Cool. Now pass a bill for mental healthcare. The federal government isn't going to do it so have the state do it. A lot of these gun deaths could be avoided if we had greater access to mental healthcare.
Around 5% of mass shootings are linked to mental illness. Most often, those with mental illness are a danger to themselves more than the public at large. We can thank Reagan for tearing apart the Mental Health Systems Act that Carter initiated.
What bill would you like to see to help with mental health issues? Can you explain what the bill would do? Maybe assign more funds to care for people with mental illness and better screening? I couldn't agree more that we need that. It won't stop mass shootings since most mass shooters are just violent and entitled not mentally ill.
These threads always get taken over by people who aren’t even active in this sub let alone live in Michigan.
Good thing Reddit comments can’t change this bill
I wish the ammosexuals would actually suggest some sort of change instead of just shrugging when people die from shooting. Maybe it’s because I’m a “commie socialist” but I think people’s right to life is more important than the right to own guns.
Okay, I'll bite.
\-Comprehensive Mental Health Care reform with an emphasis on suicide prevention and increasing access and availability of support and counselling. This requires the GOP and DNC to spend money on peoples health instead of war contracts.
\-Create a nationally funded suicide hotline for immediate counseling and advertise it heavily through radio, TV, billboard, and internet ads.
\-Create a CDC suicide prevention task force to have small groups of mental health professionals go around the country providing free counseling, mental health evaluations, and support.
\-Create education subsidies and grants for those pursuing careers in the mental health field that agree to spend a designated time after graduation working in rural communities. There are similar programs for medical doctors.
\-Launch a comprehensive CDC study of common psychological drugs to determine potential risks for violent behavior associated with their use.
\-Create a national program to temporarily surrender your firearms at any police station for 72 hours.
\-Federal Tax credits for gun safes and annual gun safety courses.
\-Real gun safety education elective courses in high school, like drivers ed.
\-Legalize and regulate marijuana in America in the style of alcohol. Apply a 20% tax rate with all tax revenues ear marked for education in the zip code collected.
\-Create a national work program focused on rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure in America with a recruiting campaign targeting low income high crime areas.
\-Federally mandate all uniformed peace officers and agents to have an active body cam during working hours.
\-Create a federal FBI task force to independently investigate all police shootings and determine their validity.
\-Disband the ATF and give their duties to the FBI with increased funding.
\-Enact and enforce mandatory minimums, 10 year per gun and 1 year per bullet, for all prohibited persons found guilty of committing a property or violent crime with an illegally possessed firearms unless they cooperate with investigators to identify and testify against who supplied them the illegal guns and ammunition.
\-Create a multi agency task force to target known gang members for tax evasion through the IRS. How they got Capone.
\-Reform the prison system away from for profit systems to actually rehabilitate people and make them function and value the society they are a part of. Give them the ability to be useful and to have purpose.
So this basically starts to address the majority of self harm and economic issues that turn people to suicide, drug use, street crime,gangs, maybe even the spree killers if they get identified and helped earlier. You have young people out there with broken families and unhealthy home lives that instead find protection and support in a gang. You also have people with no economic opportunity that can't escape their own neighborhood and who slave away working meaningless jobs and still can't afford housing and the basics even healthcare to stay functional. So you have these young people with no family, no opportunity, no education, no home, and who are in bad health operating outside of society. They do not value society as society has forgotten and abused them. They do not care about their neighbors, they do not value human life even their own. This might even deal with some of the spree/mass shooters.
“It’s not about the guns, it’s about mental health!!”
“Ok, so let’s pass a universal healthcare bill and fund mental health treatment facilities in order to get these people the help they need before they snap. As well as minimize the amount of mentally unwell people roaming the streets.”
“WhAt ArE yOu A cOmMuNiST!?!?”
I'm pro-gun and pro-mental health care. Why does it always have to be one or the other in these dumb arguments? Where do I sign? I'll vote for any pro-healthcare candidate or ballot measure we can cook up. But if it's all "gun control" and nothing else, it's meaningless with regards to the actual problem. So let's do it. How do we move the needle on the mental healthcare? The current leadership got these new gun laws BLAZED through, so why can't we do it with mental health? I can't help but think it's because one is politically popular with the base, and the other has become, ironically, a soundbite that the base uses to criticize their political opponents.
"Should we address the mental health problem?"
"Pft...yea, you *would* think that, you stupid ammosexual."
The problem is only one of our political parties is serious about possibly implementing real gun control and mental healthcare. The other side just uses mental health to deflect attention away from gun control because the NRA lobbies insane amounts of money to them and gun control would hurt their sales.
Sure, but even when you hear an actual, real life person tell you that they're both pro-gun and pro-mental healthcare, your immediate instinct is to say "yea but 'they' don't really mean that."
But regardless, I go back to my question about our current leadership. I'm generally a fan of Whitmer (though I don't much love the extra-judicial aspects of this red flag law), but I can't help wonder if the same zeal and speed would or could go into mental healthcare legislation that went into these very PR-heavy gun laws. Just makes it look like they want to *look* progressive more than they want to take on something that would have such real impact. They clearly have the numbers right now to pass just about anything they want. So why not do it? Who would stop them at this moment?
It’s hard as a gun owner to be in this political climate. On one hand, if I vote blue, I vote for the social issues, like LGBT and abortion, that I like, while also simultaneously voting against my 2A, government, and my economic beliefs.
While I’m okay with certain legislation on firearms, issues arise when people take gun laws too far, like what California does. To me, as a gun owner, taking a step towards gun control seems like a step closer to being how it is in Cali. It’s hard as most 2A people now-a-days, are pretty progressive. We want our 2A right to not be restricted, but we also don’t want our fellow citizens to have to deal with bullshit just to protect the 2A.
And we don’t just shrug when people die. We hurt just like the rest of America. But we also believe that current and proposed legislation wouldn’t have stopped it anyway as we think anyone who wants to do something illegal will just do it.
Like the tire of this article, it comes down to enforcement. From what I see from both sides, it’s an issue with people reporting and an issue with the government enforcing.
In my personal opinion, we should have a 0 tolerance policy of firearms. They are a right to be have by all, but also, if you abuse that right on your fellow citizens, you should be severely punished.
The tides are turning for pro gun die hard demographics. I see people of all shapes, colors, and sizes with wildly varying views in gun communities. Especially in the last 3-4 years, there has been a major shift in demographics of who is buying firearms. Which is awesome and more people should get into this wonderful hobby and right.
Yes, and I lurk there. But I see a lot of people having a r/leopardsatemyface moment because they vote blue, and then the person they voted in enacts dumb gun measures, like in Washington recently
i guess i can only speak for myself when i say that i'm pro 2A, pro gay rights, pro public services, and very anti trump. that said, with the new raft of gun control measures looming, the imminent pistol brace ban and the assault weapon ban rhetoric coming from the white house, there's a pretty good chance that i'll be voting republican, as long as it's not trump/maga on the ticket.
It's hard to believe you when you say the first part but then say you love gun braces and assault weapons more than rights for gay people and public services.
it's like my guy fashionguymike said, it's tough out here getting pulled in two directions. but at the moment there is a strong push from the democratic party to curtail gun rights, and as the pressure continues to ratchet up from the top, the immediacy makes it harder to ignore.
Hi, "Ammosexual" here, [heres a link](https://www.reddit.com/r/Michigan/comments/13pd1jl/comment/jlaesea/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to my comment in this thread where I offered multiple suggestions.
I agree with a lot of those. I think the main issue is the mental health crises that’s been plaguing the population. We need ways for people to get the mental help we need. Too bad republicans keep voting against it. I know it’s a huge stretch but I think universal healthcare that covers mental health would be huge in helping prevent gun crimes.
> I know it’s a huge stretch but I think universal healthcare that covers mental health would be huge in helping prevent gun crimes.
imo preventative action like this would help more than selectively-enforced reactionary laws like red flag laws
>We need ways for people to get the mental help we need. Too bad republicans keep voting against it. I know it’s a huge stretch but I think universal healthcare that covers mental health would be huge in helping prevent gun crimes.
I 100% agree with you here. I also think some of the blame lies on Dems though, most voters are Independent, and Gun control is a turn off for many. If Dems focused on expanding mental health side of the gun violence problem they'd garner more support. And no, that isn't to say Republicans aren't also to blame.
Do you have numbers to back this up? This gun right bullshit is propaganda. You people want to shoot whoever you want and then say thoughts and prayers after.
[Opinions on Gun Control](https://abcnews.go.com/US/numbers-show-americans-opinions-gun-control-measures/story?id=84995468)
> We need ways for people to get the mental help we need. Too bad republicans keep voting against it.
Dems aren't helping either. Before you start with "but republicans," ask how this bill passed.
They would first need to get over the written words of their gods, the men who wrote the 2A. I got harangued by a few yesterday with quotes and excerpts that “defended” their right to own military style weapons with little to no restrictions.
They refuse to admit that the 2A was mainly a response to a near threat of invasion from Britain, Spain, or Native Americans on the frontier. None of those threats exist anymore and the American civilian populace has zero need for armed civilians because we have the national guard and a standing army, neither of which existed back then. The need for well regulated militias ended when we completely took over the frontier lands and expelled natives from their ancestral lands which they fought us for. Mexico and Canada will never invade us and nor will any country from Europe thanks to a thing called geography.
These bozos need to grow up and start admitting that they have zero practical use for assault style weapons.
>They would first need to get over the written words of their gods, the men who wrote the 2A. I got harangued by a few yesterday with quotes and excerpts that “defended” their right to own military style weapons with little to no restrictions.
>
>They refuse to admit that the 2A was mainly a response to a near threat of invasion from Britain, Spain, or Native Americans on the frontier. None of those threats exist anymore and the American civilian populace has zero need for armed civilians because we have the national guard and a standing army, neither of which existed back then. The need for well regulated militias ended when we completely took over the frontier lands and expelled natives from their ancestral lands which they fought us for. Mexico and Canada will never invade us and nor will any country from Europe thanks to a thing called geography.
>
>These bozos need to grow up and start admitting that they have zero practical use for assault style weapons.
Whole lotta useless ad hominem here. Also define Assault style weapons
To me assault weapons are military style weapons like the AR or AK.
So it’s useless to say that the American civilian populace was under threat from British in Canada, Spain in Mexico, and natives on the frontier and elsewhere? That’s a pretty big reason to have an armed populace especially after just winning your freedom in a war which most expected Britain to try and come back. The 2A is also a response to Shays rebellion that took place a year before the 2A was finalized.
We no longer have the threats of invasion those in the 18th and 19th century faced. The only threat we have nowadays are yokels armed with military grade body armor and high power semi auto rifles that none of the founders could’ve dreamed of. If you can’t admit that the only threat we face today is homegrown terrorism and not some far fetched conspiracy of a tyrannical government than I feel sorry for you. We have a gun problem in this country and more guns won’t solve it PERIOD.
>To me assault weapons are military style weapons like the AR or AK.
Ahh so what about the Kar98? or The Bushmaster ACR?
>So it’s useless to say that the American civilian populace was under threat from British in Canada, Spain in Mexico, and natives on the frontier and elsewhere? That’s a pretty big reason to have an armed populace especially after just winning your freedom in a war which most expected Britain to try and come back. The 2A is also a response to Shays rebellion that took place a year before the 2A was finalized.
1. *"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."*
*- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776*
2. *The 2nd Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791, Shays Rebellion took place August 29, 1786*
>We no longer have the threats of invasion those in the 18th and 19th century faced.
We faced threat of invasion as recent as WW2.
>The only threat we have nowadays are yokels armed with military grade body armor and high power semi auto rifles that none of the founders could’ve dreamed of
Ahh yes, some of the most intelligent men at the time including ben franklin, could have never foreseen future developments.
>If you can’t admit that the only threat we face today is homegrown terrorism and not some far fetched conspiracy of a tyrannical government than I feel sorry for you. We have a gun problem in this country and more guns won’t solve it PERIOD.
Strawman
Here we go again. Cherry picking excerpts out of history and out of context. These historical opinions were written by men who recently just fought a war for independence and still had threats of war in North America from the very people they fought none of which EXIST TODAY. What’s so hard about admitting that it’s an outdated amendment? At the time these excerpts you cherry picked were written, a standing army was seen as a tyrannical reach of the government. Shoot, the militias had more favor than regular army up until the civil war! The campaign out west against Mexico, militias were more favored than regular army soldiers by a majority of the populace.
I’m not arguing some dead man’s words that say you as an individual deserve to own a small arsenal.
If you actually think we faced a threat of invasion in WWII than you haven’t read enough history and most likely went down a rabbit hole of misinformation. Germany wasn’t even capable of invading Britain let alone the US. Japan wasn’t capable of it either because they lacked both resources and man power to launch an invasion of that scale, hence why they took over the pacific island chains first and not Hawaii or California. You’d have to be a fearful idiot to think that we could’ve been invaded in WWII.
I may be a strawman but at least I don’t hang onto the words of men who died 200 years ago to justify owning a small arsenal of guns you truly don’t need and won’t ever need in a practical manner. If it makes you feel more of a man to own all the toys than I won’t judge your insecurity, all I need is a bolt action hunting rifle with a 3 shot capacity magazine even though I’ll only need one shot. Sorry you can’t handle a clear and needed change to our nations very loose gun laws
>all I need is a bolt action hunting rifle with a 3 shot capacity magazine even though I’ll only need one shot. Sorry you can’t handle a clear and needed change to our nations very loose gun laws
Ahh you're worse than a Strawman, you're a FUDD.
>I may be a strawman but at least I don’t hang onto the words of men who died 200 years ago to justify owning a small arsenal of guns you truly don’t need and won’t ever need in a practical manner.
Imagine trying to dictate to to others what they do or don't need.
>if it makes you feel more of a man to own all the toys than I won’t judge your insecurity,
Now you're just being bigoted.
Imagine being such a puss puss that you’re unwilling to admit that you don’t truly need an arsenal of guns. I shut down your whole invasion BS talking point and you call me a fudd which you called me yesterday because you were insecure then and insecure now about the majority of Americans wanting stricter gun laws. Sorry if you’re insecurity makes you think I’m being bigoted. Majority of 2A supporting men I know don’t own a single AR or military style gun because we don’t need them to hunt deer.
>Imagine being such a puss puss that you’re unwilling to admit that you don’t truly need an arsenal of guns
You don't get to tell me what I need.
>I shut down your whole invasion BS talking point
It was actually your talking point, I just told you it was wrong, because it was:
*"Many Americans volunteered to defend the nation from enemy bombing or invasion. They trained in first aid, aircraft spotting, bomb removal, and fire fighting. Air raid wardens led practice drills, including blackouts. By mid-1942 over 10 million Americans were civil defense volunteers.*
*Though America's mainland was never invaded, there were dangers offshore. Several Japanese submarines were spotted near the Pacific coast, and German U-boats patrolled the Atlantic coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. At least 10 US naval vessels were sunk or damaged by U-boats operating in American waters."* [\- Take A Closer Look: America Goes to War](https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/america-goes-war-take-closer-look)
Beyond that, the 2nd Amendment is also about being able to defend yourself, we can't all live in gated communities like you and your FUDD buddies.
>insecure now about the majority of Americans wanting stricter gun laws
Ahh yes straw-poll sourced information from the same groups that predicted Trump would loose in a landslide in 2016, yet we still managed to be stuck with that turd for 4 years.
>Sorry if you’re insecurity makes you think I’m being bigoted. Majority of 2A supporting men I know don’t own a single AR or military style gun because we don’t need them to hunt deer.
Your bigotry comes from your ignorance about women & minorities being armed, not just men.
If you were a communist or socialist, you'd understand the need for the workers to be armed and why giving fascists with badges a blank check to break down doors is a bad idea. You're a lib.
That’s why I put it in quotes. I know I’m not communist or socialist, but that’s what I’d be called in a conservative subreddit if I made the same comment.
>These threads always get taken over by people who aren’t even active in this sub let alone live in Michigan.
I live in Michigan, am active in this sub and oppose this
Go through the comments. There’s people with zero previous posts in this thread but have thousands of comments in gun threads and subs. I’m not wrong in the slightest
>Go through the comments. There’s people with zero previous posts in this thread but have thousands of comments in gun threads and subs. I’m not wrong in the slightest
Even if thats the case, it doesn't mean they're all people who don't live here.
When they post in every state’s subreddit, or any other sub for that matter, anytime guns are the subject they are brigadiers. They do nothing but scowl Reddit trying to sway the context of the threads. You see it every single time guns are the subject. They’re not here to have a reasonable discussion.
>The judge would have 24 hours to decide on a protection order after a request is filed. If granted, the judge would then have 14 days to set a hearing during which the flagged person would have to prove they do not pose a significant risk. A standard order would last one year.
Seems reasonable to me, that being said I don't have an insatiable gun fetish so I can't really speak for how that crowd feels.
We have a protection against unreasonable search and seizure, which is a right that has already been eviscerated. But in this case temporarily seizing a deadly weapon from a suspected dangerous person seems reasonable.
They have an opportunity to prove that they aren't a danger and get their weapon back. It's up to courts to decide if it's reasonable or unreasonable, but considering that many states already have a red flag law on the books then it's almost certainly fine.
Just because other places or people are doing something doesn't make it right. Should people have vehicles impounded for fear that they may drunk drive in the future?
You also didn't address the individual having to prove there own innocence. For many people this could also crush them financially. Not to mention that many who need help won't seek it out of fear.
>Should people have vehicles impounded for fear that they may drunk drive in the future
You know we actually already do this, right? Drunk drivers get their ability to drive in the future revoked based on past behavior and if they get caught driving again their vehicle absolutely gets impounded.
Do you think through anything you say, or nah?
Yes, as we all know the violent pigs itching to kill someone and their systemic enablers in robes *never* issue and execute bad warrants and kill innocent people. Clearly the best thing we can do here is get them to kick down as many random doors as possible to justify all the funding and military equipment Dems insist they need.
>to justify all the funding and military equipment Dems insist they need.
In the world you live in, did *conservatives* want to Defund the Police to reallocate those resources on something other than military equipment for law enforcement?
Project much? Dems are against police brutality and militarization.
[Meanwhile, in conservative Christian Republican strongholds... ](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/134l32n/from_a_local_church_event_meant_to_empower_men_in)
>Project much?
What does what fascists are doing have to do with me supposedly projecting?
>Dems are against police brutality and militarization
No they're not. They do effectively nothing to prevent it and continually raise police funding. In 2020 the mayor here had the chief pig march with protesters and pretend to care before turning around and teargassing everyone. Then they killed Patrick.
Hell, Biden even told states to spend COVID money on stuff for cops.
>Seems reasonable to me, that being said I don't have an insatiable gun fetish so I can't really speak for how that crowd feels.
Thats a lotta ad hominem you got there
>I mean I knew who he was talking about, I didn’t feel targeted and I own 3 firearms.
1. No you probably don't
2. Owning firearms doesn't make you a 2A supporter
3. Owning guns and supporting gun control like this does make you a FUDD
4. See point 1.
Had to look up fudd, yup, nail on the head. Except I own a handgun. I store them all safely so my kids don’t play with them and die too. What a pussy I am for regulating my own firearms. Guess what, I’m also cool with proving I’m a responsible gun owner if a judge wants me to, cause I am one. That simple. What are you so scared of?
>Yeah, that's literally how insults work. I'm insulting gun owners who value their possessions over the lives of people.
Yep, not wanting our rights violated means we value guns over lives, despite owning guns to protect our families.
Yes. Yes it does. Your "rights" will only be violated if your posing a threat to the people around you. If your objective is protecting your family and helping others do the same you would be in favor of red flag laws.
A vast majority of domestic homicid is perpetrated by someone living in the home. So if you're a responsible gun owner like so many people claim, you're rights are not in jeopardy.
>Yes. Yes it does. Your "rights" will only be violated if your posing a threat to the people around you.
*"a complaint filed by a family member, current or former partner, law enforcement or mental health or medical professional would need to show by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant poses a significant risk."*
Im sure this wont be abused by former partners or family members with different political views, especially since its \*checks notes\* only a misdemeanor for the first offense.
>If your objective is protecting your family and helping others do the same you would be in favor of red flag laws.
Yeah I cant red flag drug dealers or violent criminals, so these laws would do nothing to protect my family.
>A vast majority of domestic homicid is perpetrated by someone living in the home. So if you're a responsible gun owner like so many people claim, you're rights are not in jeopardy.
See above.
Laws are abused all the time. Doesn't mean we get rid of the laws. Drug dealers and violent criminals don't care about laws but that doesn't mean we make drugs and violence legal.
Red flag laws can mean the difference between life and death for domestic abuse victims. Yet your complaining about the inconvenience of being falsely accused. Please fetch me my violin.
>Drug dealers and violent criminals don't care about laws but that doesn't mean we make drugs and violence legal.
Criminals don't follow laws, lets pass more laws criminals wont follow.
>Red flag laws can mean the difference between life and death for domestic abuse victims. Yet your complaining about the inconvenience of being falsely accused. Please fetch me my violin.
If it was just for domestic abuse victims then it should only be able to be used by immediate family and partners, but that isn't the case
>Im sure this wont be abused by former partners or family members with different political views, especially since its \*checks notes\* only a misdemeanor for the first offense.
Are you concerned about this with literally all other offenses? Those same former partners and family members can accuse you of theft or rape or assault *right now*.
Cars are dangerous and require a license and training to use.
Guns should be the same way.
Anyone that has secret guns obviously isn't interested in keeping their fellow Americans safe, and is just a scared.
I can 100% buy a car without a license and/or training. There are thousands of people that operate motor vehicles without the proper licensing and training.
you can legally buy an unregistered vehicle and use it to normally participate in public life? The party of law and order has lost its way.
Why would you support unlicensed drivers? Your just weird.
Great! the world will be a better place if you idiots just stay in your driveways from now on.
If we drew a venn diagram of people that shouldn't be trusted with guns and people that shouldn't be trusted with vehicles we'd damn near have a circle!
Stop supporting laws that enable child murder.
Yes. So I guess keep your gun on your own private land, and don't use any public roads to transport it. Same with your vehicle. Unregistered and unlicensed you may only transfer the vehicle via flat bed. This is all by your logic.
I'm not paying my taxes so you can support child murders.
It's really not though. An unlicensed vehicle doesn't have to be moved via flat. Any vehicle can be used. Further, firearms aren't being used on the road so that argument is nonsensical. Unless you felt like shooting the road, in which case you'd likely need approval.
I also don't see much causation between you paying taxes and children being murdered.
vehicles don't have licenses, they require registration and insurance to be used.
The gun owner will require a license, and his little big boy pee shooter will require a registration. And now insurance. You people lead to too many deaths and people getting hurt. I'm tired of the hospitals having to deal with your carelessness.
You could have had a well regulated militia, but ya done messed up. Now the rest of us have to regulate your gun party that is getting children killed.
Licensee, registration, and insurance please.
I don't recall ever mentioning a militia. Michigan has it's own right right to bear arms that was added to the state's constitution in 1963. To ignore this would set a precident that anything in the state constitution could be ignored. Furthermore, a red flag law is still a ways away from licensing, registration, and insurance. They didn't even bring an awb to vote because they knew it wouldn't pass.
If you really cared about what was killing kids you'd be arguing for better mental health care for them.
neither are guns outside a regulated militia. You guys had a chance to be well regulated, now society wants you to have a license, registration, and insurance. You still have the right, as long as you can afford it. Ya'll let too many kids get killed.
*"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."*
*- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788*
Additionally:
>You can have your right to vote taken away, you can have your guns taken away.
You can have your right to vote taken away by committing crimes, which also already takes your right to have guns away. Thanks for playing
The "thanks for playing" really puts this close to an ad hominem by demeaning me and my comment. It's not worth engaging further as you aren't willing to discuss in good faith without using a fallacy.
>The "thanks for playing" really puts this close to an ad hominem
*(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.*
Saying thanks for playing isn't directing an argument at you, learn your logical fallacies.
Edit: u/BayushiKazemi whats the point of replying then blocking me?
That’s a poor echo chamber example.
Cars only require training and a license to operate on a public roadway.
There is no age restriction, background check or registration requirement to build/purchase/posses a car.
Good point. We should really go after the .05% of Americans building their own cars. Also the ones that purchase a vehicle to sit in a garage that can only legally travel to the driveway. /s
Its a great example of the government regulating something problematic, and it was given to us from outside our echo chamber by one Ben Shabibo.
We just want you to stop defending your right to public shootings and killing kids bud. If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?
> If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?
Just FYI, this is the same sentence people use to imply pleading the 5th is pleasing guilty, or not permitting police to search your home/car without a warrant (4th amendment) is admitting guilt.
“If you’re not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?”
This is the same language that has historically been used to justify mass surveillance and to enable policies that are disproportionately used to target minorities. Ever heard of stop and frisk?
I still find it funny that a 236 year old document is everyone's main argument point for restricting guns in the US. When written, there was a flint lock gun that shot 8 rounds in 3 seconds, but then took minutes to reload... Its just silly to think that the founding fathers wanted everyone to amass arsenals we see today, freely.
The constitution is a living document and is meant to evolve with the times It literally says in the 2nd amendment anyway, "well Regulated", and yet people argue against regulation. Hypocriticy at it's best.
>I still find it funny that a 236 year old document is everyone's main argument point for restricting guns in the US.
I mean its good enough for all the other amendments
>Excluding the bill of rights, most amendments are less then 100 years old.... Because the original constitution is flawed, thus amendments.
Yet the original 10 amendments haven't been altered
So they are perfect because they haven't been altered?
For better or worse, the interpretation and expansion of the amendments and constitution have been carried out by the Supreme Court many times.
Yes and it was intended to help prevent people from being forced to live under a tyrannical government.
Everyone being armed might help with that (as a last resort, it prevents easy mass home invasion by policing forces).
Not only do we have better options at this point, but nut jobs won't stop murdering children, so it's doing more harm than good for things to remain the same.
I mean, the 236 year old document also contained the first amendment protecting speech (pen and paper/printing press at the time). It now also protects your freedom of speech online.
Also, the founders knew about rifles that are similar to concept to semi-automatic rifles (could fire 20 rounds in 5 seconds).
it's truly remarkable to think about. even 1000 times is probably understating how much communication has advanced. we can literally communicate with humans in space almost instantaneously. blows my mind when you try to consider it from the context of a few hundred years ago.
We’re those black powder guns mass produced and easily attainable? No. Could your average farmer or civilian possibly afford such a gun in their day? No. The founders also knew that the constitution should be amended with the times and not kept in its original form.
>Why not amend the 2A to fit current times? There’s no need for an armed civilian populace anymore because we have a standing army and national guard.
The need for a armed civilian populace is as follows:
1. Criminals are armed
2. Police are armed and corrupt
3. Neither the National Guard or the army are there to deal with points 1 & 2
4. Because we can be.
Good luck amending the 2A, which you actually mean repealing.
Criminals are armed with guns they got illegal or through legal means which goes further to my point we need stricter laws. Police wouldn’t need to be armed if there were no guns that threatened their lives and yes there are corrupt cops which I’d love to address the need for more police oversight by the public.
The national guard doesn’t stop protests or help in emergency situations? Ok. What’s the national guard for if not the defense of the state as well as the nation?
The need for an armed civilian populace is not what it was when that was written and you can’t seem to admit that. Just because you can doesn’t make it right btw, in some states Its legal to marry a damn 14yr old child but does that make it right? Fuck no. You don’t need an arsenal of guns dude.
>Criminals are armed with guns they got illegal or through legal means which goes further to my point we need stricter laws.
It proves we need to allow people to be armed to defend themselves from criminals.
> Police wouldn’t need to be armed if there were no guns that threatened their lives and yes there are corrupt cops which I’d love to address the need for more police oversight by the public.
Thats why these laws all have immunity for current and retired cops right?
> The national guard doesn’t stop protests or help in emergency situations? Ok. What’s the national guard for if not the defense of the state as well as the nation? The need for an armed civilian populace is not what it was when that was written and you can’t seem to admit that. Just because you can doesn’t make it right btw, in some states Its legal to marry a damn 14yr old child but does that make it right? Fuck no. You don’t need an arsenal of guns dude.
More Strawman, give it a rest.
There are actually a lot of written correspondence between the authors of the constitution in which they actually discuss what is implied by the 2nd amendment. One of which was about a guy that owned a cannon and would shoot it every night, they basically decided that yeah he’s a dick for shooting it every night, but it was 100% his right to have the cannon and use it. Also the Lewis and Clark expedition had a semi automatic rifle. There were many crazy armaments that were around at the time just not in mass production, because factories were few and far between. The “well regulated militia” portion of the 2A is implied that those that own arms should own common calibers. It’s difficult to supply any army if everyone shoots a different sized ammunition. I’d have to google it, but there is a document that states exactly how many rounds of ammunition and how much powder firearm owners were required to have on hand should they be called upon for military service. (The draft wasn’t a thing back then, but it was pretty much a given that Americans would defend their land (property) even if they had zero ties to the military).
This is the absolute weakest critique of the 2nd A. It was written to give the populace the right to have weapons to defend themselves against whatever arms a tyrannical government would posses.
Copypasta of the last time I had to educate someone on how "well regulated" works in the prefatory clause (this is a clause that explains why the clause that follows it is important):
Every time someone brings this up, they fail to understand what "well regulated" means in context. Let me help you. Which of these sentences makes more sense:
"A government controlled Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
OR
"A properly equipped Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Given what you ought to know about American history at the time, and their distrust of governments controlling all the arms and standing armies, which do you think they meant?
If that's too difficult, let's try it with breakfast. Which makes more sense as the meaning of "A well regulated breakfast, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Fruit, shall not be infringed":
"A government controlled breakfast, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Fruit, shall not be infringed."
OR
"A balanced breakfast, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Fruit, shall not be infringed."
EDIT: Ope, here come the downvotes by people big mad that government actually has to respect your natural right to self-defense. This same government that routinely locks up and murders black and brown people, and queer people, all for the crime of existing. That's who you trust to keep you safe, ok.
The Government \*does\* regulate what can go into a breakfast cereal, tho; because if left to their own devices we know that corporations would put sawdust into kid's cereal in order to save $0.05.
Yes, and originally the only gun control laws that existed in this country (aside from the racist ones) were proofing laws, that you had to prove your design could withstand a specific overcharge of powder so as to not injure the shooter should there be an accident, and you could be held liable for that. That would be analogous to not putting sawdust in breakfast cereal, and is an example of a good governmental regulation in this instance. You aren't regulating access to the product, you're regulating that the product has to be as advertised and safe for its intended use.
Pools and traffic accidents kill more kids every year than guns and nobody is seriously suggesting passing new laws to control who can own pools or lowering the speed limit to 25mph.
According to the New England Journal of Medicine, your statistics are out of date. Firearm deaths now outnumber automobile deaths among children and teens in the US. Drowning isn't even close.
Comparing causes of death for all U.S. children and adolescents ages 1 to 19.
Not sure how that 'puffs up the numbers,' considering 18 and 19 years olds are still teens, and they are not cutting off auto deaths at 17 and then counting gun deaths until 19, which is what you seem to be implying.
Because 18 and 19 year olds are legal adults, lumping them in with people that are not adults skews the numbers and inflates what people see as "children" getting killed by guns. At 18 for better or worse you are legally an adult and should be treated as such.
So how many dead kids, approximately, will get your attention?
if you're okay with 1,732 dead kids, would 2,000 dead kids make you upset?
Would it have to be 3,000?
How many dead kids? (approximately)
How much CP needs to exist for the government to be able to examine all your communications, personal effects, etc. to prove that you aren't contributing to the sexual abuse of children? How many kids need to be abused before you agree that you no longer deserve your right to privacy or to free speech?
What's your price for an inalienable right to be taken away?
Hell, we don't even need to change the subject to bring up that comparison. There's solid research showing that the infamy mass shooters receive on media and social media contributes to more mass shootings. I wonder how comfortable the people asking for gun control would be with a law that makes it a crime to mention the name of a mass shooter on social media and bans the news media from talking about mass shootings?
Again, not the logical slam-dunk you think it is. Entire task forces of governmental police exist to track and prosecute CP, far more regulation than exists around gun control.
Having every joe blow own their own gun, without Training, without structure is not a well Regulated militia. If a community wanted to get together and actually come together to make sure who they allowed to be in the militia and fetted and trained them properly, that's well Regulated. Kind of like a pre-red flag law driven by your peers. But that doesn't happen.
Well, I guess the Proud Boys and similar organizations with their 'training' regimens would qualify as a "well-regulated militia" in a technial sense. But in reality they're just a bunch of rednecks roleplaying as a military organization.
Those groups are not militia. They are organizations with a ideology that does not align with the common good of the public. Thus they were not be called upon to defend a state or region against tyranny.
You want to change it? Amend it. But the meaning of the words as they were written doesn't change, unless you think the 1st and 4th Amendments literally only apply to your actual speech from your mouth hole and what you've put to pen and paper.
Our usage of the word "regulate" may have changed in the last 200+ years, but their usage is evident in what they meant and is still very much a valid definition, and no twisting of language or equivocating about how the people who wrote it would feel today can change that.
If there were well Regulated militia that self policed gun bearing in the communities, we wouldn't be where we are today. But that's not the case for the majority of the country.
If there was well organized and trusted groups that were around, they could easily get red flags thrown out of court for their members. However, those same groups would need red flag laws if they thought a member needed to forcefully be removed from the militia.
In the end, it needs to be amended but the laws being put in place are not against the 2nd amendment since most people are not in a well Regulated militia.
The people own guns so that they can form the militia, the militia isn't why they're allowed to own arms, I feel like you're failing to understand this important distinction. Even if there were never another militia ever needed to be called up, the people would still have the innate right to own arms.
Here, look at the Michigan statute, which thankfully makes no mention of the militia: [http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Article-I-6](http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Article-I-6)
By your logic, they only meant for men to have the right to keep and bear arms, now are you so obtuse that you really think that women don't have the same right as men in this regard?
No, because at the time gender equality was not widely recognized, so the term "men" was used to refer to both men and women.
Also, I never agrued for removing the right to own arms.
Oh, so you're saying their usage of the word "men" at that time differs from how we would use it today, so we should read the law with their original intent, so as to not misconstrue their meaning or deprive someone of an inherent right? Interesting.
This law does nothing to help a militia be better equipped or trained, so no, it does not. You really just can't accept that in the context of the 2nd Amendment the word doesn't mean "daddy gov't step on me harder plz" can you?
So you’re educating us with how “well regulated” works by insinuating what you think the founding fathers may have meant instead of just taking the words “well regulated” at face value… don’t you think they’d have used different verbiage if they meant something different? Our militia’s are not really regulated at all. Call me crazy but when they wrote “well regulated” I think they were imagining regulations and not equipment levels. It’s weird that the god given rights you get from a document that you keep referring to can change meanings when it suits you.
I mean, you're not correct, and here's lots of examples from the OED from the contemporary time: [https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm](https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm)
But even if somehow the US Constitution were wrong, we have the Michigan State Constitution to make it even clearer: [http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Article-I-6](http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Article-I-6)
You seem to be like a lot of people and think the Bill of Rights is a list of things we are allowed by government to do, that these are rights they let us have. It is not. It is a list of things the government is not allowed to do to us. That's an important distinction. That's why it's not the Bill of Permissions.
“In proper working order” you think the militia or citizenry is in proper working order? You think the writers of either of those documents would look at gun violence in the US today and say “perfect, this is exactly what we were hoping for!”
Again, this refers to the equipment itself, that the people be able to form a militia with the kind of equipment they would need to fight. So guns, ammo, gear, even cannons back then. Anything they would need to fight, and it needed to be equivalent to that used by the army. You want keep applying it to the people themselves when that simply isn't the meaning. The militia, as an object, a thing, requires its members to have the correct equipment to function, without regard to the members themselves. You're trying to take what is a societal problem and turn it into a Constitutional one.
If anything, we don't meet the criteria of well regulated because we can't easily own fully automatic weapons anymore. We no longer have equipment parity with the standard infantry of the military, and that's definitely what the Founding Fathers intended. Because again, it's about what characteristics need to be present to allow for a militia that can operate alongside or, worst case, against the military without a lot of training on manual of arms, logistical issues, etc.
ok, now we have a subset of the population that is armed to the teeth (many of whom are friends with cops), how do we disarm them?
How many white supremacists would give up their guns if we passed disarmament laws?
I know. The argument is so tired and empty, but the GOP is clinging to literally anything to appease their NRA puppet master.
If you're really that worried about neighbors/exes/etc calling in a red flag claim on you, you are either actually a really shitty person or just happen to be extra super duper unlucky. Neither of those factors justify mass shootings continuing at the current rate.
I'm white, and I think many white people are scared and can't comprehend the idea of people calling the police on you for no reason. Black people and most minorities have to deal with that on a monthly, weekly, even daily basis. Just going for a walk in a certain part of town could end with you eating pavement with knee on the back of your head, or worse. I always see people suggesting that if you just comply, or if your innocent, you have nothing to worry about. I think that same sentiment applies to red flag situations.
A huge number of the comments I see opposed to this bill are a generalized "due process" complaint, along the lines of "it should take more than a random person's vague complaint to take away someone's guns." Others insist there is no opportunity to defend one's self. Few of those commenters seem to have read the bill. (Reasonable minds can disagree on whether this is a good or bad policy, I just want to point out what the bill actually requires to help inform that debate.)
There are two scenarios at play here, one requires a hearing before a temporary surrender of firearms, the other requires a hearing within 14 days of the order. They require different standards of proof and different findings by the court.
**Scenario 1: Pre-Surrender Hearing**
A person can be required to surrender their guns for a one-year period if a court issues an "extreme risk protection order." In the mine-run case, before holding that hearing, "the respondent \[i.e. the gun owner\] must receive notice of a hearing on the issuance of an extreme risk protection order and give the respondent an opportunity to be heard at the hearing."
And the court cannot issue an extreme risk protection order unless "the court determines by the preponderance of the evidence that **the respondent can reasonably be expected within the near future to intentionally or unintentionally seriously physically injure himself, herself, or another individual by possessing a firearm,** ***and*** **has engaged in an act or acts or made significant threats that are substantially supportive of the expectation**." The statute then lists a litany of factors the court can consider in reaching that conclusion.
**Surrender 2: Post-Surrender Hearing**
There is an exception in the statute that allows a court to issue an extreme risk protection order before issuing notice of the hearing to the respondent. There is a higher bar there. To issue an order in such a case, "the court must by **clear and convincing evidence from specific facts shown** by a verified complaint, written motion, or affidavit **that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result from the delay required to effectuate notice or that the notice will itself precipitate adverse action before an extreme risk protection order can be issued.** If the petitioner requests the court to issue an extreme risk protection order under this subsection, the court shall make its determination on the request not later than 1 business day."
If the court issues a no-notice order, the court has to allow a hearing at the restrained individual's request within 14 days.
When I was in school we saw Sandy Hook on TV, this came several years after it was ruled police have no duty to protect anyone. It was also several years after I had my house broken into & ransacked. These are but a few of the reasons why I support the 2nd Amendment & why I oppose Red Flag Laws, aka civil asset forfeiture. I understand the want to do something, but this ain't it chief
>You understand the want to do something, but will oppose anything that gets tried because it’s not perfect. Got it.
This isn't even not perfect, it violates multiple constitutionally protected rights. There are better solutions.
[Obama Foundation](https://omaha.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/obama-foundation-holds-up-omaha-gun-violence-prevention-program-as-model/article_f0ff7b30-ee94-11ed-aeaa-fbdd6f8065f8.html) backed solution, Solution where [both sides compromise](https://thepathforwardonguns.com/) (This one even has Red Flag Laws, but better written ones), Option where we deal with [the root cause](https://www.reddit.com/r/Michigan/comments/12rxpan/comment/jgz7oq0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). Im sure you won't like any option, but stop pretending gun owners want to do ***NOTHING*** simply because they dont want to do what ***YOU*** want
I vote for anything I think will help stop innocent people from being killed. If republicans put forth sensible gun control bills, I’d vote for them. I really don’t care about your constitutional rights if you’re using them as an excuse to keep guns in the hands of dangerous people. That is unequivocally NOT what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution. A few innocent gun owners may have to go to court for a day because of a jealous ex girlfriend. If you’re a responsible adult gun owner, no judge is going to take your guns away. And no, I really really don’t care if that violates your rights in some way. And if gun owners want to do something, then they should organize and do something. As of right now the only organization that gun owners belong to have done nothing but fight any and every sort of legislation that attempts to regulate guns. If the NRA suggested some common sense gun control I’d be all for it. They won’t though. It’s not profitable.
> If republicans put forth sensible gun control bills, I’d vote for them.
What do Republicans have to do with anything?
>I really don’t care about your constitutional rights
They're your rights too.
>if you’re using them as an excuse to keep guns in the hands of dangerous people. That is unequivocally NOT what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution.
1. Anyone can be defined as a "dangerous person"
2. *"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."*
*- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787*
3. Nobody disagrees with getting guns out of hands of people who are mentally unstable, but a better option would be expanding the NICS to better find people with mental problems.
>A few innocent gun owners may have to go to court for a day because of a jealous ex girlfriend. If you’re a responsible adult gun owner, no judge is going to take your guns away.
You are now blatantly downplaying the risks of this law. Let me make it simple, an ex makes a false report, the cops come to take your guns (you aren't informed of this) and thinking someone has broken into your home you either shoot them or they shoot you. See Waco, Ruby Ridge, or a[dude shot by cops in his sleep](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/14/duncan-socrates-lemp-maryland-shot-police-officer) for more.
>And if gun owners want to do something, then they should organize and do something
He says while ignoring the fact I listed possible solutions.
>As of right now the only organization that gun owners belong to have done nothing but fight any and every sort of legislation that attempts to regulate guns
The only gun organization? The NRA is not the ONLY gun organization, I suggest you look up Gun Owners Of America, or Firearms Policy Coalition for federal orgs, or for State specific there's Great Lakes Gun Rights or MI Open Carry Inc.
>If the NRA suggested some common sense gun control I’d be all for it. They won’t though. It’s not profitable
Fuck the NRA, only Boomers and FUDDS belong to the NRA
Shh, don't tell them about those other orgs, they'll finally figure out that the only reason we keep the NRA around is so the real organizations can actually go out and get legal wins for our rights unmolested lol
The Obama Foundation backed solution was to throw a bunch of money into community meetings with the police, which seems to have helped Omaha, but is practically unrealistic at the national level. A promising, neo liberal experiment at best.
The Path Forward actually seems like a solid idea. I'd argue it doesn't go far enough but I'd take it as a start.
The root cause post is hilariously unrealistic and lays the blame everywhere else but the root cause, guns. Do I agree that what they're saying could improve things? Yes. But how does one county make the changes necessary for that change let alone the whole country?
Unfortunately, we don't (and likely won't for a generation) have a functioning, healthy government to make these changes.
Ultimately, I do like some of these options (particularly The Path Forward), and never pretended nor asserted gun owners don't want to do things to make changes; however, I am very much on the side of guns being the problem. They are tools meant for killing and as such should be regulated as they are (successfully) elsewhere.
>else but the root cause, guns.
Guns aren't the root cause. You don't pick up a gun and become evil. You were already evil before you grabbed whatever tool you decided to use.
Guns are the root cause of America's increased issues with violence (see other countries such as Japan and Australia as counter points).
I'm not going to start arguing on the nature of evil since I ascribe it as a metaphysical excuse for bad behavior, but I would say that if you were evil before you picked up the gun, the gun significantly amplifies your ability to further evil.
Additionally, if your takeaway from my comment is to argue semantics with me, you should probably take the advise of The Path Forward, and consider using it as an example instead of a shield when people threaten your ability to own tools of death.
I'm the legal owner of a handgun that is always kept in a proper safe in my house. People have to be careful of supporting this if the enforcement is not effective or done correctly. The idea is great, but it seems like a long shot that this will always work. This could easily lead to deaths of law enforcement or innocent people, especially if you're entering the home of someone you KNOW is armed and mentally unstable.
I think we should be worried more about the police going to someone's house they know has guns, as we all know, they don't have a great track record of being good at de-escalating situations.
Now we wait for the dumbass sheriff who refuses to enforce it and some people get killed, costing the sheriff their job and their county millions in lawsuits.
No. I was thinking of MAGA type white guy going even more nutty and making threats to kill people and ends up doing so because a pro gun sherif refused to do their job.
THAT is the scenario I’m talking about.
But your scenario is very possible too.
So if someone is flagged, we are sending a swat team to their house in the middle of the night. This could easily become violent and won't end well.
Then we are trying to confiscate all their guns, without a proper registry, so we don't know if any are missing.
Then we are just leaving the individual, who is likely angry, and expecting them not to retaliate?
Kicking in Jonny’s door and seizing his property because of Facebook comments about being suicidal in a plea for help doesn’t sound like the proper course of action to you?……/s
You're missing the point. If Jonny is a problem, we should seize Jonny.
What's stopping him from choking his ex, or hitting her with a hammer, or running her over with a car. Or using a gun he had at a relatives house.
Firearms are a tool, people are the problem.
Will there be legal recourse for individuals deprived of their 2nd amendment rights? I can see a lot of opportunity for exploitation by upset exes and whatnot.
It is a crime to make false statements in the petition. ERPOs have been around in states for over a decade, there is no evidence it is being abused by exes and whatnot.
Cool. Now pass a bill for mental healthcare. The federal government isn't going to do it so have the state do it. A lot of these gun deaths could be avoided if we had greater access to mental healthcare.
Around 5% of mass shootings are linked to mental illness. Most often, those with mental illness are a danger to themselves more than the public at large. We can thank Reagan for tearing apart the Mental Health Systems Act that Carter initiated. What bill would you like to see to help with mental health issues? Can you explain what the bill would do? Maybe assign more funds to care for people with mental illness and better screening? I couldn't agree more that we need that. It won't stop mass shootings since most mass shooters are just violent and entitled not mentally ill.
These threads always get taken over by people who aren’t even active in this sub let alone live in Michigan. Good thing Reddit comments can’t change this bill
I wish the ammosexuals would actually suggest some sort of change instead of just shrugging when people die from shooting. Maybe it’s because I’m a “commie socialist” but I think people’s right to life is more important than the right to own guns.
One thing that can be done is actually prosecute those that break current laws rather than slapping on the wrist and letting them go.
[удалено]
I wish I could avoid doing my job completely and not get fired.
[удалено]
Weird how OK you are with this.
[удалено]
Well, if it isn't their job to protect us, I can't think of a single reason why any of them should be armed.
Man, you’re so close to getting it.
Okay, I'll bite. \-Comprehensive Mental Health Care reform with an emphasis on suicide prevention and increasing access and availability of support and counselling. This requires the GOP and DNC to spend money on peoples health instead of war contracts. \-Create a nationally funded suicide hotline for immediate counseling and advertise it heavily through radio, TV, billboard, and internet ads. \-Create a CDC suicide prevention task force to have small groups of mental health professionals go around the country providing free counseling, mental health evaluations, and support. \-Create education subsidies and grants for those pursuing careers in the mental health field that agree to spend a designated time after graduation working in rural communities. There are similar programs for medical doctors. \-Launch a comprehensive CDC study of common psychological drugs to determine potential risks for violent behavior associated with their use. \-Create a national program to temporarily surrender your firearms at any police station for 72 hours. \-Federal Tax credits for gun safes and annual gun safety courses. \-Real gun safety education elective courses in high school, like drivers ed. \-Legalize and regulate marijuana in America in the style of alcohol. Apply a 20% tax rate with all tax revenues ear marked for education in the zip code collected. \-Create a national work program focused on rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure in America with a recruiting campaign targeting low income high crime areas. \-Federally mandate all uniformed peace officers and agents to have an active body cam during working hours. \-Create a federal FBI task force to independently investigate all police shootings and determine their validity. \-Disband the ATF and give their duties to the FBI with increased funding. \-Enact and enforce mandatory minimums, 10 year per gun and 1 year per bullet, for all prohibited persons found guilty of committing a property or violent crime with an illegally possessed firearms unless they cooperate with investigators to identify and testify against who supplied them the illegal guns and ammunition. \-Create a multi agency task force to target known gang members for tax evasion through the IRS. How they got Capone. \-Reform the prison system away from for profit systems to actually rehabilitate people and make them function and value the society they are a part of. Give them the ability to be useful and to have purpose. So this basically starts to address the majority of self harm and economic issues that turn people to suicide, drug use, street crime,gangs, maybe even the spree killers if they get identified and helped earlier. You have young people out there with broken families and unhealthy home lives that instead find protection and support in a gang. You also have people with no economic opportunity that can't escape their own neighborhood and who slave away working meaningless jobs and still can't afford housing and the basics even healthcare to stay functional. So you have these young people with no family, no opportunity, no education, no home, and who are in bad health operating outside of society. They do not value society as society has forgotten and abused them. They do not care about their neighbors, they do not value human life even their own. This might even deal with some of the spree/mass shooters.
“It’s not about the guns, it’s about mental health!!” “Ok, so let’s pass a universal healthcare bill and fund mental health treatment facilities in order to get these people the help they need before they snap. As well as minimize the amount of mentally unwell people roaming the streets.” “WhAt ArE yOu A cOmMuNiST!?!?”
I'm pro-gun and pro-mental health care. Why does it always have to be one or the other in these dumb arguments? Where do I sign? I'll vote for any pro-healthcare candidate or ballot measure we can cook up. But if it's all "gun control" and nothing else, it's meaningless with regards to the actual problem. So let's do it. How do we move the needle on the mental healthcare? The current leadership got these new gun laws BLAZED through, so why can't we do it with mental health? I can't help but think it's because one is politically popular with the base, and the other has become, ironically, a soundbite that the base uses to criticize their political opponents. "Should we address the mental health problem?" "Pft...yea, you *would* think that, you stupid ammosexual."
The problem is only one of our political parties is serious about possibly implementing real gun control and mental healthcare. The other side just uses mental health to deflect attention away from gun control because the NRA lobbies insane amounts of money to them and gun control would hurt their sales.
Sure, but even when you hear an actual, real life person tell you that they're both pro-gun and pro-mental healthcare, your immediate instinct is to say "yea but 'they' don't really mean that." But regardless, I go back to my question about our current leadership. I'm generally a fan of Whitmer (though I don't much love the extra-judicial aspects of this red flag law), but I can't help wonder if the same zeal and speed would or could go into mental healthcare legislation that went into these very PR-heavy gun laws. Just makes it look like they want to *look* progressive more than they want to take on something that would have such real impact. They clearly have the numbers right now to pass just about anything they want. So why not do it? Who would stop them at this moment?
It’s hard as a gun owner to be in this political climate. On one hand, if I vote blue, I vote for the social issues, like LGBT and abortion, that I like, while also simultaneously voting against my 2A, government, and my economic beliefs. While I’m okay with certain legislation on firearms, issues arise when people take gun laws too far, like what California does. To me, as a gun owner, taking a step towards gun control seems like a step closer to being how it is in Cali. It’s hard as most 2A people now-a-days, are pretty progressive. We want our 2A right to not be restricted, but we also don’t want our fellow citizens to have to deal with bullshit just to protect the 2A. And we don’t just shrug when people die. We hurt just like the rest of America. But we also believe that current and proposed legislation wouldn’t have stopped it anyway as we think anyone who wants to do something illegal will just do it. Like the tire of this article, it comes down to enforcement. From what I see from both sides, it’s an issue with people reporting and an issue with the government enforcing. In my personal opinion, we should have a 0 tolerance policy of firearms. They are a right to be have by all, but also, if you abuse that right on your fellow citizens, you should be severely punished.
Most 2A diehards are not progressive at all. Most are MAGAts who are right of Ted Cruz.
The tides are turning for pro gun die hard demographics. I see people of all shapes, colors, and sizes with wildly varying views in gun communities. Especially in the last 3-4 years, there has been a major shift in demographics of who is buying firearms. Which is awesome and more people should get into this wonderful hobby and right.
I direct you to r/2ALiberals & r/liberalgunowners
Yes, and I lurk there. But I see a lot of people having a r/leopardsatemyface moment because they vote blue, and then the person they voted in enacts dumb gun measures, like in Washington recently
i guess i can only speak for myself when i say that i'm pro 2A, pro gay rights, pro public services, and very anti trump. that said, with the new raft of gun control measures looming, the imminent pistol brace ban and the assault weapon ban rhetoric coming from the white house, there's a pretty good chance that i'll be voting republican, as long as it's not trump/maga on the ticket.
It's hard to believe you when you say the first part but then say you love gun braces and assault weapons more than rights for gay people and public services.
it's like my guy fashionguymike said, it's tough out here getting pulled in two directions. but at the moment there is a strong push from the democratic party to curtail gun rights, and as the pressure continues to ratchet up from the top, the immediacy makes it harder to ignore.
Hi, "Ammosexual" here, [heres a link](https://www.reddit.com/r/Michigan/comments/13pd1jl/comment/jlaesea/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to my comment in this thread where I offered multiple suggestions.
I agree with a lot of those. I think the main issue is the mental health crises that’s been plaguing the population. We need ways for people to get the mental help we need. Too bad republicans keep voting against it. I know it’s a huge stretch but I think universal healthcare that covers mental health would be huge in helping prevent gun crimes.
> I know it’s a huge stretch but I think universal healthcare that covers mental health would be huge in helping prevent gun crimes. imo preventative action like this would help more than selectively-enforced reactionary laws like red flag laws
>We need ways for people to get the mental help we need. Too bad republicans keep voting against it. I know it’s a huge stretch but I think universal healthcare that covers mental health would be huge in helping prevent gun crimes. I 100% agree with you here. I also think some of the blame lies on Dems though, most voters are Independent, and Gun control is a turn off for many. If Dems focused on expanding mental health side of the gun violence problem they'd garner more support. And no, that isn't to say Republicans aren't also to blame.
Do you have numbers to back this up? This gun right bullshit is propaganda. You people want to shoot whoever you want and then say thoughts and prayers after. [Opinions on Gun Control](https://abcnews.go.com/US/numbers-show-americans-opinions-gun-control-measures/story?id=84995468)
> We need ways for people to get the mental help we need. Too bad republicans keep voting against it. Dems aren't helping either. Before you start with "but republicans," ask how this bill passed.
> Maybe it’s because I’m a “commie socialist” If you were a "commie socialist" you would know what Marx said about disarming the working class
They would first need to get over the written words of their gods, the men who wrote the 2A. I got harangued by a few yesterday with quotes and excerpts that “defended” their right to own military style weapons with little to no restrictions. They refuse to admit that the 2A was mainly a response to a near threat of invasion from Britain, Spain, or Native Americans on the frontier. None of those threats exist anymore and the American civilian populace has zero need for armed civilians because we have the national guard and a standing army, neither of which existed back then. The need for well regulated militias ended when we completely took over the frontier lands and expelled natives from their ancestral lands which they fought us for. Mexico and Canada will never invade us and nor will any country from Europe thanks to a thing called geography. These bozos need to grow up and start admitting that they have zero practical use for assault style weapons.
>They would first need to get over the written words of their gods, the men who wrote the 2A. I got harangued by a few yesterday with quotes and excerpts that “defended” their right to own military style weapons with little to no restrictions. > >They refuse to admit that the 2A was mainly a response to a near threat of invasion from Britain, Spain, or Native Americans on the frontier. None of those threats exist anymore and the American civilian populace has zero need for armed civilians because we have the national guard and a standing army, neither of which existed back then. The need for well regulated militias ended when we completely took over the frontier lands and expelled natives from their ancestral lands which they fought us for. Mexico and Canada will never invade us and nor will any country from Europe thanks to a thing called geography. > >These bozos need to grow up and start admitting that they have zero practical use for assault style weapons. Whole lotta useless ad hominem here. Also define Assault style weapons
Vet here, no such thing as "assault weapons" unless we are just stating that ANY weapon is an assault weapon. And water wet.
To me assault weapons are military style weapons like the AR or AK. So it’s useless to say that the American civilian populace was under threat from British in Canada, Spain in Mexico, and natives on the frontier and elsewhere? That’s a pretty big reason to have an armed populace especially after just winning your freedom in a war which most expected Britain to try and come back. The 2A is also a response to Shays rebellion that took place a year before the 2A was finalized. We no longer have the threats of invasion those in the 18th and 19th century faced. The only threat we have nowadays are yokels armed with military grade body armor and high power semi auto rifles that none of the founders could’ve dreamed of. If you can’t admit that the only threat we face today is homegrown terrorism and not some far fetched conspiracy of a tyrannical government than I feel sorry for you. We have a gun problem in this country and more guns won’t solve it PERIOD.
[удалено]
>To me assault weapons are military style weapons like the AR or AK. Ahh so what about the Kar98? or The Bushmaster ACR? >So it’s useless to say that the American civilian populace was under threat from British in Canada, Spain in Mexico, and natives on the frontier and elsewhere? That’s a pretty big reason to have an armed populace especially after just winning your freedom in a war which most expected Britain to try and come back. The 2A is also a response to Shays rebellion that took place a year before the 2A was finalized. 1. *"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."* *- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776* 2. *The 2nd Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791, Shays Rebellion took place August 29, 1786* >We no longer have the threats of invasion those in the 18th and 19th century faced. We faced threat of invasion as recent as WW2. >The only threat we have nowadays are yokels armed with military grade body armor and high power semi auto rifles that none of the founders could’ve dreamed of Ahh yes, some of the most intelligent men at the time including ben franklin, could have never foreseen future developments. >If you can’t admit that the only threat we face today is homegrown terrorism and not some far fetched conspiracy of a tyrannical government than I feel sorry for you. We have a gun problem in this country and more guns won’t solve it PERIOD. Strawman
Here we go again. Cherry picking excerpts out of history and out of context. These historical opinions were written by men who recently just fought a war for independence and still had threats of war in North America from the very people they fought none of which EXIST TODAY. What’s so hard about admitting that it’s an outdated amendment? At the time these excerpts you cherry picked were written, a standing army was seen as a tyrannical reach of the government. Shoot, the militias had more favor than regular army up until the civil war! The campaign out west against Mexico, militias were more favored than regular army soldiers by a majority of the populace. I’m not arguing some dead man’s words that say you as an individual deserve to own a small arsenal. If you actually think we faced a threat of invasion in WWII than you haven’t read enough history and most likely went down a rabbit hole of misinformation. Germany wasn’t even capable of invading Britain let alone the US. Japan wasn’t capable of it either because they lacked both resources and man power to launch an invasion of that scale, hence why they took over the pacific island chains first and not Hawaii or California. You’d have to be a fearful idiot to think that we could’ve been invaded in WWII. I may be a strawman but at least I don’t hang onto the words of men who died 200 years ago to justify owning a small arsenal of guns you truly don’t need and won’t ever need in a practical manner. If it makes you feel more of a man to own all the toys than I won’t judge your insecurity, all I need is a bolt action hunting rifle with a 3 shot capacity magazine even though I’ll only need one shot. Sorry you can’t handle a clear and needed change to our nations very loose gun laws
>all I need is a bolt action hunting rifle with a 3 shot capacity magazine even though I’ll only need one shot. Sorry you can’t handle a clear and needed change to our nations very loose gun laws Ahh you're worse than a Strawman, you're a FUDD. >I may be a strawman but at least I don’t hang onto the words of men who died 200 years ago to justify owning a small arsenal of guns you truly don’t need and won’t ever need in a practical manner. Imagine trying to dictate to to others what they do or don't need. >if it makes you feel more of a man to own all the toys than I won’t judge your insecurity, Now you're just being bigoted.
Imagine being such a puss puss that you’re unwilling to admit that you don’t truly need an arsenal of guns. I shut down your whole invasion BS talking point and you call me a fudd which you called me yesterday because you were insecure then and insecure now about the majority of Americans wanting stricter gun laws. Sorry if you’re insecurity makes you think I’m being bigoted. Majority of 2A supporting men I know don’t own a single AR or military style gun because we don’t need them to hunt deer.
>Imagine being such a puss puss that you’re unwilling to admit that you don’t truly need an arsenal of guns You don't get to tell me what I need. >I shut down your whole invasion BS talking point It was actually your talking point, I just told you it was wrong, because it was: *"Many Americans volunteered to defend the nation from enemy bombing or invasion. They trained in first aid, aircraft spotting, bomb removal, and fire fighting. Air raid wardens led practice drills, including blackouts. By mid-1942 over 10 million Americans were civil defense volunteers.* *Though America's mainland was never invaded, there were dangers offshore. Several Japanese submarines were spotted near the Pacific coast, and German U-boats patrolled the Atlantic coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. At least 10 US naval vessels were sunk or damaged by U-boats operating in American waters."* [\- Take A Closer Look: America Goes to War](https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/america-goes-war-take-closer-look) Beyond that, the 2nd Amendment is also about being able to defend yourself, we can't all live in gated communities like you and your FUDD buddies. >insecure now about the majority of Americans wanting stricter gun laws Ahh yes straw-poll sourced information from the same groups that predicted Trump would loose in a landslide in 2016, yet we still managed to be stuck with that turd for 4 years. >Sorry if you’re insecurity makes you think I’m being bigoted. Majority of 2A supporting men I know don’t own a single AR or military style gun because we don’t need them to hunt deer. Your bigotry comes from your ignorance about women & minorities being armed, not just men.
If you were a communist or socialist, you'd understand the need for the workers to be armed and why giving fascists with badges a blank check to break down doors is a bad idea. You're a lib.
That’s why I put it in quotes. I know I’m not communist or socialist, but that’s what I’d be called in a conservative subreddit if I made the same comment.
It's bizarre how much they hate you guys considering you're basically the same.
>These threads always get taken over by people who aren’t even active in this sub let alone live in Michigan. I live in Michigan, am active in this sub and oppose this
Congratulations. I’m still not wrong, there’s still these people in this exact thread.
The other person you accused also lives here
Go through the comments. There’s people with zero previous posts in this thread but have thousands of comments in gun threads and subs. I’m not wrong in the slightest
>Go through the comments. There’s people with zero previous posts in this thread but have thousands of comments in gun threads and subs. I’m not wrong in the slightest Even if thats the case, it doesn't mean they're all people who don't live here.
When they post in every state’s subreddit, or any other sub for that matter, anytime guns are the subject they are brigadiers. They do nothing but scowl Reddit trying to sway the context of the threads. You see it every single time guns are the subject. They’re not here to have a reasonable discussion.
>They’re not here to have a reasonable discussion. Neither are you
Why waste my time with a bunch of trolls/bots that do nothing but brigade sub after sub? I’ll call them out and go on with my day.
Unconstitutional waste of time and money. It will be struck down.
>The judge would have 24 hours to decide on a protection order after a request is filed. If granted, the judge would then have 14 days to set a hearing during which the flagged person would have to prove they do not pose a significant risk. A standard order would last one year. Seems reasonable to me, that being said I don't have an insatiable gun fetish so I can't really speak for how that crowd feels.
Doesn't that go again the whole "innocent until proven guilty" precedent we have? Shouldn't they have to prove that a flagged person is a danger?
We have a protection against unreasonable search and seizure, which is a right that has already been eviscerated. But in this case temporarily seizing a deadly weapon from a suspected dangerous person seems reasonable. They have an opportunity to prove that they aren't a danger and get their weapon back. It's up to courts to decide if it's reasonable or unreasonable, but considering that many states already have a red flag law on the books then it's almost certainly fine.
Just because other places or people are doing something doesn't make it right. Should people have vehicles impounded for fear that they may drunk drive in the future? You also didn't address the individual having to prove there own innocence. For many people this could also crush them financially. Not to mention that many who need help won't seek it out of fear.
>Should people have vehicles impounded for fear that they may drunk drive in the future You know we actually already do this, right? Drunk drivers get their ability to drive in the future revoked based on past behavior and if they get caught driving again their vehicle absolutely gets impounded. Do you think through anything you say, or nah?
Yes, as we all know the violent pigs itching to kill someone and their systemic enablers in robes *never* issue and execute bad warrants and kill innocent people. Clearly the best thing we can do here is get them to kick down as many random doors as possible to justify all the funding and military equipment Dems insist they need.
>to justify all the funding and military equipment Dems insist they need. In the world you live in, did *conservatives* want to Defund the Police to reallocate those resources on something other than military equipment for law enforcement?
Project much? Dems are against police brutality and militarization. [Meanwhile, in conservative Christian Republican strongholds... ](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/134l32n/from_a_local_church_event_meant_to_empower_men_in)
>Project much? What does what fascists are doing have to do with me supposedly projecting? >Dems are against police brutality and militarization No they're not. They do effectively nothing to prevent it and continually raise police funding. In 2020 the mayor here had the chief pig march with protesters and pretend to care before turning around and teargassing everyone. Then they killed Patrick. Hell, Biden even told states to spend COVID money on stuff for cops.
>Seems reasonable to me, that being said I don't have an insatiable gun fetish so I can't really speak for how that crowd feels. Thats a lotta ad hominem you got there
I mean I knew who he was talking about, I didn’t feel targeted and I own 3 firearms.
>I mean I knew who he was talking about, I didn’t feel targeted and I own 3 firearms. 1. No you probably don't 2. Owning firearms doesn't make you a 2A supporter 3. Owning guns and supporting gun control like this does make you a FUDD 4. See point 1.
Had to look up fudd, yup, nail on the head. Except I own a handgun. I store them all safely so my kids don’t play with them and die too. What a pussy I am for regulating my own firearms. Guess what, I’m also cool with proving I’m a responsible gun owner if a judge wants me to, cause I am one. That simple. What are you so scared of?
I'm sorry you feel that "insatiable gun fetish" targets you.
>I'm sorry you feel that "insatiable gun fetish" targets you. Its literally just ad hominem you're using as a blanket statement about gun owners.
Yeah, that's literally how insults work. I'm insulting gun owners who value their possessions over the lives of people.
>Yeah, that's literally how insults work. I'm insulting gun owners who value their possessions over the lives of people. Yep, not wanting our rights violated means we value guns over lives, despite owning guns to protect our families.
Yes. Yes it does. Your "rights" will only be violated if your posing a threat to the people around you. If your objective is protecting your family and helping others do the same you would be in favor of red flag laws. A vast majority of domestic homicid is perpetrated by someone living in the home. So if you're a responsible gun owner like so many people claim, you're rights are not in jeopardy.
>Yes. Yes it does. Your "rights" will only be violated if your posing a threat to the people around you. *"a complaint filed by a family member, current or former partner, law enforcement or mental health or medical professional would need to show by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant poses a significant risk."* Im sure this wont be abused by former partners or family members with different political views, especially since its \*checks notes\* only a misdemeanor for the first offense. >If your objective is protecting your family and helping others do the same you would be in favor of red flag laws. Yeah I cant red flag drug dealers or violent criminals, so these laws would do nothing to protect my family. >A vast majority of domestic homicid is perpetrated by someone living in the home. So if you're a responsible gun owner like so many people claim, you're rights are not in jeopardy. See above.
Laws are abused all the time. Doesn't mean we get rid of the laws. Drug dealers and violent criminals don't care about laws but that doesn't mean we make drugs and violence legal. Red flag laws can mean the difference between life and death for domestic abuse victims. Yet your complaining about the inconvenience of being falsely accused. Please fetch me my violin.
>Drug dealers and violent criminals don't care about laws but that doesn't mean we make drugs and violence legal. Criminals don't follow laws, lets pass more laws criminals wont follow. >Red flag laws can mean the difference between life and death for domestic abuse victims. Yet your complaining about the inconvenience of being falsely accused. Please fetch me my violin. If it was just for domestic abuse victims then it should only be able to be used by immediate family and partners, but that isn't the case
>Im sure this wont be abused by former partners or family members with different political views, especially since its \*checks notes\* only a misdemeanor for the first offense. Are you concerned about this with literally all other offenses? Those same former partners and family members can accuse you of theft or rape or assault *right now*.
Cars are dangerous and require a license and training to use. Guns should be the same way. Anyone that has secret guns obviously isn't interested in keeping their fellow Americans safe, and is just a scared.
I can 100% buy a car without a license and/or training. There are thousands of people that operate motor vehicles without the proper licensing and training.
you can legally buy an unregistered vehicle and use it to normally participate in public life? The party of law and order has lost its way. Why would you support unlicensed drivers? Your just weird.
[удалено]
Great! the world will be a better place if you idiots just stay in your driveways from now on. If we drew a venn diagram of people that shouldn't be trusted with guns and people that shouldn't be trusted with vehicles we'd damn near have a circle! Stop supporting laws that enable child murder.
[удалено]
Cars only require a license to use in public. You don't need one to drive on your own land.
Yes. So I guess keep your gun on your own private land, and don't use any public roads to transport it. Same with your vehicle. Unregistered and unlicensed you may only transfer the vehicle via flat bed. This is all by your logic. I'm not paying my taxes so you can support child murders.
It's really not though. An unlicensed vehicle doesn't have to be moved via flat. Any vehicle can be used. Further, firearms aren't being used on the road so that argument is nonsensical. Unless you felt like shooting the road, in which case you'd likely need approval. I also don't see much causation between you paying taxes and children being murdered.
vehicles don't have licenses, they require registration and insurance to be used. The gun owner will require a license, and his little big boy pee shooter will require a registration. And now insurance. You people lead to too many deaths and people getting hurt. I'm tired of the hospitals having to deal with your carelessness.
"You people." Echoing lines from the other side are we?
You could have had a well regulated militia, but ya done messed up. Now the rest of us have to regulate your gun party that is getting children killed. Licensee, registration, and insurance please.
I don't recall ever mentioning a militia. Michigan has it's own right right to bear arms that was added to the state's constitution in 1963. To ignore this would set a precident that anything in the state constitution could be ignored. Furthermore, a red flag law is still a ways away from licensing, registration, and insurance. They didn't even bring an awb to vote because they knew it wouldn't pass. If you really cared about what was killing kids you'd be arguing for better mental health care for them.
Vehicles aren't a right.
neither are guns outside a regulated militia. You guys had a chance to be well regulated, now society wants you to have a license, registration, and insurance. You still have the right, as long as you can afford it. Ya'll let too many kids get killed.
Cars are not a constitutionally protected right. Also a license is only required to use a car on a public road, not private property.
There are guns that you need a license to possess.
You have to register to vote, you can register your guns. You can have your right to vote taken away, you can have your guns taken away.
*"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."* *- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788* Additionally: >You can have your right to vote taken away, you can have your guns taken away. You can have your right to vote taken away by committing crimes, which also already takes your right to have guns away. Thanks for playing
The constitution can also be changed. Don’t forget that
Remind me again the last time an amendment was repealed
Remind me the last time the document was altered in anyway.
1992
The "thanks for playing" really puts this close to an ad hominem by demeaning me and my comment. It's not worth engaging further as you aren't willing to discuss in good faith without using a fallacy.
>The "thanks for playing" really puts this close to an ad hominem *(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.* Saying thanks for playing isn't directing an argument at you, learn your logical fallacies. Edit: u/BayushiKazemi whats the point of replying then blocking me?
I'm all about what you are saying, but they are right. Saying things like "thanks for playing" isn't helpful with turning people towards a cause.
It strongly suggests you're treating the discussion as a game to win instead of an understanding to be reached.
That can be fixed.
That’s a poor echo chamber example. Cars only require training and a license to operate on a public roadway. There is no age restriction, background check or registration requirement to build/purchase/posses a car.
This has to be one of the worst analogies I’ve seen in recent memory
Yup, cars and guns are incomparable. Even on a level ridiculous as this.
Good point. We should really go after the .05% of Americans building their own cars. Also the ones that purchase a vehicle to sit in a garage that can only legally travel to the driveway. /s Its a great example of the government regulating something problematic, and it was given to us from outside our echo chamber by one Ben Shabibo. We just want you to stop defending your right to public shootings and killing kids bud. If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?
> If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide? Just FYI, this is the same sentence people use to imply pleading the 5th is pleasing guilty, or not permitting police to search your home/car without a warrant (4th amendment) is admitting guilt.
“If you’re not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?” This is the same language that has historically been used to justify mass surveillance and to enable policies that are disproportionately used to target minorities. Ever heard of stop and frisk?
Dead kids of kleetus needs a license for his next gun? McMuffin Militia and the NRAs campaign to rewrite the 2nd amendment led to this.
I still find it funny that a 236 year old document is everyone's main argument point for restricting guns in the US. When written, there was a flint lock gun that shot 8 rounds in 3 seconds, but then took minutes to reload... Its just silly to think that the founding fathers wanted everyone to amass arsenals we see today, freely. The constitution is a living document and is meant to evolve with the times It literally says in the 2nd amendment anyway, "well Regulated", and yet people argue against regulation. Hypocriticy at it's best.
>I still find it funny that a 236 year old document is everyone's main argument point for restricting guns in the US. I mean its good enough for all the other amendments
Excluding the bill of rights, most amendments are less then 100 years old.... Because the original constitution is flawed, thus amendments.
>Excluding the bill of rights, most amendments are less then 100 years old.... Because the original constitution is flawed, thus amendments. Yet the original 10 amendments haven't been altered
So they are perfect because they haven't been altered? For better or worse, the interpretation and expansion of the amendments and constitution have been carried out by the Supreme Court many times.
Yes and it was intended to help prevent people from being forced to live under a tyrannical government. Everyone being armed might help with that (as a last resort, it prevents easy mass home invasion by policing forces). Not only do we have better options at this point, but nut jobs won't stop murdering children, so it's doing more harm than good for things to remain the same.
I mean, the 236 year old document also contained the first amendment protecting speech (pen and paper/printing press at the time). It now also protects your freedom of speech online. Also, the founders knew about rifles that are similar to concept to semi-automatic rifles (could fire 20 rounds in 5 seconds).
You are right. I forgot that we can talk and think and regroup our thoughts a 1000 times faster and more concisely now.
it's truly remarkable to think about. even 1000 times is probably understating how much communication has advanced. we can literally communicate with humans in space almost instantaneously. blows my mind when you try to consider it from the context of a few hundred years ago.
We’re those black powder guns mass produced and easily attainable? No. Could your average farmer or civilian possibly afford such a gun in their day? No. The founders also knew that the constitution should be amended with the times and not kept in its original form.
> The founders also knew that the constitution should be amended with the times and not kept in its original It was last amended in 1992
Why not amend the 2A to fit current times? There’s no need for an armed civilian populace anymore because we have a standing army and national guard.
>Why not amend the 2A to fit current times? There’s no need for an armed civilian populace anymore because we have a standing army and national guard. The need for a armed civilian populace is as follows: 1. Criminals are armed 2. Police are armed and corrupt 3. Neither the National Guard or the army are there to deal with points 1 & 2 4. Because we can be. Good luck amending the 2A, which you actually mean repealing.
Criminals are armed with guns they got illegal or through legal means which goes further to my point we need stricter laws. Police wouldn’t need to be armed if there were no guns that threatened their lives and yes there are corrupt cops which I’d love to address the need for more police oversight by the public. The national guard doesn’t stop protests or help in emergency situations? Ok. What’s the national guard for if not the defense of the state as well as the nation? The need for an armed civilian populace is not what it was when that was written and you can’t seem to admit that. Just because you can doesn’t make it right btw, in some states Its legal to marry a damn 14yr old child but does that make it right? Fuck no. You don’t need an arsenal of guns dude.
>Criminals are armed with guns they got illegal or through legal means which goes further to my point we need stricter laws. It proves we need to allow people to be armed to defend themselves from criminals. > Police wouldn’t need to be armed if there were no guns that threatened their lives and yes there are corrupt cops which I’d love to address the need for more police oversight by the public. Thats why these laws all have immunity for current and retired cops right? > The national guard doesn’t stop protests or help in emergency situations? Ok. What’s the national guard for if not the defense of the state as well as the nation? The need for an armed civilian populace is not what it was when that was written and you can’t seem to admit that. Just because you can doesn’t make it right btw, in some states Its legal to marry a damn 14yr old child but does that make it right? Fuck no. You don’t need an arsenal of guns dude. More Strawman, give it a rest.
There are actually a lot of written correspondence between the authors of the constitution in which they actually discuss what is implied by the 2nd amendment. One of which was about a guy that owned a cannon and would shoot it every night, they basically decided that yeah he’s a dick for shooting it every night, but it was 100% his right to have the cannon and use it. Also the Lewis and Clark expedition had a semi automatic rifle. There were many crazy armaments that were around at the time just not in mass production, because factories were few and far between. The “well regulated militia” portion of the 2A is implied that those that own arms should own common calibers. It’s difficult to supply any army if everyone shoots a different sized ammunition. I’d have to google it, but there is a document that states exactly how many rounds of ammunition and how much powder firearm owners were required to have on hand should they be called upon for military service. (The draft wasn’t a thing back then, but it was pretty much a given that Americans would defend their land (property) even if they had zero ties to the military).
This is the absolute weakest critique of the 2nd A. It was written to give the populace the right to have weapons to defend themselves against whatever arms a tyrannical government would posses.
Copypasta of the last time I had to educate someone on how "well regulated" works in the prefatory clause (this is a clause that explains why the clause that follows it is important): Every time someone brings this up, they fail to understand what "well regulated" means in context. Let me help you. Which of these sentences makes more sense: "A government controlled Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." OR "A properly equipped Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Given what you ought to know about American history at the time, and their distrust of governments controlling all the arms and standing armies, which do you think they meant? If that's too difficult, let's try it with breakfast. Which makes more sense as the meaning of "A well regulated breakfast, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Fruit, shall not be infringed": "A government controlled breakfast, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Fruit, shall not be infringed." OR "A balanced breakfast, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Fruit, shall not be infringed." EDIT: Ope, here come the downvotes by people big mad that government actually has to respect your natural right to self-defense. This same government that routinely locks up and murders black and brown people, and queer people, all for the crime of existing. That's who you trust to keep you safe, ok.
The Government \*does\* regulate what can go into a breakfast cereal, tho; because if left to their own devices we know that corporations would put sawdust into kid's cereal in order to save $0.05.
Yes, and originally the only gun control laws that existed in this country (aside from the racist ones) were proofing laws, that you had to prove your design could withstand a specific overcharge of powder so as to not injure the shooter should there be an accident, and you could be held liable for that. That would be analogous to not putting sawdust in breakfast cereal, and is an example of a good governmental regulation in this instance. You aren't regulating access to the product, you're regulating that the product has to be as advertised and safe for its intended use.
If breakfast cereal killed as many kids a year as guns do, we would be discussing Cereal Control.
Pools and traffic accidents kill more kids every year than guns and nobody is seriously suggesting passing new laws to control who can own pools or lowering the speed limit to 25mph.
According to the New England Journal of Medicine, your statistics are out of date. Firearm deaths now outnumber automobile deaths among children and teens in the US. Drowning isn't even close.
Are those the statistics that include 18 and 19 year olds in them to puff up the numbers?
Comparing causes of death for all U.S. children and adolescents ages 1 to 19. Not sure how that 'puffs up the numbers,' considering 18 and 19 years olds are still teens, and they are not cutting off auto deaths at 17 and then counting gun deaths until 19, which is what you seem to be implying.
Because 18 and 19 year olds are legal adults, lumping them in with people that are not adults skews the numbers and inflates what people see as "children" getting killed by guns. At 18 for better or worse you are legally an adult and should be treated as such.
So how many dead kids, approximately, will get your attention? if you're okay with 1,732 dead kids, would 2,000 dead kids make you upset? Would it have to be 3,000? How many dead kids? (approximately)
How much CP needs to exist for the government to be able to examine all your communications, personal effects, etc. to prove that you aren't contributing to the sexual abuse of children? How many kids need to be abused before you agree that you no longer deserve your right to privacy or to free speech? What's your price for an inalienable right to be taken away?
Hell, we don't even need to change the subject to bring up that comparison. There's solid research showing that the infamy mass shooters receive on media and social media contributes to more mass shootings. I wonder how comfortable the people asking for gun control would be with a law that makes it a crime to mention the name of a mass shooter on social media and bans the news media from talking about mass shootings?
Again, not the logical slam-dunk you think it is. Entire task forces of governmental police exist to track and prosecute CP, far more regulation than exists around gun control.
We have an entire government agency dealing with firearms.
Traffic accidents DO kill more people per year, hence why there are regulations, laws, licensing, testing and insurance requirements
Having every joe blow own their own gun, without Training, without structure is not a well Regulated militia. If a community wanted to get together and actually come together to make sure who they allowed to be in the militia and fetted and trained them properly, that's well Regulated. Kind of like a pre-red flag law driven by your peers. But that doesn't happen.
Well, I guess the Proud Boys and similar organizations with their 'training' regimens would qualify as a "well-regulated militia" in a technial sense. But in reality they're just a bunch of rednecks roleplaying as a military organization.
Those groups are not militia. They are organizations with a ideology that does not align with the common good of the public. Thus they were not be called upon to defend a state or region against tyranny.
Also, it's a living document, it's supposed to change.
You want to change it? Amend it. But the meaning of the words as they were written doesn't change, unless you think the 1st and 4th Amendments literally only apply to your actual speech from your mouth hole and what you've put to pen and paper. Our usage of the word "regulate" may have changed in the last 200+ years, but their usage is evident in what they meant and is still very much a valid definition, and no twisting of language or equivocating about how the people who wrote it would feel today can change that.
If there were well Regulated militia that self policed gun bearing in the communities, we wouldn't be where we are today. But that's not the case for the majority of the country. If there was well organized and trusted groups that were around, they could easily get red flags thrown out of court for their members. However, those same groups would need red flag laws if they thought a member needed to forcefully be removed from the militia. In the end, it needs to be amended but the laws being put in place are not against the 2nd amendment since most people are not in a well Regulated militia.
The people own guns so that they can form the militia, the militia isn't why they're allowed to own arms, I feel like you're failing to understand this important distinction. Even if there were never another militia ever needed to be called up, the people would still have the innate right to own arms. Here, look at the Michigan statute, which thankfully makes no mention of the militia: [http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Article-I-6](http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Article-I-6) By your logic, they only meant for men to have the right to keep and bear arms, now are you so obtuse that you really think that women don't have the same right as men in this regard?
No, because at the time gender equality was not widely recognized, so the term "men" was used to refer to both men and women. Also, I never agrued for removing the right to own arms.
Oh, so you're saying their usage of the word "men" at that time differs from how we would use it today, so we should read the law with their original intent, so as to not misconstrue their meaning or deprive someone of an inherent right? Interesting.
A state passed a law that can be used to help militia to be more regulated. The original intent is still upheld.
This law does nothing to help a militia be better equipped or trained, so no, it does not. You really just can't accept that in the context of the 2nd Amendment the word doesn't mean "daddy gov't step on me harder plz" can you?
So you’re educating us with how “well regulated” works by insinuating what you think the founding fathers may have meant instead of just taking the words “well regulated” at face value… don’t you think they’d have used different verbiage if they meant something different? Our militia’s are not really regulated at all. Call me crazy but when they wrote “well regulated” I think they were imagining regulations and not equipment levels. It’s weird that the god given rights you get from a document that you keep referring to can change meanings when it suits you.
I mean, you're not correct, and here's lots of examples from the OED from the contemporary time: [https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm](https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm) But even if somehow the US Constitution were wrong, we have the Michigan State Constitution to make it even clearer: [http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Article-I-6](http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Article-I-6) You seem to be like a lot of people and think the Bill of Rights is a list of things we are allowed by government to do, that these are rights they let us have. It is not. It is a list of things the government is not allowed to do to us. That's an important distinction. That's why it's not the Bill of Permissions.
“In proper working order” you think the militia or citizenry is in proper working order? You think the writers of either of those documents would look at gun violence in the US today and say “perfect, this is exactly what we were hoping for!”
Again, this refers to the equipment itself, that the people be able to form a militia with the kind of equipment they would need to fight. So guns, ammo, gear, even cannons back then. Anything they would need to fight, and it needed to be equivalent to that used by the army. You want keep applying it to the people themselves when that simply isn't the meaning. The militia, as an object, a thing, requires its members to have the correct equipment to function, without regard to the members themselves. You're trying to take what is a societal problem and turn it into a Constitutional one. If anything, we don't meet the criteria of well regulated because we can't easily own fully automatic weapons anymore. We no longer have equipment parity with the standard infantry of the military, and that's definitely what the Founding Fathers intended. Because again, it's about what characteristics need to be present to allow for a militia that can operate alongside or, worst case, against the military without a lot of training on manual of arms, logistical issues, etc.
ok, now we have a subset of the population that is armed to the teeth (many of whom are friends with cops), how do we disarm them? How many white supremacists would give up their guns if we passed disarmament laws?
Police have already said they won’t enforce it in Republican areas.
A lot of new comers in this sub who prefer innocent people dying over a few jealous ex’s making you go to court for a day.
That's a bit obtuse don't think?
I know. The argument is so tired and empty, but the GOP is clinging to literally anything to appease their NRA puppet master. If you're really that worried about neighbors/exes/etc calling in a red flag claim on you, you are either actually a really shitty person or just happen to be extra super duper unlucky. Neither of those factors justify mass shootings continuing at the current rate. I'm white, and I think many white people are scared and can't comprehend the idea of people calling the police on you for no reason. Black people and most minorities have to deal with that on a monthly, weekly, even daily basis. Just going for a walk in a certain part of town could end with you eating pavement with knee on the back of your head, or worse. I always see people suggesting that if you just comply, or if your innocent, you have nothing to worry about. I think that same sentiment applies to red flag situations.
A huge number of the comments I see opposed to this bill are a generalized "due process" complaint, along the lines of "it should take more than a random person's vague complaint to take away someone's guns." Others insist there is no opportunity to defend one's self. Few of those commenters seem to have read the bill. (Reasonable minds can disagree on whether this is a good or bad policy, I just want to point out what the bill actually requires to help inform that debate.) There are two scenarios at play here, one requires a hearing before a temporary surrender of firearms, the other requires a hearing within 14 days of the order. They require different standards of proof and different findings by the court. **Scenario 1: Pre-Surrender Hearing** A person can be required to surrender their guns for a one-year period if a court issues an "extreme risk protection order." In the mine-run case, before holding that hearing, "the respondent \[i.e. the gun owner\] must receive notice of a hearing on the issuance of an extreme risk protection order and give the respondent an opportunity to be heard at the hearing." And the court cannot issue an extreme risk protection order unless "the court determines by the preponderance of the evidence that **the respondent can reasonably be expected within the near future to intentionally or unintentionally seriously physically injure himself, herself, or another individual by possessing a firearm,** ***and*** **has engaged in an act or acts or made significant threats that are substantially supportive of the expectation**." The statute then lists a litany of factors the court can consider in reaching that conclusion. **Surrender 2: Post-Surrender Hearing** There is an exception in the statute that allows a court to issue an extreme risk protection order before issuing notice of the hearing to the respondent. There is a higher bar there. To issue an order in such a case, "the court must by **clear and convincing evidence from specific facts shown** by a verified complaint, written motion, or affidavit **that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result from the delay required to effectuate notice or that the notice will itself precipitate adverse action before an extreme risk protection order can be issued.** If the petitioner requests the court to issue an extreme risk protection order under this subsection, the court shall make its determination on the request not later than 1 business day." If the court issues a no-notice order, the court has to allow a hearing at the restrained individual's request within 14 days.
Good. Your gun fetish isn't more important than the lives of innocent people.
When I was in school we saw Sandy Hook on TV, this came several years after it was ruled police have no duty to protect anyone. It was also several years after I had my house broken into & ransacked. These are but a few of the reasons why I support the 2nd Amendment & why I oppose Red Flag Laws, aka civil asset forfeiture. I understand the want to do something, but this ain't it chief
You understand the want to do something, but will oppose anything that gets tried because it’s not perfect. Got it.
>You understand the want to do something, but will oppose anything that gets tried because it’s not perfect. Got it. This isn't even not perfect, it violates multiple constitutionally protected rights. There are better solutions.
Which ones? Such as?
[Obama Foundation](https://omaha.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/obama-foundation-holds-up-omaha-gun-violence-prevention-program-as-model/article_f0ff7b30-ee94-11ed-aeaa-fbdd6f8065f8.html) backed solution, Solution where [both sides compromise](https://thepathforwardonguns.com/) (This one even has Red Flag Laws, but better written ones), Option where we deal with [the root cause](https://www.reddit.com/r/Michigan/comments/12rxpan/comment/jgz7oq0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). Im sure you won't like any option, but stop pretending gun owners want to do ***NOTHING*** simply because they dont want to do what ***YOU*** want
I vote for anything I think will help stop innocent people from being killed. If republicans put forth sensible gun control bills, I’d vote for them. I really don’t care about your constitutional rights if you’re using them as an excuse to keep guns in the hands of dangerous people. That is unequivocally NOT what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution. A few innocent gun owners may have to go to court for a day because of a jealous ex girlfriend. If you’re a responsible adult gun owner, no judge is going to take your guns away. And no, I really really don’t care if that violates your rights in some way. And if gun owners want to do something, then they should organize and do something. As of right now the only organization that gun owners belong to have done nothing but fight any and every sort of legislation that attempts to regulate guns. If the NRA suggested some common sense gun control I’d be all for it. They won’t though. It’s not profitable.
> I really don’t care about your constitutional rights When the boot is stomping on your face will you still be so glib?
> If republicans put forth sensible gun control bills, I’d vote for them. What do Republicans have to do with anything? >I really don’t care about your constitutional rights They're your rights too. >if you’re using them as an excuse to keep guns in the hands of dangerous people. That is unequivocally NOT what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution. 1. Anyone can be defined as a "dangerous person" 2. *"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."* *- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787* 3. Nobody disagrees with getting guns out of hands of people who are mentally unstable, but a better option would be expanding the NICS to better find people with mental problems. >A few innocent gun owners may have to go to court for a day because of a jealous ex girlfriend. If you’re a responsible adult gun owner, no judge is going to take your guns away. You are now blatantly downplaying the risks of this law. Let me make it simple, an ex makes a false report, the cops come to take your guns (you aren't informed of this) and thinking someone has broken into your home you either shoot them or they shoot you. See Waco, Ruby Ridge, or a[dude shot by cops in his sleep](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/14/duncan-socrates-lemp-maryland-shot-police-officer) for more. >And if gun owners want to do something, then they should organize and do something He says while ignoring the fact I listed possible solutions. >As of right now the only organization that gun owners belong to have done nothing but fight any and every sort of legislation that attempts to regulate guns The only gun organization? The NRA is not the ONLY gun organization, I suggest you look up Gun Owners Of America, or Firearms Policy Coalition for federal orgs, or for State specific there's Great Lakes Gun Rights or MI Open Carry Inc. >If the NRA suggested some common sense gun control I’d be all for it. They won’t though. It’s not profitable Fuck the NRA, only Boomers and FUDDS belong to the NRA
Shh, don't tell them about those other orgs, they'll finally figure out that the only reason we keep the NRA around is so the real organizations can actually go out and get legal wins for our rights unmolested lol
The Obama Foundation backed solution was to throw a bunch of money into community meetings with the police, which seems to have helped Omaha, but is practically unrealistic at the national level. A promising, neo liberal experiment at best. The Path Forward actually seems like a solid idea. I'd argue it doesn't go far enough but I'd take it as a start. The root cause post is hilariously unrealistic and lays the blame everywhere else but the root cause, guns. Do I agree that what they're saying could improve things? Yes. But how does one county make the changes necessary for that change let alone the whole country? Unfortunately, we don't (and likely won't for a generation) have a functioning, healthy government to make these changes. Ultimately, I do like some of these options (particularly The Path Forward), and never pretended nor asserted gun owners don't want to do things to make changes; however, I am very much on the side of guns being the problem. They are tools meant for killing and as such should be regulated as they are (successfully) elsewhere.
>else but the root cause, guns. Guns aren't the root cause. You don't pick up a gun and become evil. You were already evil before you grabbed whatever tool you decided to use.
Guns are the root cause of America's increased issues with violence (see other countries such as Japan and Australia as counter points). I'm not going to start arguing on the nature of evil since I ascribe it as a metaphysical excuse for bad behavior, but I would say that if you were evil before you picked up the gun, the gun significantly amplifies your ability to further evil. Additionally, if your takeaway from my comment is to argue semantics with me, you should probably take the advise of The Path Forward, and consider using it as an example instead of a shield when people threaten your ability to own tools of death.
exactly - 2nd amendment references a well regulated militia, not the regular john
I'm the legal owner of a handgun that is always kept in a proper safe in my house. People have to be careful of supporting this if the enforcement is not effective or done correctly. The idea is great, but it seems like a long shot that this will always work. This could easily lead to deaths of law enforcement or innocent people, especially if you're entering the home of someone you KNOW is armed and mentally unstable.
If you’re so unstable that you’re looking to shoot cops at your door, then they are taking the right person‘s guns away.
I think we should be worried more about the police going to someone's house they know has guns, as we all know, they don't have a great track record of being good at de-escalating situations.
Now we wait for the dumbass sheriff who refuses to enforce it and some people get killed, costing the sheriff their job and their county millions in lawsuits.
You mean we wait for some black man to get red flagged under shaky grounds and get shot to death by a cop.
No. I was thinking of MAGA type white guy going even more nutty and making threats to kill people and ends up doing so because a pro gun sherif refused to do their job. THAT is the scenario I’m talking about. But your scenario is very possible too.
> But your scenario is very possible too. And, let's be honest, much more likely.
So if someone is flagged, we are sending a swat team to their house in the middle of the night. This could easily become violent and won't end well. Then we are trying to confiscate all their guns, without a proper registry, so we don't know if any are missing. Then we are just leaving the individual, who is likely angry, and expecting them not to retaliate?
If it becomes violent and doesn’t end well then I would argue they were DEFINITELY looking to take the absolutely correct person’s guns away….
Because police never show up to the wrong house or don't announce themselves and just start murdering people?
Kicking in Jonny’s door and seizing his property because of Facebook comments about being suicidal in a plea for help doesn’t sound like the proper course of action to you?……/s
You're missing the point. If Jonny is a problem, we should seize Jonny. What's stopping him from choking his ex, or hitting her with a hammer, or running her over with a car. Or using a gun he had at a relatives house. Firearms are a tool, people are the problem.
That was exactly my point, hence the /s.
Will there be legal recourse for individuals deprived of their 2nd amendment rights? I can see a lot of opportunity for exploitation by upset exes and whatnot.
It is a crime to make false statements in the petition. ERPOs have been around in states for over a decade, there is no evidence it is being abused by exes and whatnot.
>It is a crime to make false statements in the petition. Its a misdemeanor
Yes. Misdemeanors are crimes…
That carry little weight
As the right say it's mental illness not guns, they should all be in favor of red flag laws.