NotUrsula
DIS Legend
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 20,030
I would agree that it's not just the guns, but does that really matter in the search for the most effective and expeditious solution?
Let's go back to MADD and the campaign to raise the drinking age. (And yes, I know the right to consume alcohol isn't spelled out in the Constitution, but bear with me ...)
There were all kinds of arguments about why it was unfair to raise the drinking age past 18, but the key argument, and that one that carried the day, was that doing it would save lives, and it demonstrably has. The same would absolutely be true for additional gun restrictions.
In addition to being old enough to have been able to legally drink at age 18, I'm also old enough to remember when the 2nd Amendment suddenly became a marketing tool for the firearms industry. This whole argument that the 2nd Amendment forbids any regulation of arms whatsoever is relatively new (it was developed in the late 1970s), and can be laid at the feet of the National Rifle Assn, and specifically, NRA lobbyists Harlan Carter and Marion Hammer (Hammer just retired, at age 85.) Prior to that there were plenty of rules on the books in US jurisdictions prohibiting civilian ownership of certain kinds of weapons, and not just firearms. This Time article from last year nicely outlines the history going back to the early 19th century: https://time.com/6284928/gun-control-u-s-history/
Now that the NRA is losing influence, the door is opening for more rational discussions about weapons restrictions. The best strategy IMO is to keep the premise simple: which interest is the most compelling: the certain saving of many lives, or the broadest possible interpretation of a Constitutional amendment? (And yeah, y'all will see what I did there. A certain gap in logic yawns as large as a canyon.)
I'm all for public investment in mental health initiatives, but that's a slow road even under the best circumstances. Tightly restricting access to, ownership of, and storage of certain types of firearms would result in an immediate reduction of the firearms fatality rate in the US, and would definitely reduce the number of school shooting incidents.
I've long said that I'd be totally fine with unrestricted access to any and all firearms that use only technology developed prior to 1793. Since most of them couldn't hit the side of a barn without dumb luck, there is little risk from those. But modern military-grade weapons? Nope. We need rules to govern weapons technology that the Founders could not have imagined in their wildest dreams.
Let's go back to MADD and the campaign to raise the drinking age. (And yes, I know the right to consume alcohol isn't spelled out in the Constitution, but bear with me ...)
There were all kinds of arguments about why it was unfair to raise the drinking age past 18, but the key argument, and that one that carried the day, was that doing it would save lives, and it demonstrably has. The same would absolutely be true for additional gun restrictions.
In addition to being old enough to have been able to legally drink at age 18, I'm also old enough to remember when the 2nd Amendment suddenly became a marketing tool for the firearms industry. This whole argument that the 2nd Amendment forbids any regulation of arms whatsoever is relatively new (it was developed in the late 1970s), and can be laid at the feet of the National Rifle Assn, and specifically, NRA lobbyists Harlan Carter and Marion Hammer (Hammer just retired, at age 85.) Prior to that there were plenty of rules on the books in US jurisdictions prohibiting civilian ownership of certain kinds of weapons, and not just firearms. This Time article from last year nicely outlines the history going back to the early 19th century: https://time.com/6284928/gun-control-u-s-history/
Now that the NRA is losing influence, the door is opening for more rational discussions about weapons restrictions. The best strategy IMO is to keep the premise simple: which interest is the most compelling: the certain saving of many lives, or the broadest possible interpretation of a Constitutional amendment? (And yeah, y'all will see what I did there. A certain gap in logic yawns as large as a canyon.)
I'm all for public investment in mental health initiatives, but that's a slow road even under the best circumstances. Tightly restricting access to, ownership of, and storage of certain types of firearms would result in an immediate reduction of the firearms fatality rate in the US, and would definitely reduce the number of school shooting incidents.
I've long said that I'd be totally fine with unrestricted access to any and all firearms that use only technology developed prior to 1793. Since most of them couldn't hit the side of a barn without dumb luck, there is little risk from those. But modern military-grade weapons? Nope. We need rules to govern weapons technology that the Founders could not have imagined in their wildest dreams.
And this from someone who owns an air rifle.
