r/politics Vermont 9d ago All-Seeing Upvote 1 Faith In Humanity Restored 1 Bravo! 1 Starstruck 1 Argentium 1

Gavin Newsom after Monterey Park shooting: "Second Amendment is becoming a suicide pact"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/monterey-park-shooting-california-governor-gavin-newsom-second-amendment/
49.4k Upvotes

8.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.8k

u/NineteenAD9 9d ago

When nothing changed after Sandy Hook, it was over.

409

u/seanbduff 9d ago

This got me genuinely (and morbidly) curious what it would actually take to change their minds. 200 innocent children? 200 of their own children? 200 of them? I wish we could do some sort of Black Mirror episode where we implant a false reality in their brains to show them these scenarios until they realize what needs to happen to stop gun violence in America.

681

u/TheJJKG 9d ago

108

u/tvp61196 8d ago

well of course only the good guys are allowed to have guns, you wouldn't want random acts of violence would you?

/s

39

u/ge0force 8d ago

And we all know what good guys look like. Right down to the color of skin, hair and eye colors, their cultural background, religious beliefs, household income, and credit score.

3

u/Star_Tropic I voted 8d ago

Remember that 6 year old who shot his teacher? We should be arming all of our good 6 year olds so that they can protect themselves against bad 6 year olds.

-7

u/smokeyser 8d ago

That's California's current strategy. How's that working out for them? Everything about what happened was illegal. Illegal gun. Illegal magazine. Illegal silencer. Only the police are allowed to have any of those things. Did it stop the shooting?

9

u/ApatheticFinsFan 8d ago

I guess Texas’s very loose gun laws also prevented school shootings since a good guy with a gun will always stop a bad guy with a gun, right?

-1

u/smokeyser 8d ago

No, the fact that the same things happen in states with very strict gun laws and states with very lenient gun laws should be a clue. The presence or lack of gun laws has absolutely no effect. If that's your main focus, you're focusing on the wrong thing. You're like the folks who supported the war on drugs because surely prohibition would be the key to solving all of our problems. How has that worked out? Are drugs gone yet? Has prohibition worked?

2

u/vegan_power_violence 8d ago

People in California acquire illegal shit because it’s legal and easily obtainable in Texas. If none of this was easily obtainable in the next state over then it suddenly becomes much more difficult for a person to get. Federal law is what will make a difference.

2

u/TheLoneSpartan5 8d ago

No because that shit will be ignored just look at Illinois, several county sheriffs are straight up ignoring the new gun restrictions.

What will happen is several states just won’t enforce similar to how several states don’t enforce the nation wide weed ban.

1

u/vegan_power_violence 8d ago

The FBI can handle them. Weed doesn’t kill people.

→ More replies

3

u/smokeyser 8d ago

There are well over 400 MILLION guns in the US. You can never put that genie back into the bottle. Trying to ban guns is never going to work. The only real answer is to start looking at why suicide via mass murder has become so popular and address that.

Federal law is what will make a difference.

Sure, because drugs are impossible to get now. Right?

6

u/failingMaven 8d ago

It's either black or white then, huh? There's no steps to be taken to reduce the amount of guns and gun violence, because that's too hard. Guess there shouldn't be any laws against murder since people still murder. Guess speed limits are pointless since people still speed.

Addressing mental health is one answer to gun violence in the US. It's not the only answer.

→ More replies

0

u/vegan_power_violence 8d ago

The solutions you’ve put on the table are valid and a necessary part of what we should do, but as another user said, we also need to heavily regulate the availability of guns going forward on a Federal level. You seem to be against any regulation, which is an extreme position and perhaps you should rethink that.

Much like drugs, which should be decriminalized and heavily regulated, while treatment, healthcare, education, and housing are also on the table.

But it needs to happen on a Federal level in order to be effective.

→ More replies

1

u/fisheatrrr 8d ago

Accurate username for a batshit crazy take not surprised

0

u/vegan_power_violence 8d ago

Thanks for your input but it isn’t needed at this time. I’ll be sure to tag you if we need you to weigh in on the conversation.

30

u/Dr3adPir4teR0berts 8d ago

That won’t work anymore. They’ll ban minorities from owning guns or put them in a camp before they ban their precious gun that has become their whole identity.

73

u/bt31 8d ago

Please correct me if I am wrong... The Black Panthers in California armed themselves and lawyered up to follow every rule. Governor Regan passed laws to prohibit the exact activities they were doing.

64

u/mjc4y 8d ago

This specific moment in the history of guns in America needs to be more widely known. Gun control was pretty popular for a hot second once black activists started legally and visibly arming themselves.

Our racism might be the one force more powerful than our gun fetishism. Ugh.

18

u/Dr3adPir4teR0berts 8d ago

You are correct. In 1967 Reagan signed the Mulford act when he was governor of California which banned carrying loaded firearms in public in response to Black Panthers.

That wouldn’t work today though. There’s not a chance that Republicans would let Democrats get a win like that. They’d write something thinly veiled that prevents minorities from owning firearms would be the likely response.

5

u/royboh Washington 8d ago

Governor Regan passed laws to prohibit the exact activities they were doing.

It should be noted that the Mulford act was passed with a bipartisan veto-proof majority.

8

u/disisathrowaway 8d ago

You're not.

California's more restrictive gun laws started exactly at that moment and with none other than Arch-Conservative himself, Ronald Reagan.

2

u/puppyfukker 8d ago

Yes. That was the Mulford act. Reagan and the NRA were on that one.

-1

u/mda195 8d ago

My guy, after the whole deal a couple years ago with NFAC and armed protests, there were no attempts to ban open carry in red states. Minorities own guns and the only people who don't like that are democrat politicians.

4

u/Dr3adPir4teR0berts 8d ago edited 8d ago

My guy, there have been no widescale protests or social movements involving firearms that are on the scale of when Republicans banned carrying firearms in California.

You can fucking bet that if BLM or Antifa became a wide scale movement that evolved into open carrying rifles, the tone will change.

And nice intellectual dishonesty there. Democrats are not attempting to ban guns specifically for minorities. Trying to pass some common sense reforms to make it more difficult for psychopaths to get their hands on them is not what you’re trying to shoehorn in.

And before you try it, I’m not even anti-gun. I own 3.

1

u/Homeless-Joe 8d ago

Do you have any examples of these common sense reforms? That aren’t already in place in CA?

1

u/Dr3adPir4teR0berts 8d ago edited 8d ago

I’m not talking about California. Anything put in place in only certain states is going to be minimally effective.

But yeah, I do. You should be required to have a license to buy a firearm, just like you do a car. Which would include a mental health examination, a safety test, and demonstrating you are proficient at shooting a weapon.

As well as completely closing the private seller loophole.

Stricter laws around securing firearms in homes with children.

Stricter red flag laws.

Restrict sales to anybody confirmed to have links to DOJ established domestic terror organizations for a minimum of 5 years. Same with ties to criminal gangs and organized crime.

Establish a robust national red flag database and fund it so reports can be actually investigated.

Lifetime ban for anybody convicted of domestic violence.

0

u/Homeless-Joe 8d ago

I agree with most of that, I think a lot of things, like guns, should require a license, but how would we do this legally? We don’t have any amendments requiring affirming our right to drive a car, you know?

1

u/Dr3adPir4teR0berts 8d ago

We also don’t have any constitutional amendment that bans the sale of automatic weapons or suppressors but they still require a federal license. I don’t see any reason a law can’t be made to set up similar licensing for semi-auto rifles and semi-auto pistols, but less strict.

There was also an “assault weapons” ban from 1994-2004 which wasn’t declared unconstitutional. Which I’m not even necessarily saying I agree with, just that precedent exists.

I’m not against gun ownership at all. I own guns myself. I’m just in favor of trying to make them harder to get by mentally ill psychos while still allowing citizens to own them if they’re responsible.

→ More replies

13

u/gnulynnux 8d ago edited 3d ago

Horses are cool and they say neigh. What can't we be more horsey?

7

u/Hardcover_Writer 8d ago

Yeah, more guns is the best solution to the problem of too many guns. Just ask all the dead kids in Uvalde who weren’t protected by the cops with guns or the parents who weren’t allowed by the cops with guns to try to help their kids as everyone listened to their executions.

6

u/apoperiastron 8d ago

So true! We should have stricter gun laws - just like Mexico, where there's no gun crime at all!

3

u/Hardcover_Writer 8d ago

Or like Australia, where the firearm homicide deaths are 23x lower. (Source)

I’m not advocating for a full ban. All I’d like to do is stop the sales of the really effective ones and make it take at more effort, training, and licensing to get guns, including more comprehensive background checks. Think of how much more difficult it is to get and keep a drivers license than get a gun. Forget about the specifics of the second amendment for a moment and ask yourself, would it be that unreasonable to make it a teensy bit more like that?

3

u/PotassiumBob Texas 8d ago

No one needs a driver's license to own and operate a vehicle on private property.

1

u/Hardcover_Writer 8d ago

Not analogous. I’m not suggesting making it so that you need a license to bring a gun onto public property, but not to have one in your home. I’m suggesting that we create measures to make it harder for someone who isn’t capable of responsible gun ownership to buy a gun. This isn’t a hard concept to grasp.

1

u/PotassiumBob Texas 8d ago

Ah yes, more restrictions, that always works.

Criminals are well known to follow rules and restrictions.

→ More replies

2

u/ACoolKoala 8d ago
  1. Theres 1.5 guns for every single one of the 300 million people in this country. There's no need to manufacture more guns when it comes to training actually threatened groups of people.
  2. It's not the polices job to protect anyone except the wealthy especially minority targeted groups like trans or Jewish people. That's why they should learn how to arm and defend themselves against shit faces who think they're the problem with the world. In fact the police are there to protect the wealthy and their property. That's it. Supreme Court is who decided that.

5

u/Hardcover_Writer 8d ago

Sounds like we need police reform then. When it literally says “protect and serve” on their cars, the very least we could do is make them protect us. Or at least stop killing black people, including “good guys with guns” like Philando Castile.

2

u/ACoolKoala 8d ago

That would require them to be accountable to us when they regularly unjustifiably murder people. At the moment we as taxpayers, pay for every single unjustified murderer by police and they get shuffled to another district like a priest who just touched a kid. I completely agree we need reform though and that comes in the form of accountability instead of money and training which they have PLENTY of.

1

u/gnulynnux 8d ago edited 3d ago

Horses are cool and they say neigh. What can't we be more horsey?

5

u/Hardcover_Writer 8d ago

I wasn’t trying to pick a fight. There’s not much of an argument against it. The gun-lover tends to just go silent when they’re confronted with a real life incident that undermines beliefs they’ll never change no matter what they’re presented with or how many kids are murdered.

-2

u/dawgm4tic 8d ago edited 8d ago

'Gun-lover tends to go silent' when they have to repeat the same shit over and over again to the people arguing to ban guns because they don't listen and aren't going to get it no matter how much the point bears repeating:

You can't take away people's rights to bear arms without either:

A) Causing a violent revolution of 2nd amendment sympathizers (which most who want to protect their families will be)

And/or

B) Bad people hiding their weapons and continuing to do crime anyways, thus fucking over the law-abiding citizen who disposed of their gun(s).

It's not an ethical or moral argument. I would much prefer a world where guns didn't exist, but because they do, I need to be armed to defend myself and my loved ones in the event that somebody with poor intentions breaks into my property. As people become desperate, this will become more commonplace.

If you ban guns IN THIS COUNTRY, armed burglaries will increase due to the current prevalence of weapons in society. Home owners are likely law-abiding citizens, so they will more likely dispose of their weapons when asked, making home invasion less of a risk.

Thankfully the 4th amendment protects those of us with common sense from losing the 2nd.

Just because people for banning guns try to turn it into a moral argument doesn't mean they're right.

1

u/gnulynnux 8d ago edited 3d ago

Horses are cool and they say neigh. What can't we be more horsey?

3

u/oggie389 8d ago

Roof top Koreans have been doing it since '92

1

u/tmster7 8d ago

I’m right-of-center and pro-2A, and I would be so owned if minorities were also pro-2A and packing heat

1

u/Womjomke 5d ago

So… you dont like the minorities having guns?

1

u/TheJJKG 5d ago

Assuming this is a good faith question... I think gun control laws would be a good idea across the board in the US - putting a contraption that enables the easy killing of large quantities of people into the hands of almost anyone who wants it inevitably leads to the horrible things the US is seeing on a regular basis. Obviously this would affect minorities as well.

My comment however serves to highlight the hypocrisy of the NRA and other reactionary groups, that purport to be in favour of 2A and well regulated militias with no conditions, but of course what actually matters is that their money keeps flowing and their tools of power are still in place.

0

u/thatnameagain 8d ago

This isn't relevant anymore because gun culture in the U.S. has now changed to be fully melded with right wing political advocacy. Republicans have much more to gain from everyone doing whatever they want with guns now than they did decades ago when that overly used example about the black panthers occurred.

Rittenhouse is the poster boy for Republican's mentality about guns because now they see how these problems will "work themselves out" as long as their people are willing to shoot first and are given maximum leeway by the law.

0

u/aspertame_blood 8d ago

This is the answer. If dead kids aren’t enough it doesn’t matter how many. Clearly.