What do you think we should do with them?Should they be banned completely, stay as a nfa item or no longer be a nfa item.

Instead we have over a thousand kids dying from guns each year. Being pro gun = pro kids being murdered.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/06/gun-deaths-among-us-kids-rose-50-percent-in-two-years/#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20before%20the%20coronavirus,figure%20had%20increased%20to%202%2C590.

I have seen more than once that Americans claim they don't think or worry about it. Is this true?

Many people, including gun nuts and pro-gun control advocates, said so. Do you agree and think this is true?

Just curious. Im pro gun. Own a lot of guns. And im just curious as to how many people who are anti-gun actually own guns and why.

I always see Americans arguing that making guns harder to get will just leave the innocent people defenceless because the criminals are not buying them legally so it won’t affect them. If this was the case then why is gun control successful in so many other countries, maybe because they also worry about keeping the guns out of criminals hands too.

It also seems like a lot of the shootings in the US are just confrontations gone wrong because someone has a gun, not to mention the insane amount of mass shootings that no other country even comes close to. Why is the solution to the problem just giving out more guns? Like giving guns to teachers instead of outlawing weapons that are used in mass shootings and making guns harder to get if you don’t have a real reason for it like hunting.

I live in Canada and although there still is gun violence most of it is criminals shooting each other and not people walking into public places to kill as many people as they can. I think Canada is a good example of gun control working to a certain extent. It seems to me like the US needs to let go of it’s gun culture and try to make the country safe enough that teachers do not need handguns and students don’t need bulletproof back packs.

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