• Square Singer@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    The issue here is that it is perceived as a right and not a privilege.

    Because of that, anything restricting that “right” at all is perceived as an infringement on the personality of the gun user.

    With cars most people are on board with the concept that being caught while DUI leads to a ban on driving.

    The same is not true for people handling guns while drunk or in an irresponsible way.

    It’s also totally understood by people that there are areas where you don’t drive (e.g. inside a shopping mall). Again, the same is not true with guns.

    And that’s the issue here.

    The “right” needs to be made into a privilege that is allowed under certain circumstances (e.g. if you need it for work or live in a very remote area). This does not contradict with banning guns in cities, schools, towns or other areas where guns serve no positive purpose.

    Your use case is valid, but also many gun owners aren’t in your situation.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not “perceived” as a right, it literally IS a right, enumerated in the Constitution and confirmed excessively by precedents set in the highest court. There will be no change to that right without an Amendment ratified by 75% of the 50 US states.

      • centof@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        You are right that the right to keep and bear arms is a legal right outlined by our constitution. However, just because the constitution says it is a right doesn’t make it so. Legal rights are based upon social conventions. If a society agrees that carrying guns in schools is unacceptable, then the constitution(some document wrote 200 years ago) won’t change that.

        Another example is the 4th amendment. We, as a society, have apparently decided that the government logging,recording, and surveilling our texts and calls is acceptable. Even though the practice is clearly against the intention of the 4th amendment.

        TLDR: Legal rights are only rights when a society(or government) agrees to continually enforce them.

        • whofearsthenight@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not even correct (it being a right):

          A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

          The right of the people is a dependent clause on the whole “well regulated militia” part.

          The idea that everyone can just have whatever guns they want is a farce, but don’t listen to me take it from the Burg Man:

          This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

          source

          Further reading - How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

          • centof@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Interesting that 2008 was the first time the supreme court ruled that individuals have a right to a gun for self protection. The article argues that historically the right to keep bear arms was only applicable to those who were called to military service. That seems plausible to me though I can see how it could be interpreted either way as far as whether it only applies in the context of a militia.

            I also find it fascinating that one of the most prominent examples of gun control was targeting what could arguably be called a citizens militia. California passed the Mulford act, that banned loaded weapons in public without a permit. The bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther’s (aka Black Panther Party for Self-Defense) who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods according to wikipedia.

            • whofearsthenight@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Tbh I think that the intention was pretty clear, especially given the time in which it was written. Fledgling colonies building their own government weren’t worried about their government turning to tyranny, they were worried about what they perceived as the tyrannical government in their time, the Brits. Basically, stay ready soldiers, those tea-drinking queen-loving bastards might come for us any time now.

              As for the Panthers, this is also wholly unsurprising. Pretty obviously racist, and obviously a selective interpretation of 2a. Like pretty much any modern interpretation of 2a (see also, the 2008 ruling you cite.) Like, why can’t I own a rocket launcher or some grenades or maybe a low-yield nuclear warhead? Can I not arm myself against a tyrannical government? Many of those would be as foreign an idea to the framers as would be many of the totally legal guns you can buy today.

        • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well actually the Supreme Court had the final say on that already. It doesn’t matter what society says, when the gun owners say “no, I’m keeping the guns” and the Supreme Court backs them up then society is shit out of luck on that. All of our military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, so you’re not going to get those guys to take those rights from Americans.

          I just wish we had as solid protections on those 4th Amendment rights too. Those are too easy to violate without repercussion. “Persons, papers, and effects” should definitely apply to digital communications in the 21st century.

          • centof@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Definitely agree, especially that our 4th amendment rights should be stronger. On paper should be little difference between the 2nd and 4th amendments when applied. But because the 2nd amendment has vastly more organized support than the 4th amendment, it is defended while the fourth is forgotten.

            It doesn’t matter what society says, when the gun owners say “no, I’m keeping the guns” and the Supreme Court backs them up then society is shit out of luck on that.

            It clearly does, since non state-sanctioned people aren’t carrying guns in schools and in governmental buildings for the most part. However, there is a difference between what the state says and what society says is acceptable. Usually society just decides to blindly follow what the state decides as if it is infallible. But as you touched on with your gun example people can decide to ignore the state’s rules if they decide its in their interests.

            All of our military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, so you’re not going to get those guys to take those rights from Americans.

            Umm, I think that’s a little far reaching. Remember when the Japanese were put in concentration(internment) camps? Or when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus? People tend to follow authority and if those in authority ignore the constitution so will everyone else. A relevant example is Nazi Germany.

            • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well the Joint Chiefs of the military stood up against President Trump 2 times to support the Rights of Americans during the 2020 bullshit, so you are wrong about the military.

              The military defied the president to stand in support of Americans’ 1st Amendment rights twice by stating support for BLM protests, and stating support for voting rights in confirming that Biden won the 2020 election.

              We have seen this in action already to have historical precedent on the military supporting the Constitutional rights of Americans against domestic enemies (Trump).

              • centof@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sure, the military might sometimes defend the constitution over following orders from a president but it is certainly not guaranteed. In my previous comment, I already listed 2 examples of the military breaching the constitution. They did so at the direction of the the President. So even though they do swear to uphold the constitution, in some cases they will break that oath to follow orders from the president. But that is in general, in the specific case of gun rights I don’t see the military taking those rights away anytime soon.

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just because the constitution says something doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Or even 3/5ths of a good idea.

        • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes it does. Everything in the Constitution is good and it made America great from the start.