I would like perspectives from both sides (pro and anti).

So a really close family member is married to a guy who's whole career is just guns and rifles. I used to believe owning shit like AR-15s and Uzis were ok, but now I don't. I haven't told this family member and it would be really awkward to mention it.

I often see this argument and I often find it hard to respond to. If you don't know, usually when you say that there should be stricter gun laws, usually gun rights activist will respond with something along the lines of "well why should we restrict responsible run owners when criminals will do bad things with guns no matter what" so how do you respond to it?

I'd like to preface and say that nothing I'm asking or saying is supposed to be malicious , I respect your rights to do and think what you want I'm just curious about some things. I feel information is power and I like to know what both sides of the coin think to hopefully find a middle ground

1. How much knowledge do you have on firearms in general and have you ever handled one

2. What has caused your anti gun stance

3. What are your views on hunting / what knowledge do you hold on legal hunting cartridges

4. What would be a middle ground between the 2 sides

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2024/04/11/biden-doj-cracks-down-black-market-guns/73278772007/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-arm-teachers-tennessee-senate-covenant-school-shooting/

This has had me upset since yesterday. I do not live in Tennessee, but I know I would not allow my children to be in a school with armed teachers. To me, it is just another deadly disaster waiting to happen.

The prevailing idea that the second amendment codifies an individual right of American citizens to own firearms is simply incorrect, and an unfortunate interpretation by the Supreme Court. The second amendment is primarily -- if not entirely -- about the right of the people to serve militia duty. The Bill of Rights was technically never meant to be an official enumeration of the rights of Americans, but rather was meant to place further restrictions upon the power of the federal government, in order to oppose the potential for abuse of the Constitution and to appease the concerns of antifederalist politicians. Hence, the Bill of Rights and all the amendments within it must be viewed with that purpose in mind.

The second amendment was written primarily as a means of resolving a concern about the militia clauses of the Constitution, namely Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16:

[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Some politicians were concerned that this declaration transferred exclusive power to Congress, and left the state governments with no power to organize, arm, or govern their own militias. Some believed that there were not enough stipulations in the Constitution that prevented Congress from neglecting its stipulated responsibilities to the militia or from imposing an oppressive amount of discipline upon the militia, which might serve the purpose of effectively destroying the militia as a pretext to establish a standing army in its place. As it happens, many statesmen saw a standing army as a danger to liberty, and wished to avoid the need for raising an army through the use of the militia.

This sentiment is perhaps most articulately expressed by George Mason in the following excerpt from a debate in the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 14, 1788:

No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,--yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,--what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies! An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use. I am not acquainted with the military profession. I beg to be excused for any errors I may commit with respect to it. But I stand on the general principles of freedom, whereon I dare to meet any one. I wish that, in case the general government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them. With this single exception, I would agree to this part, as I am conscious the government ought to have the power.

As a resolution to these concerns about the distribution of power over the militia between federal and state government, the second amendment was written. There were multiple different drafts by various statesmen and government bodies leading up to its final form as we possess it today. Many versions of the amendment were significantly longer, and often included clauses that affirmed the dangers of maintaining a standing army, and stipulated that citizens with conscientious scruples against participating in military combat would not be compelled to serve militia duty.

One proposed draft by Roger Sherman, dated July 21, 1789, uses much different wording from that commonly used by its peers:

The Militia shall be under the government of the laws of the respective States, when not in the actual Service of the united States, but Such rules as may be prescribed by Congress for their uniform organisation & discipline shall be observed in officering and training them. but military Service Shall not be required of persons religiously Scrupulous of bearing arms.

In this proposal, we can see the important distinction being made between Congress's power over the regulation (i.e. "uniform organisation & discipline") of the militia, and the power of the respective state governments to regulate their own militias where congressional authority no longer applied.

Sherman's proposal can be compared to an earlier proposal by James Madison, using more familiar verbiage, written on June 8, 1789:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

You may notice the similar sequence between Sherman's proposal and Madison's: they both begin with a clause that effectively protects the autonomy of the state militias, then a clause that affirms the importance of the federal goverment's regulation of the militia, then end with a clause protecting conscientious objectors. Both proposals effectively say the same things, but using different verbiage.

After multiple revisions, the amendment ultimately was reduced to two clauses, making two distinct assertions: first, it presented an affirmation by the federal government that a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security and freedom of the individual states, and affirmed the duty of Congress to uphold such regulation.

This interpretation of the amendment's "militia clause" can be corroborated by the following comment by Elbridge Gerry during an August 17, 1789 debate in the House of Representatives regarding the composition of the second amendment:

Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

Gerry believed that the addition of the phrase "trained to arms" in the militia clause would have the effect of exerting a corresponding duty upon the government. Gerry's comment speaks to the idea that the militia clause served as more than a mere preamble to the "arms clause", but that it was an independent assertion in its own right. The clause itself did not stipulate the power of Congress to regulate the militia, as that was already achieved in the militia clauses of the Constitution; rather it was a reaffirmation by Congress regarding that regulation, in accordance with one of the explicit objectives of the Bill of Rights to build confidence in the Constitution, as stated in the Bill of Rights' original preamble:

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Second, the amendment prohibited Congress from infringing upon the American people's right to keep arms and bear arms. As for this second part, the right to keep arms and bear arms was not granted by the second amendment itself, but rather the granting of such rights was within the jurisdiction of state constitutional law. States would traditionally contain an arms provision in their constitutions which stipulated the details of the people's right to keep and bear arms within the state. Every state arms provision stipulated the keeping and bearing of arms for the purpose of militia duty (i.e. the common defense), and many additionally stipulated the purpose of self defense.

As for the terminology involved, to "keep arms" essentially meant "to have arms in one's custody", not necessarily to own them; and to "bear arms" meant "to engage in armed combat, or to serve as a soldier", depending on the context. Hence, the second amendment as a whole addressed the concerns of the antifederalists in regards to the militia, by categorically prohibiting Congress from infringing in any way upon the people's ability to serve militia duty or to equip themselves with the tools necessary to serve militia duty. The amendment's prohibition is general, and does not specifically address private gun use by citizens, as whether and to what extent a citizen had a right to private gun use (such as for self-defense) was subject to vary state to state. The amendment simply prohibits any congressional infringement whatsoever upon the right to keep arms and bear arms.

Given the historical discussions surrounding the second amendment, its drafting history, and the wording of its opening clause, it is only reasonable to interpret that the primary function of the amendment is to protect the institution of militia duty, not to protect civilian gun use. As further evidence, hereis a link to a historical debate in the House of Representatives in which politicians argued over the composition of the second amendment. Notably, you will notice that the entire House debate centers around militia duty, and not a word whatsoever is spoken in regards to private gun use. (And the limited information we have about the Senate debates on the second amendment likewise say nothing about private gun use.)

In addition, here is a useful resource from the National Constitution Center, which gives an easy-to-understand visual representation of the various precursors, proposals, and drafts which led up to the eventual creation of each of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. The drafting history of the second amendment is quite helpful in undertanding its historical context and underlying purpose.

I’m not sure if many Americans appreciate just how you’re seen by other developed countries on gun control. I know you might have an instinct to be defensive here, but remember these are US allies who support the US on a range of other issues. In other words- we’re friends- take it as constructive criticism if you can. A little article I read this morning for a flavour - how would you respond?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-07/gun-control-election-america/103659958

Just a small notice for the sake of transparency - we have a new rule clearly banning polls and surveys. This has basically been a rule for a while, but was never on the official list of rules.

• If you're posting a poll or a survey to do some homework, please don't.
• If you're a professional researcher, contact the mod team first. Just please be aware that we will likely say no, due to the large amount of trolls that like to mess with this subreddit.

That's all. Thanks for reading.

Following the gruesome mass shooting in Russia, I was thinking if this might be a sensible way to have people protect and defend themselves.

Hotspot areas that mass shooters are attracted to should be safely stored yet readily available guns around the area that trained people can quickly access and use to defend themselves.

Using the concert scenario, imagine along the walls of the concert hall there are safe boxes that hold loaded guns. These boxes are installed in the walls and are completely shut and inaccessible. In an event of a mass shooting, a trigger from a security guard triggers and opens all of these boxes so people can quickly grab the guns and defend themselves from the shooter.

A simple alarm trigger doesn’t also open the gun boxes (else, a mass shooter doesn’t have to go in with a gun, they can just go in and trigger an alarm). What opens these boxes is some trigger that’s only available to the buildings security dept. They’d be trained to only open it as a last resort and only if a confirmed active shooting is happening.

Mass shooters typically go in well loaded so it really doesn’t matter if they are close to one of these boxes and get an extra gun to continue their shooting, I believe they’d have enough to do their thing regardless of getting an extra pistol.

What this would mean is that, rather than people just hiding behind a shelf in a grocery store for in stance, they can get access to a gun and actually protect themselves. This can also serve as a deterrent to mass shooters cause now they know everyone is potentially armed.

This is some shower thought thing and I’m sure there may be multiple faults here and ways things could go bad, I’d appreciate comments or inputs. I just find it really sad that all people can do in terrible moments like a mass shooting is hide and hope the shooter doesn’t come their way.

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the actual meaning of the text of the second amendment. When attempting to interpret the amendment, many arguments have been made by utilizing dictionary definitions of certain words or phrases, or arguing over technicalities of grammar.
But I think it is important to understand what matters most when interpreting any text: a text ultimately means nothing more than what its authors intended for it to mean. It doesn't really matter what pro-gun people or DC v Heller or even gun-control people think the second amendment means; what matters is the purpose for which the authors created the amendment, and how it was meant to be employed. And the best way to determine that is to look at their available writings that are most pertinent to the topic. Here is the transcript of a debate held in the House of Representatives on the 17th and 20th of August 1789. The debate concerned an early draft of what would become the second amendment, worded as follows:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

The entire debate is very informative to understanding the intent behind the second amendment. It is very notable that the entire discussion centers around militia duty, and not a single word is spoken about hunting, self-defense, sport shooting, or any other civilian gun use. One particular part of the discussion is illuminating in understanding the militia clause of the second amendment:

Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

This quote indicates that the militia clause of the second amendment is more than just a mere preface or intro to the following clause, but that the clause itself reinforces a certain duty upon the newly-formed national government. The militia clause in the second amendment apparently reinforces Congress's duty to regulate the state militias, as already established in the US Constitution, and with the added purpose of perserving the security and liberty of the individual states. This statement does not necessarily establish any new legal principle or stipulate any specific injunction, but serves as a kind of reminder or statement of duty to the newly formed national government in order to secure the confidence of the states who ratified the Constitution. This kind of statement is unique in the Bill of Rights, but not within the draft history of the second amendment. There exist other similar statements of purpose and duty of the government, such as this phrase that, in a Senate debate on September 4, 1789, was proposed to be added to the second amendment:

. . . that standing armies, in time of peace, being dangerous to Liberty, should be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil Power.

The above phrase, like the militia clause, does not declare any specific command or stipulate any specific law. But the entire original purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit the power of the national government for the reassurance of the individual states, and such statements of duty -- although anomalous in the Bill of Rights -- are fully consistent with that purpose.

Now one might ask: why does this reinforcement of the duty of Congress to regulate the militia need to be made in the first place? Particularly when the power to regulate the militia had already been clearly conferred upon Congress in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution? Well, I think one important clue is in another founding debate, found here. This is the transcript for a debate in the Virginia ratifying convention on June 14, 1788. It is rather lengthy, but probably the most relevant part is the first paragraph which is spoken by George Mason:

[Mr. Mason.] No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,--yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,--what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies! An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use. I am not acquainted with the military profession. I beg to be excused for any errors I may commit with respect to it. But I stand on the general principles of freedom, whereon I dare to meet any one. I wish that, in case the general government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them. With this single exception, I would agree to this part, as I am conscious the government ought to have the power.

I think the part in bold is the most important point here. It is my interpretation that the "express declaration" that Mason is referring to is the second amendment. The US Constitution declared that Congress would possess the power to organize, arm, discipline, and govern the militia, but it was left uncertain to what extent the respective states still retained the power to do the same with their own militias. Mason also had the fear that the national government may neglect its stated powers of regulating the militia as per the Constitution, and ultimately abuse or utterly neglect the militia, to the detriment of the states. The second amendment as a whole seems to rectify this ambiguity and uncertainty, declaring that Congress shall not infringe upon the people's right to arm themselves for militia duty (i.e. "keep arms") and to perform militia duty (i.e. "bear arms"); and the militia clause in particular asserts the purpose of Congress to adequately regulate the militia, rather than allow it to fall into disuse or neglect to the detriment of the individual states.

The arms clause of the second amendment is primarily about the keeping of arms and bearing of arms. The 1789 House debate that I linked to contains a statement by Thomas Scott which actually employs both of these terms, and strongly suggests their militia-related meaning:

Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.

The way that Thomas Scott uses "keeping arms" suggests it means more than mere civilian firearm use, since the term is being used in a militia context: the diminution of rigor regarding the militia would purportedly violate the article of the Constitution which secures the right of keeping arms, and such a violation of this right would then necessitate the establishment of a standing army. "Keeping arms" in this context could only be referring to a function of the militia, as purely civilian gun possession would not make any sense in this context.

And furthermore, "bearing arms" can only have a militia-related meaning as it appears in the context above, as it would make no sense for anyone to adopt a pretext of religiosity in order to be excused from the mere freedom of carrying a gun for civilian purposes.

Hence, regardless of arguments to the contrary that are frequently made by the pro-gun community, according to the very men who helped create the second amendment, the amendment is clearly about militia duty, and not about civilian gun use. What are your thoughts about this?

Shouldn't there be a whole bunch of state and federal laws that don't ban guns or do anything to infringe upon 2A but that make it super easy for family members of gun violence victims to sue gun manufacturers, ammunition manufacturers, gun suppliers, and gun sellers for billions?

I follow and keep up to date with many gun rights organizations such as FPC, NRA, GOA, CRPA, SAF. What are some anti-gun organizations and gun control advocacy groups that I should be aware of (particularly in California)? Particularly ones that are effective at passing laws?

Gun Control advocates face a messaging challenge: how to argue for repealing or amending the second amendment without appearing to accept the absurd idea that the United States was founded on the belief that owning and carrying guns everywhere was necessary for democracy.

As gun control advocates, we know (or should know) that the 2008 Heller decision perpetrated what Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Waren Burger rightly identified as an enormous fraud perpetrated on the American people.

So how can gun control advocates call for America to rethink its bizarre laws about guns without accepting the pro-gun assumption that personal gun ownership was included in the constitution as a core element of American democracy?

My suggestion is that gun control advocates should prefer and consistently use the expression "Heller Amendment" instead of referring to the "Second Amendment," to refer to the nonsense legal rulings that have been enforced in the US the 2008 Heller decision.

Gun control advocates should avoid using language that favors the positions of gun advocates. While I know that not everyone will love this idea, I would encourage those who advocate for amending, repealing, or simply ignoring the Heller Amendment to consider using this term to avoid seeming to agree that the Heller Amendment is a legitimate or authentic part of the American constitution.

I talk to a pro-gunner and here's what they said:

Having one state with strict controls while neighboring states have looser controls is not and has never been the problem. If that were the case, you would see the neighboring state with looser controls have more mass shooting events, but in actuality it's the opposite, strictness or laxity has zero effect on whether someone will commit a mass shooting in a given state, that's how we get them in every state regardless of whether it's CA, NV, TX, NY, or wherever. Moreover, not only does the scenario that someone buys a gun from a neighboring state with looser controls for the express purpose of using it in their stricter controlled state virtually not happen, it's actually also quite illegal at a federal level already - FFLs are required to check the residency status of their customers; I as a Californian can't go to Nevada or Arizona and buy one there.

The idea that mass shootings happen in strict control states because of their more lax neighbors is nothing but an oft-parroted talking point by anti-guns with zero evidence behind it. It sounds like it makes sense, but ultimately is just a truthy nothing-burger, like the sky being blue because it reflects the sea.

Focus on gun violence and not violence violence is the wrong focus anyways. If you actually wanted to solve the problem of some asshole deciding to make a statement by publicly murdering lots of people, requiring that media outlets never reveal any identifying information about the shooter or their motives is a far more effective means of doing so.