War Gun control is a lost cause. Come despair with me.

Gun control is a lost cause. Come despair with me.​

Ross K. Baker
Fri, April 23, 2021, 12:00 AM·4 min read
Let’s start with the fact that there are enough guns in this country so that every man, woman and child could have one. Add to that a couple of Supreme Court decisions that enshrine gun ownership alongside freedom of speech and freedom of assembly as constitutionally hallowed rights. On top of that is the fact that even such modest efforts at the state level to limiting access to guns to people deemed dangerous to themselves have proved ineffective. No better example of this is the fact that the Indiana "red flag" lawdesigned to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people only temporarily delayed the killer of eight people in Indianapolis from getting his hands on the weapon used to take their lives. Gun control advocacy stands high in the ranks of lost causes and futile campaigns alongside legitimating polygamy and scrapping the national anthem for something more singable.
The brief flicker of hope that somehow the financial problems of the National Rifle Association, and the profligate spending of members’ dues by one its top executives, might stifle the effectiveness of the opposition to even the most modest efforts to control firearms or reduce their lethality became an iridescent dream — and seemed to prove that the organization itself was never much of a factor in blocking gun-control legislation.
What kills such efforts in Congress, even in the wake of the unspeakable slaughter of the innocents at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, is the recognition in the minds of politicians that there are voters in their states and districts who are Second Amendment absolutists, whether they be the kind of people who shoot at targets for practice or those who might shoot at people because of malice or derangement.

States' gun laws​

So strong is the constituency for firearms ownership in Congress that a law is on the books immunizing gun manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits arising out of the use of their products for mass shootings and mayhem on smaller scale. It is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that became effective in 2005.
The response of the gun industry has been, from a business standpoint, quite rational: Sellers give the consumers what they demand. The only limit is that they cannot manufacture or sell fully automatic machine guns.
https://sneed.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/BgnxlJmvm0jnJKW90hfdzw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTY0MDtoPTQyNi42NjY2NjY2NjY2NjY3/https://sneed.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/6gNwEXZ4mBOx0_6b0PqyHg--~B/aD0zMjY0O3c9NDg5NjthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/https://media.zenfs.com/en/usa_today_opinion_532/8a962b694c9e914983378c7bc39f2e41
Guns on Feb. 5, 2013, in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
As we have seen in the case of Indiana’s modest efforts to keep firearms out of the hands of potentially dangerous people, enforcement is easily circumvented, and even the strictest state laws are at the mercy of the lax or nonexistent limits on gun ownership in adjacent states.
My own state of New Jersey with some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the nation is located adjacent to Pennsylvania, a state with few limits on who can get access to a gun. Worse, perhaps, is the fact that Interstate 95 runs up the spine of the state and has been referred to as “the iron highway” for the brisk traffic in guns being brought into New Jersey from states to the south.
Mother to mother: A woman who lost her child to gun violence makes a plea to Kamala Harris
The once plausible argument that gun ownership was somehow connected to membership in state militias was cast aside by a Supreme Court dominated by “originalists” who developed historical amnesia about the Founding Fathers' dread of standing armies and preference for “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” and declared that the only operative phrase in the Second Amendment was “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

No way to stop it​

This interpretation of the amendment might, to some extent, be influencing the longest shot of all: the enlargement of the Supreme Court to redress the imbalance in the number of justices that endows conservatives with a solid voting majority. Congress can indeed enlarge the court, but that would take a statute that would require a supermajority of 60 votes, which is not currently available. It is doubtful, moreover, that even all 50 Democratic and independent senators would approve the enlargement.
Gun laws: As mass shootings mount, enacting stricter gun laws is the morally right thing to do
And this is where things stand: Daily, weekly, monthly massacres of sizable numbers of victims enabled by a patchwork of ineffective, indifferently enforced state laws, and the awesomely destructive firepower of many of the weapons used in these assaults.
Unbalanced, vengeful or politically motivated assailants armed, in many cases, with charismatic weapons patterned on those used by the military will continue to inflict death and grievous injury on innocent people. There is, effectively, no way to stop it.
Ross K. Baker is a distinguished professor of political science at Rutgers University and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @Rosbake1
You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

Article Archive
 
Pro gun now should include the right to form militias, to have said militias replace law enforcement (such as border security) and also such self governed be left alone by law enforcement.

This really needs to be pushed after what happened last year and due to how hostile the goverment has become
 
The once plausible argument that gun ownership was somehow connected to membership in state militias was cast aside by a Supreme Court dominated by “originalists” who developed historical amnesia about the Founding Fathers' dread of standing armies and preference for “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”
Literally the point of that was that the "Militia" is all able-bodied men. Which is why gun ownership is for everyone.
 
What if three people love each other equally and they want to all be in a sexual and/or romantic relationship together. Is that wrong? No because said people consented. So you could say any relationship is a-ok, if said relationship is consensual (and no pedos, kids brains aren't developed enough to actually consent to a sexual relationship or romantic relationship yet, and zoos, non-verbal animals can't tell you if they consent to a sexual relationship, because their brains aren't developed like ours.)

Saying that Islam (specifically traditional Suni and Shia martial jurisprudence) lets men have polyamorous relationships with women can be wrong is understandable, considering that some Islamic relationships (in Southwest Asia of course) are arranged or forced (but in this message you seem to paint Muslims in a negative light.) (Shit, I'm probably going to get a lot of hate for this post.)
I was mostly shitposting there, but I don't disagree with what you're saying really. People can fuck however many people they want and it's no skin off my back if it's consensual all around. I just believe it should not be legally recognized as legal marriage for non-religious reasons.

Also I'm actually from a country with a sizable Muslim population, I actually don't hate them as a demographic. There are nice Muslims and asshole ones just like other people. I just accept that their culture is quite different from mine and we sort of stay out of each other's way for the most part. Seems to work out for us just fine overall.
 
They're not despairing enough. Citizenship in the US should come with a free gun of your choice. High schools should have a mandatory gun safety class segment as a part of health and physical education (say it's a part of the draft registration you have to do in high school). Destroy the ATF.

Keep pushing back.
 
Literally the point of that was that the "Militia" is all able-bodied men. Which is why gun ownership is for everyone.
It would be great if a group of young, able-bodied men in the woods larping as soldiers wasn't seen as a threat to national security but instead an essential part of such, but alas, such is the world we live in.
 
They're not despairing enough. Citizenship in the US should come with a free gun of your choice. High schools should have a mandatory gun safety class segment as a part of health and physical education (say it's a part of the draft registration you have to do in high school). Destroy the ATF.

Keep pushing back.
Gun rights are human rights. You can tell because when guns happened in the 16th century, suddenly humans had rights! Then when the guns vanish, those rights mysteriously creep away.
I would vote for gun safety classes and shooting ranges in a heartbeat.
 
Pro gun now should include the right to form militias, to have said militias replace law enforcement (such as border security) and also such self governed be left alone by law enforcement.

This really needs to be pushed after what happened last year and due to how hostile the goverment has become
So what you're advocating for here is a white CHAZ?
Works for me.
 
I can't see any serious gun control happening in the US anytime soon. Not unless a REALLY terrible catastrophe happens that opportunistic politicians can spin toward their agenda.

But while the state won't be able to take away guns for good, they sure try their darndest to limit what kind of guns you may own. They're the kind of pointless knee-jerk laws made to please a crowd these politicians have themselves created, written by people who don't understand guns. Though while we're on the subject, thanks to vague legislation the banning of certain knives has essentially lead to the banning of all knives by technicality, and something similar could possibly happen with firearms. Can't own a gravity knife in New York! What exactly is a gravity knife? Anything the cops want it to be.
 
What if three people love each other equally and they want to all be in a sexual and/or romantic relationship together. Is that wrong? No because said people consented. So you could say any relationship is a-ok, if said relationship is consensual (and no pedos, kids brains aren't developed enough to actually consent to a sexual relationship or romantic relationship yet, and zoos, non-verbal animals can't tell you if they consent to a sexual relationship, because their brains aren't developed like ours.)

Saying that Islam (specifically traditional Suni and Shia martial jurisprudence) lets men have polyamorous relationships with women can be wrong is understandable, considering that some Islamic relationships (in Southwest Asia of course) are arranged or forced (but in this message you seem to paint Muslims in a negative light.) (Shit, I'm probably going to get a lot of hate for this post.)
Polygamy is illegal, not polyamory. Mostly for legal reasons like tax benefits and shit.
Who are the assholes who want to defund the police again?
The same assholes who want to let in illegals by the literal caravan-load, not do anything about them, punish businesses for operating in the U.S., then have the gall to want a fifteen-dollar minimum wage.
 
Polygamy is illegal, not polyamory. Mostly for legal reasons like tax benefits and shit.

The same assholes who want to let in illegals by the literal caravan-load, not do anything about them, punish businesses for operating in the U.S., then have the gall to want a fifteen-dollar minimum wage.
But can you still get money benefits if you are in a polyamory relationship?
 
But can you still get money benefits if you are in a polyamory relationship?
It most likely depends on the situation, as far as I know you don't have to tell the government about shit like that. You just can't legally be married to two people.
 
1619224853111.png



But what about all those totally legit polls that said the majority of Americans support gun control?
 
What is it with american liberals and thinking guns are the only type of weapon?

Do they think Tyrone couldn't use a machete, an axe, a switchblade or even just a broken glass bottle to murderise someone?

Swords worked for us for a thousand years, they can even cleave a man in two.
 
Back