• Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m afraid at this point there’s no legislation that will survive the Supreme Court. The next realistic move is to mirror the federalist society. Get enough judges appointed with the idea that the second does not protect personal gun ownership and reach a critical state.

    If I could waive a magic wand without breaking the character of the US, we’d ban external magazines, have universal background checks, and stop federal funds from going to states that don’t send information to the National Instant Check System. There’s so much low hanging fruit. But even when SCOTUS wasn’t busy boofing beers the Brady Campaign gave us shit laws designed to harass people, not reduce violence.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Frustrating the reload slows down active shooters. Solidifying the NICS means criminals can’t just go to the next state over. And Universal background checks takes away the secondhand market from criminals as well.

        A program to groom judges on this just like the conservatives did with Roe V Wade will do the most in the long term because we’ll be able to have laws based on the actual amendment, not just a few words of it.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes…because no active shooters have ever made plans…and no active shooters have ever not been flagged correctly when they were prohibited already…and no one buys drugs on the black market cause that’s illegal…and no one makes straw purchases which are already illegal.

          RvW needs to be signed into a law, not used as a bargaining chip for votes for Democrats. They need to use their political capital to make it a federal law.

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

            This isn’t a good faith argument. The logical extent is that we can’t stop every criminal so we should have no laws at all.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              We already have laws for these things you listed… literally murder is illegal…so is buying or owning a firearm and being a prohibited person…you gonna make it double illegal? I’m not the one arguing in bad faith. You are

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Right, first you argue we can’t catch them all so we shouldn’t have laws, and now your arguing that we just have to sit back and let them kill people.

                Go home.