The second amendment is nominally there to allow people to form state militias in case the United States get invaded. With that in mind (and ignoring the many ways in which this kind of militia is completely irrelevant for defense purposes these days) we can come up with a reasonable compromise.

Anyone is allowed to own any gun they want. Access to ammunition is strictly regulated; only the state and shooting ranges are allowed to own ammo at all and the latter are under very strict supervision. Unlawful possession of ammunition is a felony.

In case the US Army is overrun each state will conscript all gun owners and issue them ammunition from the stockpile so they can go out and engage any enemy forces susceptible to infantry attack.

I'm sure all fans of the second amendment are going to love this plan. /s

Not entirely true. There was that guy in Colorado who drew his weapon, and took out an active shooter. Then the police rolled in, mistook him for the threat, and promptly killed him. Yay, armed society! /s

They do actually rewrite it slightly each time they repost it, even though the title is the same

It would be darkly funny if they had an “____ Days Since We Had to Repost This” counter for it.

He was committed to a mental health facility for two weeks in the summer of 2023. He's talked about hearing voices. He's threatened to shoot up a National Guard station. He and his associates are well-known local right-wing militia gun nuts that "people knew to stay away from." None of that was sufficient to restrict his access to firearms.

I don't even really care about guns. I don't like them and wish there were far fewer of them, but if reducing the number and availability of guns is off the table, there's still plenty of room to work -- and if this political conversation had even one shred of honesty, we'd be working even with that constraint.

Even in gun policy, there's so much reform we could make to reduce danger that doesn't impact someone's ability to own a gun. For example, universal registration, repeal the Dickey amendment and fund research, impose strict liability to gun owners for crimes committed with their guns.

And most people seem to support red flag laws and universal background checks, but for some reason we can't expand those either?

Not to mention that it is a simple matter of fact that the US can and does ban all kinds of arms. And, aside from a tiny lunatic fringe, no one really thinks it is an issue. You can't just have and bring with you a fighter jet, a tank. You can't open carry explosive ordinance. You can't go to a gun show and buy chemical WMDs or bio-weapons. You can't drive around with a full machine gun mounted to the flatbed of your 3-ton pickup. We have rules that are uncontentious, and the idea that maybe some types of modern guns should be in the same category is fiddling with a line in the sand.

And guns are only a small part of the picture. We need poverty intervention and social welfare. We need consent-based policing and the better training that comes with it. We need to fix our urban design so people have better third places and are less isolated from one another. Yet if you try to do anything like this, the same people that fetishize guns will absolutely refuse to even think about it and will indeed try to roll back what does exist to make the problems worse.

At the end, it's a very two-sided debate. One side wants to test and try changes to make things maybe even just a bit better. The other refuses to do anything and would like for it to even be a bit worse.

"if only Americans were smarter" we can just leave it at that. This fucking country is full of idiots who will never do any good in this world because they're too stupid to even know where to start

Last night, Lewiston ME.

Yeah, yesterday unfortunately.

Comparing it to cars just makes it even more obvious. You need a license to drive one. If your eyesight is too bad, they won't let you drivr. Your doctor can advise against you driving and your license gets revoked.

Honestly in this last one I think the proper authorities really dropped the ball. As soon as this guy went into a mental facility he should have been flagged for having guns and steps should have been taken to restrict his access to them. You're using a very broad brush to paint all gun owners one way when it's absolutely not the case. Some people take self defense extremely seriously. Look out at human history. Look out at the natural world. Killing is a serious constant in life. If you want to see what people are capable of when one group of people have guns and another doesn't, look at Israel v Gaza. Look at slavery. Small groups of people can control large groups of people solely for having guns. So coming back to self defense, the gun is the greatest equalizer, unfortunately. I believe in having smart, efficient, and effective gun laws, but at the end of the day I only put 100% faith in myself for protecting myself.

I think everyone I've talked to who carries a gun hopes to never have to use it in a life or death situation. I love guns and hate people who use them to kill.