I don't have much to say, aside from watch and listen while my friend destroys any and all points 2nd Amendment enemies may wish to make. Please do not bother to respond until and unless you have viewed this in its entirety.
On the face of it he seems to know what he's talking about (albeit from a position of significant bias) so I've no reason to doubt how he describes that rulings are (or should be) made on the basis of the 2nd Amendment text, established case law and legal principles. Looking from the outside though, I've always thought this whole focus of the US gun debate being all about the 2nd Amendment is flawed. The fundamental point of pretty much any law is to improve society and people's lives. They come about when people (and/or leaders) identify something that isn't working or could work better, identify what could or should happen to improve it and create laws to enable, encourage or enforce that. Significantly, if a existing law (or the manner in which it is being applied or implemented) isn't achieving it's intended outcome or is having unintended consequences, that law can be amended, repealed or built upon to try to bring about improvements. Constitutions are essentially just laws. Certainly important laws but they're still just laws and like any other law, they can and should be address if they stop achieving their intended aims or are leading to unintended consequences. After all, that's why the US Constitution has amendments in the first place. If there are currently problems around the ownership and use of firearms in the US, shouldn't those problems be independently considered with an open mind as to what the solutions are. And if those solutions would go against the 2nd Amendment as it is currently written or traditionally interpreted, shouldn't changes be made to allow for those solutions to be implemented? Now I totally accept the question of whether there are problems fundamental to guns and, if so, what those problems are remains open and widely debated but I think it is entirely wrong to preface any discussion or debate on that topic with a principle of "This is what the 2nd Amendment means and nothing should ever change that."
One of the outstanding points of the constitution is it's simplicity. It is free of all the fringe arguments that can always be made about anything, and speaks to the core issues needed to keep the nation on track. If you wanted to attack a logical point, destroy the comprehension of it's value- one of the most effective tactics is to complicate the hell out of it. Throw as much loosely connected arguments as possible on the table, and claim causal relationships. Lawyers and politicians do this all the time; never for the good of the people, but for special interests. The second amendment isn't about how people might use weapons- it's about preserving the power of the people to keep the nation free, to defend themselves. That need isn't a daily challenge- but when it does become a challenge, the ability to resist imposed tyranny or violence will quickly become the most important thing there is. The founders understood that, and knew it to be so important to the freedom of the nation that must be included and guaranteed on a fundamental level. The existence of the second amendment is a deterrent that is working everyday- and as such, continually protects the freedom of the people. When a drunk driver kills someone, we arrest the driver- not the car he was driving, because the car was only an instrument misused by the person driving it. The car made no decisions to do harm. Crime isn't committed by guns anymore than by cars; they are committed by people who use them improperly. People are behind every crime, regardless of any weapon they may employ- and we have laws to deal with that. Unfortunately, the enforcement of those laws has become so inconsistent that it fails to deter criminal activity, including the use of weapons. Like anything where order depends on structure and rules- is rules aren't enforced or are not strong enough- there are no rules. Thus, personal fears and tunnel-vision logic replace common sense and comprehension. If we are to understand this, we must keep it simple, not allow the fundamental elements to be over-run by the spurious ones. Reason and logic have foundations- and if you destroy the foundation your nation is built on, you destroy the nation itself.
First, thank you and congratulations for being one of few people who actually read links, watch videos, and etc. before posting their knee-jerk reaction to the headline. Second, I think the answer to your question is that there are not really problems with guns in the USA, because if you omit gang- and/or drug-trade related homicides with guns, the number of killings, especially stranger on stranger ones, which is really what we all worry about, because if your wife (or husband) is going to off you, chances are you see it coming, and if you do nothing about it, well... Anyway, taking those out of the mix and the homicide rate plummets, and even with them it has been, prior to the pandemic and all associated problems with that, plummeting on it's own for 3 decades. Since so many people, especially those in densely populated areas with leftist leadership are now on the 'no cash bail, no prosecutions for minor (which is defined as anything short of murder) crimes', defund the police mantras, I don't know if the decline is going to continue, or if the pandemic spike is going to get worse and continue doing so. Time will tell. But, I also believe in two very fundamental ideas: First, we have a birthright (some would say god given, but I am not a fan of the god most people mean when using that phrase) of self-defense, and in order to do so, we must have access to the necessary tools required, which are, in many but by no means all circumstances, a sidearm. Second, I would rather live in dangerous freedom than safe slavery. What I mean by this is that even if allowing run-of-the-mill civilians to own and carry firearms does make life a bit more dangerous (and it is a bit, even in 2021, which represents two years of increases, and including gang and drug related murders, which most people are not even in danger of, 99.995% of people did not die from firearm homicides), I'd rather live in that world than in one where government has so much power they can restrict my innate birthright of self-defense. Plus, I enjoy shooting as a hobby. Two other notes. First, if you are not a black man in between 15 and 35, your chances of being murdered by gunshot are cut in half. I blame that on the 'war on drugs', which, like alcohol prohibition before it, is a cure worse than the disease. Second, given that none of us are getting out of here alive, it's natural that we're going to die from something. Firearm murder is much, much, much less common than heart disease, cancer, other lung diseases, car accidents, other types of accidents, strokes, diabetes, poisoning, alcohol, and even a simple fall. My own father died either from a heart attack which caused a fall, or a fall which caused a heart attack. They have no way to tell which came first, but when he landed (crazy old man was on the roof doing who knows what in August in Florida!) he snapped his brainstem so that was lights out, over either way. Plenty of other examples, homicide by firearm is 19th on the list. And so-called 'mass shootings', which the press defines however it suits their agenda, is 33rd on the list, behind such things as drowning, choking on food, and even bicycle accidents. And murders by so-called 'assault weapons' aren't even on the list.
With respect, that wasn't my question. My question was whether the focus of the debate should be around the complex set of different issues, questions and circumstances in which gun ownership and use are relevant or should it be about the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, regardless of the consequences of that. All of the points you raise in this post are relevant (and I don't pretend to know enough about many of them to make any definitive comments). The problem is that your OP didn't refer to them in any way at all, and arguably implicitly dismissed them with the implication that the 2nd Amendment, as written and historically applied, is the be-all and end-all. As I said, I'd suggest the US needs to address all of the points you raise here and work out whatever practical measures would be best to address them. If those measures could work within the scope of the 2nd Amendment, that'd be fine. But, if those measures would contradict the 2nd Amendment (or indeed any other part of the Constitution), would you just say "Sorry, we can't fix this, we'll just have to suffer" or would you want to go down the legitimate routes to (re)amend the Constitution or how it is interpreted in the context of the modern world?
