You're viewing a single thread.
Who would have thunk that the Americans claiming - school shooting after school shooting - that they cannot ban guns because they need them in case the government turns evil on the people are the same Americans that cheer at a Nazi saluting oligarchic quasi-president and a moronic manchild puppet president while democracy is demolished and rights, especially of women, queer people and immigrants, are taken away.
Greetings from Germany, we've been there before and we're starting to take the same path again currently as politicians of the far and the not so far right are taking the shitshow we're witnessing in the US as an example and instruction manual to push their own agenda here. Not trying to say it's America's fault, it's just that we've all not been conscious enough about the developments, and America honestly stumbled more blindly into fascism than I ever thought was possible. We all need to fucking get our asses up and do something. At least in Germany it's not too late yet. In case any fellow German here reads this: GO VOTE ON SUNDAY.
And don’t ONLY vote, make your voices heard in other ways as well!
Yes! Protest, join a democratic party, talk about politics to your friends and colleagues, be vocal on social media, etc.
The reason we can't ban guns has to do with the 2nd Amendment, it guarantees gun ownership.
There is a process to change the Constitution, but at this point it's an impossibility given the political makeup of the country.
You start by getting 290 votes in the House, which is currently split 218 Republicans, 215 Democrats, 2 vacancies.
The majority is decided by 218 votes. So to start the Amendment process, you'd need all 215 Democrats (unlikely) and 75 Republicans (who are universally opposed.)
Assuming you get that, it then goes to the Senate which is split 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and 2 Independent. Since everything in the Senate starts with a filibuster, you need 60 votes to break that, and the Democrats are 13 votes shy of that.
If they managed to get those 13 votes to get past the filibuster, they still need +7 more to pass the Amendment.
If, by some miracle, all three of those votes happened, then it goes to the states for ratification and you need 38/50 states to approve.
In 2024, Trump won 31 states, Harris only 19. So you'd need all 19 Harris states (unlikely) plus 19 Trump states (even more unlikely).
Flip these numbers around and you'll see why we similarly can't get amendments on conservative issues.
The reason we can’t ban guns has to do with the 2nd Amendment, it guarantees gun ownership.
That’s questionable, and has been hotly debated for a long time.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It’s an entirely reasonable interpretation that this protects militias and not individual gun ownership.
reasonable interpretation
Except the folks with the guns determine the interpretation.
Well yeah, that’s kind of the problem right now isn’t it? It actually doesn’t matter what the Constitution says, because the current Supreme Court is a partisan organ that exists to rubber stamp everything Trump whatever Trump does.
Nope. Supreme Court.
D.C. vs. Heller, 2008:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
"as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."
Re-iterated 2 years later because D.C. is a special entity and not a state:
McDonald vs. City of Chicago:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/
"In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings."
Now, both of these are about handguns, so what about OTHER weapons?
Caetano vs. Massachusetts, 2016:
This one is particularly fun because it initially didn't involve guns at all. Woman was scared of her ex and bought a stun gun for protection. State argued that stun guns didn't exist back then, so the 2nd amendment didn't apply.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/411/
"The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as "bearable arms," even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare."
So, if it's a carryable weapon, it's covered under the 2nd amendment.
That is the current interpretation. Before Heller (2008) many scholars and federal courts supported the collective interpretation.
My point being that you are falsely treating this as a settled conversation/that the text is unambiguous. It’s famously unclear, and there have been pages and pages of arguments written about this.
The Supreme Court is the arbiter, and while the court CAN overturn itself, as it did with Roe, it takes 50 years and a concerted effort by the Presidents and Senate to change the composition of the Court.
Since Heller, the Court has only become MORE conservative, not less, so the opinions on gun rights and the 2nd amendment aren't going to change any time soon.
We saw it again with Bruen in 2022 where the Court gave the test by which all gun laws should be judged:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
"Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U.S. 36, 50, n. 10 (1961).[3]"
Which does not bode well for California this year when the Supreme Court takes up the ban on AR-15s and magazines with more than 10 rounds.
Snope vs. Brown will be the next one to watch:
And that's why it's not "gun ownership is guaranteed by constitution" but "gun ownership is guaranteed by the recent decision of 9 unelected people, but actually less than that, some of then were against it".
All it takes is a majority ruling to set the precedent, and they have done so four separate times now.
June is going to probably be another heartbreaker for folks expecting the court to suddenly swerve left.
Precedents also stopped being relevant. Forget stare decisis, they don't even pretend to care about some kind of rule of law altogether, they gave a president an unlimited indulgence for fucks sake, all that legal bullshit is just a game for nerds now
Stopped being relevant because the court swung ultra right wing.
Since Roe vs. Wade in 1973, there have been 16 judges appointed to the court. 11 appointed by Republicans, only 5 by Democrats.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx
To reverse that action, it will take another 51 years and more Democratic than Republican appointees.
Look at the current court.
3/9 members appointed by Trump. It's highly likely he will make Thomas and Alito a deal to retire just like he did with Kennedy. Once they are out that will give us a 5/9 Trump court for the rest of our lifetimes.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/donald-trump-justice-anthony-kennedy-retirement
Except the part where there was NO militia when the amendment was conceived, written and passed. Everyone, (well every male), was "the militia". Formal or not. And if you actually look closely at the military organization of the US, you would see that it's still the same today. There are layers to the US army. And it goes down to you as you walk around on the street.
Except the part where there was NO militia when the amendment was conceived, written and passed.
The beginning of the United States military lies in local governments which created militias that enrolled nearly all free white men. The militia was not employed as a fighting force in major operations outside the local jurisdiction. Instead, the colony asked for (and paid) volunteers serving in ranger and other provincial troops (see above), many of whom were also militia members. The local Indian threat ended by 1725 in most places, after which the militia system was little used except for local ceremonial roles. The militia system was revived at the end of the colonial era, as the American Revolution approached; weapons were accumulated and intensive training began. The militia played a major fighting role in the Revolution, especially in expelling the British from Boston in 1776 and capturing the British invasion force at Saratoga in 1777. However most of the fighting was handled by the Continental Army, comprising regular soldiers.
Everyone, (well every male)
Not black men. Not “mulattos”. Not slaves. Which the funny thing is that gun regulations have been historically motivated by black folks getting guns - see how laws changed in response to the Panthers.
There’s a difference between a compulsory service in an organized regiment, where you presumably receive training on how to use said weapons, and “the founders wanted everyone to have the right to have anti aircraft rounds in their home.”
Germany is so far up Israels ass in supporting a genocide and demonising, cancelling and straight up arresting leftist/artists/intellectuals/Muslims/Arabs you're in no position to talk frankly.
What the hell are you talking about? Who is that "you" that is in no position to talk? You don't know anything about my view of Germany's position towards Israel.
I also feel like you have no clue about German politics. It's the far right AfD that acts as the big defender of the Jews currently and you can read above what I think about them. At the same time, we have a historic responsibility towards the Jews that is not as simple as you probably think it is. And there are lots of high ranked politicians, including our foreign minister, who speak very critically of Israel's policies and actions.
That being said, none of this has anything to do with my initial statement. Or are you one of those people who voted for Trump because the evil Democrats supported Israel? In that case I think it is you who should be silent now.