Keep and bear is not the same as make your own. Bear means to carry. There is no definition of keep or bear that means to manufacture.
Do you realize what a constitutional amendment stands for? We have 33 of them in the constitution. Who says "nobody" wants to amend the constitution ....? Gun owners? Nothing is riskier to society than 400 million weapons and mountain of ammunition being stockpiled by anyone who wishes to hoard them.
That's a good one, but I'm not sure if a difference of 120 deaths per year is going to be compelling enough to convince enough people to reinstate an assault weapons ban or magazine capacity limit. In fact, I'm pretty sure it won't be... Particularly when the states with the most mass shootings (California and Illinois) already have those laws...
Not a 2nd amendment expert by any means, but where does it state keep and bear any arms you want? They could outlaw all guns but 9mm. You still have the right to keep and bear arms. In my opinion a lot of the people who are so concerned with their 2nd amendment rights seem to think it says to Keep and Bear any arms and style of arms I want. Just because say the Government made the AR platform illegal, it in no ways prohibits anyone one from the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
2021 there were 636 deaths from mass shootings....409 without suspects apprehended. You can buy a gun in Texas and drive to California and shoot people....where it happens has little to do with state laws because....people can drive from state to state without issue. Without the laws they have....more may have occured. The escalation in violent shootings has gone way up since people were locked down in the bubble as well plus 48 million people lost jobs and over a million lost family members from the pandemic....stress has been an issue for people who aren't stable enough to endure it. Regular people who aren't clinically diagnosed with mental illnesses are just as capable of flipping out under duress as anyone else. It's a complex society.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...ats-bipartisan-effort-gun-violence/index.html Looks like Mitch "Turtle" McConnell has asked Texas Senator John Cornyn to work with Democrats on a bipartisan solution to gun violence. Let's hope it amounts to something.
I don't know for sure, however, prohibiting all but a single type would certainly seem to be infringing on the rights of people. As I understand the 2nd amendment, it was intended to make the population capable of being the most functional ("regulated") infantry ("militia") possible. So the idea would be to protect the rights of the people to own and practice with weapons equivalent to those a standard infantry soldier. So knives, handguns, and rifles, of similar capability. Explosives, tanks, and nuclear subs would require additional training of the standard infantry soldier, and so the rights to own and operate those would not be covered by the 2nd amendment. That makes the most sense to me.
I agree, and I'm sure your numbers are accurate. However, I don't agree with or support removing the rights of all people because they might someday commit a crime. I think in specific circumstances I can support red flag laws, if a persons closest relations or medical professionals deem it necessary. But aside from that I don't believe in restricting rights until somebody has actually committed a crime. The way to mitigate those problems are focusing on universal healthcare (included health), improving our education system and making it universal through college, and improving our social safety net. And probably trying to get a handle on internet propaganda.
They are the laws we have, and we have to work within them. Again, if enough people are opposed to these protections they can be changed. But not enough people agree. Not even close.
This will be interesting... the only option for an open carry state to prevent these would be universal healthcare and vastly improved education system... and likely a generous safety net... Maybe Texas can come up with something else...
Get a handle on internet propaganda? Seems like to protect the 2nd amendment, you want to infringe on the 1st.
We do and will continue to make guns that are better and easier killing devices. So we can never outlaw them because people have a right to the latest and best ways to kill people?
Right, but we will not be able to get gun reform that prevents these kinds of things. If there are 400 million guns, many of which are unregistered, you can't prevent these heinous acts by controlling some of the guns. So if that's how we intend to prevent these situations we're going to be incredibly disappointed. I am not interested in these half measures which will be "statistically insignificant", and would rather not waste the political capital on it. Doing so will cost us far more lives than if we focused on empowering the population and preventing the rich from robbing us blind. It would be a distraction. A very emotional and expensive distraction.
