A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals that across all political and social groups in the United States, there is a strong preference against living near AR-15 rifle owners and neighbors who store guns outside of locked safes. This surprising consensus suggests that when it comes to immediate living environments, Americans’ views on gun control may be less divided than the polarized national debate suggests.
The research was conducted against a backdrop of increasing gun violence and polarization on gun policy in the United States. The United States has over 350 million civilian firearms and gun-related incidents, including accidents and mass shootings, have become a leading cause of death in the country. Despite political divides, the new study aimed to explore whether there’s common ground among Americans in their immediate living environments, focusing on neighborhood preferences related to gun ownership and storage.
Being a British person, can they just ban guns already? Gun corporations don’t count as people.
Against the Constitution, so no, they cannot. It would require amending the Constitution first.
The Constitution says nothing about AR weaponry. It actually doesn’t even say every single person should be allowed to purchase and keep a firearm
“Bear Arms” is simply too vague. I feel like I should be able to have a SAM installation according to that.
The “well-regulated militia” part afterwards isn’t vague, but gets ignored by self-proclaimed “originalists”.
That is because the “well regulated militia” part is neither the subject of the sentence, nor a qualifier for the rest of the sentence. It’s pretty straight forward English sentence structure. It explains a primary reason why the individual right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed” is important, and like a comment line in computer code it doesn’t “do” anything to the rest of the program.
The federalist papers and the militia acts back up that “originalist” interpretation.
Correct that it isn’t vague. It means “well functioning” as they would have used it. A contemporary would have said a clock that keeps time accurately is “well-regulated”. It doesn’t refer to bureaucratic regulation in the slightest, as you can compare how those topics were talked about in the same documents of the constitutional convention and the Federalist Papers etc. and the verbiage used is completely different.
People in those days used flowery language such as Washington’s quote “Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair.” He isn’t talking about wrenching a bicycle.
It also takes deliberate ignorance to read a list of 10 individual rights and construe that one in particular is somehow collectivized and handcuffed by a footnote about its justification.
Sign me up! Can I get one that’s sized to work on starlings? Or maybe a little tiny one that’ll do mosquitos…
I’m not sure if I’ve got this right, but from the rest of the buzz on the internet I think the 2nd amendment means I’m allowed to keep bear arms to make women feel safe?
What is literally written in the constitution isn’t always as important as how those words have been interpreted by congress and the courts.
You can come and take em…
Possible, but not any time soon. We’d need massive campaigns about it to shift public opinion and then a very high bar to repeal an amendment. It doesn’t help that many Americans have deified the first 10 amendments.
(Even as we don’t actually enjoy the rights)
Ahh you see, in America corporations do count as people!
Seriously though, as someone who has been personally affected by a US mass shooting, the ban can’t come fast enough but I know it’ll never happen without a massive overhaul of our political system which I don’t see happening anytime soon…
The worst part is we’ve been heading backwards in the last few years, with the conservative Supreme Court invalidating state level restrictions
The second amendments does not say there can be no restrictions. For example we used to restrict concealed carry to those who do the appropriate paperwork and demonstrate sufficient need. Now anyone can. Why the fuck are you carrying a concealed weapon in a city? There’s no place you can use it without endangering innocent people there’s just no excuse. Your rights to look edgy and feel in control should not trump my right to not be killed
Or this guy in Florida is a textbook example of irrationality and not responsible enough to own a weapon. There should have been no bail, no release, and no more right to bear arms. I hope the Uber guy sues him out of his home and life savings, because that seems to be the only justice
*And it is still this way in about 1/2 of the states.
*In about 1/2 of the states, unless of course they are a prohibited possessor.
Just trying to be accurate, no pun intended.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States
This just means that one doesn’t have to show “proper cause” to get a permit. For instance NYC (which was the case in question) which only gave permits to those who could show “proper cause” which ended up being only rich and/or famous people and politicians who are better than their
lowly serfsconstituents. Still have to get the permit in NYC, they just can’t deny you because “you aren’t important enough to need it” anymore.Why do you need concealed carry? “To shoot up a school”. Ok
Try that lol see what happens.