accept gun violence is part of American society and work with gun rights advocates to do the very, very narrow things they would actually accept, like improving communication with law enforcement, mental health interventions for disturbed individuals, making sure people don’t “slip through the cracks” when they are reported, but more or less never attempting to restrict access to guns again.

The other way is the Constitutionality argument, which will take decades and will force a lot of hard work about understanding guns and gun violence, and accepting that there’s going to be racial components to addressing gun violence that they wouldn’t be excited to concede.This is full on confrontation with gun rights advocates. Most gun control advocates aren’t really prepared to do this, not least of which reasons is that there’s always another issue that seems more pressing. But this is the outline of how this should works.

  1. Stop dithering about gun details. Clip size, caliber, type of receiver, ect., is all just wading in the weeds while missing the trees. Gun rights advocates seem to always have the upper hand here, though much of this is framing.

  2. Create a unified message, and push that message through multiple channels. Too many cooks, ect. There needs to be a simple message that all get around.

  3. Push the un-Constitutional message. That is push that the current gun control regime is unconstitutional. This will terrify the shit out of gun rights groups, to the point that fringe elements will just outright declare that if a SC ruling accepts the argument, they’ll just reject the Constitution. Honestly, that’s good. Force them to be the bad guys, force them to threaten violence if they don’t get their way. That’s how the game of politics works.

  4. How do you make the argument? As far as i know there has never been a ruling on the clause “in order to maintain a well ordered militia”. That’s your lynchpin. There’s no way that stands up to even the slightest scrutiny that a current gun right regime that has no laws and has no organization nor training is “well ordered”.

  5. Push for restriction on ammunition sales. That’s the backdoor to actually control the flow of violent use of guns. There’s no way - ever - for the next 200 years we’re going to actually restrict the guns themselves already in circulation.

  6. Accept that guns are going to still be a part of American society. Even if it’s an insane fantasy at this point, this preparing for the defense of the motherland against an invasion that will never come, you’re going to have to come up with a regime that accepts that there’s going to at the end of the process be a “militia” who has guns. But the hope is that it looks like Israel or Switzerland and not like an Arab wedding.

  7. Accept that there’s going to be people who die rather than follow the Constitution. Don’t shirk or hesitate, but that’s the price of change.

The end state is going to look like a bunch of boy scouts of various merit badges have access to different levels of firearm ammunition, with the Eagle Scouts getting to play with all the toys, and everyone being required to receive training. That’s… still a whole lot better than now.

7427

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/second-amendment.php#:~:text=The%20Court%20ruled%20that%20the,purposes%20such%20as%20self-defense.

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

7428

I read Scalia’s comments on Heller and they weren’t particularly robust. He elides the clause and nobody really challenged him. I think you could take that clause for a ride in the future.

7429

Not with this court, you can’t.

7430

That’s because they’re reading the text backward. The operative clause, as they put it, isn’t the right to keep and bear arms, By this scheme, the operative clause is “In order to maintain”.

It’s a bit like a deed describing an easement “In order to retain access to said property described more completely in Table A, the right to trespass shall not be denied” and then declaring that this described everyone in the country possessing a right to trespass across all properties at all times, because the Right to Trespass is the “operative” clause. That’s clearly by plain reading not the intent.

7431

I feel like you’re going to have an uphill fight to try and argue that the right to bear arms only applies in service to a well organized State militia.

I mean, that ain’t a new argument. It’s also not a winning argument.

7432

I’m not really sure what I’m supposed to take away from this post, other than that something is the fault of liberals. The two options you’ve laid out seem to boil down to 1) accept that the nation will be awash in guns and that there will be frequent needless killings basically forever, or 2) accept that the nation will be awash with guns and that there will be frequent needless killings basically forever. While I’ll grant that it may be the case that we are doomed to suffer this for lifetimes, I don’t really get why that is the fault of liberals, or how or when they blew it, or how arguing that the constitution doesn’t protect the right to own artillery pieces is particularly different from what liberals have been doing all along.

7433

Honestly, you can’t even get it done with today’s populace, much less the Supreme Court or Congress as they stand. This last summer saw tons of left-leaning, left, and radical left people roll out onto the streets packing weapons. I’d say if you did some market testing among those who only vote Democrat you’d probably see about the same resistance as Republicans thirty years ago.

7434

Your counterpoint is absurd. Taxing undesirable behavior can always be characterized as “punishing the poor”. Arguing that it’s unfair in the same way as “punishing women” is rhetorical folderol! In other words, I call balderdash on your retort! And I hereby affix my monocle!

Oh, great, is that going to be our criteria for which legislation we support?
Whether it will whip up the Republican base? Because you know what else “makes people vote Republican”? Climate change legislation. Taxes. Affirmative action. Joe Biden. Alex Jones. Nancy Pelosi’s baby sacrifice rituals. You can’t pick and choose your policies based on whether they’ll alienate gun nuts, much less potential Republicans.

@ShivaX felt the need to tell us the content of the bill was “insanity”, so as far as I’m concerned, we’re just dunking on someone opposed to common sense gun legislation.

-Tom

7435

It’s politics. Taking away a right is a losing battle, so framing it as an incorrect right is the way to go.

It’s clear the FF never intended a standing army of size, and part of the reason Hamilton argued for one was because of the undo burden it would place on the militia, an unpaid levy.

So own it. Follow the Constitution to the letter, threaten to abolish the standing military, raise the militia, and send them unpaid overseas with whatever equipment they can afford.

The point to be clear isn’t do actually do that but to reclaim ownership of the “right” to interpret the Constitution. Today the pro gun people have utter and total dominance of all the ideological arguments. To say you want to take away the Right to Bear Arms, and they’ll bleat about why not just bring back slavery then or similar sort of one-upmanship.

The only way to win the gun control argument is win the Constitutional one. And it’s clear that the 2nd had been disconnected from its intent for some time. I mean we have a court that just awarded Oklahoma to the descendants of native tribes. Nobody expects anyone to do anything about it, but that was an apple cart they were willing to overturn. You don’t have to reach very deep into the Federalist papers to put paid to the current understanding of the 2nd.

Again though, I didn’t say this was the easy way.

7436

You pretty accurately described the argument, but I don’t think you actually refuted it.

Taxing behavior, such that rich people can engage in it, is generally kind of bad. If you want to make behavior illegal, so be it, but making a sign which says, “you must be at least this rich to ride this ride” is not something I really feel supportive of.

Owning guns is not something which only appeals to “the republican base”.

There are a lot of folks here in rural PA who aren’t perhaps the top-hat wearing rich guy Republicans. Firearm ownership is a part of rural life for a lot of people.

And these people are not necessarily the republican base, or at least they didn’t used to be. They used to be blue collar union supporters who voted for Democrats.

A big way that the GOP turned them out to their side, was by replacing economic warfare with cultural warfare. And a big part of that was based on the idea that Democrats want to take away their religion and their guns.

To some large degree, those threats were baseless… but here, you’re making those threats become manifest.

7437

Notably, the words “in order to maintain” do not appear in the second amendment, and that paraphrase is doing a lot of work.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms, in order to maintain a well regulated militia, shall not be infringed” would be a very different amendment, textually speaking, from the one we actually have.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” does not have the same (potentially limiting) language as the “in order to” construction.

I think the modern interpretation of the Second Amendment is stupid too, but if we are going to have the constitutional debate, we need to engage with the actual text.

7438

Wow thanks for the correction. I don’t know where in order to maintain came from in my head.

7439

That is what they should have said (or at least closer to it, from my modern perspective).

7440

Ya, the actual text is:

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.

Seems like a plain-text reading of this says, “you can’t infringe on the right to bear arms” and that this right is necessary for the security of a free state. The militia part is kind of explaining a justification for the right, but not necessarily saying that this is the ONLY reason for this right, or a limiting factor of it.

7441

Raising the Constitution to Religious text is weird as hell, but I guess that ship’s sailed a long time ago.