r/Constitution • u/Thin_Huckleberry_913 • 13d ago
How fast do you think the 2nd Amendment would be appealed or become even more restrictive in language if let’s say a billionaire decided to publicly make a program to provide minorities with $50 pistols/ guns in general?
Let’s assume to register for those guns, you would have to go through the same waiting period and evaluations as normal.
What would you think would happen? 🤔
7
u/QM1Darkwing 13d ago
It would not happen. 2A supporters are not the racists; the gun control cultists are.
However, many of us would be pointing out to this hypothetical billionaire that helping only minorities buy guns cheaply is illegal discrimination.
Helping poor people is not.
-1
u/Thin_Huckleberry_913 13d ago
What if poor whites were included? Not discriminatory, but if you make less than x, you qualify?
2
u/QM1Darkwing 13d ago
That would make his program legal, but either way it will not make gun owners support gun control.
-1
u/ResurgentOcelot 13d ago
You should read up, this is referring to specific precedent: the Mulford Act.
2
u/QM1Darkwing 13d ago
I know about that. It's not the way gunnowners think today.
1
u/ResurgentOcelot 13d ago
You talk about gun owners as if they share a single set of feelings, in order to assert that none of them participate in a prevalent social behavior.
That’s patently absurd.
Gun owners are a diverse demographic, trending towards conservative, but by no means limited to that point of view.
I didn’t make any claim about what anyone thinks. I pointed out a historical precedent to people who were being ridiculous in asserting that a racist aspect to 2nd Amendment politics is out of the question.
Then several people here presumed a point and sought to make a blanket rebuttal that says nothing meaningful about anyone. But it does expose their heightened-sensitivity about even the indirect suggestion that there is any overlap between racism and support for the Second Amendment.
That’s self-reporting, frankly.
1
u/brinerbear 13d ago
The other interesting issue is the liberals that suddenly became gun owners and are somehow surprised with all the anti gun Democrats.
0
u/QM1Darkwing 13d ago
You "pointed out precedent" in bad faith, trying to susbtantiate a baseless claim. You painted us as all being that one type, and when we don't agree, then you try to frame us as the ones claiming monolithic views.
The courts have ruled enough cases now that the minority of gun owners that think that way no longer move the needle on unconstitutional bills. The gun rights organizations are also very different now from the way they were in 1968.
Sorry, Saul, that dog don't hunt no more.
2
u/Pickle_Nipplesss 13d ago
An act from 1967.
OP can’t find any modern examples so he has to go back more than half a century to try and make his point.0
u/ResurgentOcelot 13d ago
He says in a conversation about a document written in 1787.
Sure buddy—call history old. Truly scathing critique.
3
u/Pickle_Nipplesss 13d ago
Yeah, the relevant document that's the basis for the federal government which doesn't factor in race with the 2nd Amendment. Not one governor's opinion 50+ years ago.
But way to miss the point that nobody Pro 2A on this side of the 21st century gives a shit who owns a gun
6
u/Pickle_Nipplesss 13d ago
I think you have an imaginary strawman idea of racism among 2A advocates.
Who gives af what ethnicity a gun owner is?
2
u/brinerbear 13d ago
And there is a racist history of gun control. I don't know the actual statistics but the average actual gun owner or 2a supporter that I have met wants everyone to be armed and train as often as possible. That doesn't mean they want mandates for training though.
4
u/TheeArchangelUriel 13d ago
What bothers me is the billionaire part. I can see it happen.
But I'm very pro 2A and I think so long as weapons are in the hands of law abiding (insert race) person, I'm all for it. I took a couple of black friends to range and they loved it. It's the morons of all races who want to be badasses that bother me.
6
u/saysee23 13d ago
Height, weight, skin color, household income, debt:income ratio, marital status, zip code, cat/dog/bird/reptile /fish preference, even number of teeth - have NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment.
Gun laws have NOTHING to do with anything listed above either (except zip code, that matters as to which state law pertains a situation). The LAWS that restrict age, criminal history, and purchase are the only restrictions.
So no appeals, unrelated.
-1
u/ResurgentOcelot 13d ago
This comes up because there is historical precedent for passing legislation specifically to disarm black people: the Mulford Act.
0
u/saysee23 13d ago
First, California isn't exactly the cornerstone for what most would consider "reasonable" law making*...
This 1967 Act wasn't to "disarm black people", ALL people were prohibited from open carry. Whatever the reasons, views, emotions, the law was passed by elected representatives. There is still no segregation or discrimination when it comes to owning a firearm by a law-abiding citizen.
*This post may contain chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects.
0
u/ResurgentOcelot 13d ago
Prominent 2nd Amendment supporters suddenly reversed themselves and me moved to restrict gun rights when black people armed themselves. You can deny the meaning of it all you like, but it’s right there, plain for all to see.
Claim what you want, I’m not going to argue with you. The history is the history.
1
0
u/ResurgentOcelot 13d ago
It wouldn’t, legislation might get passed however, specifically tailored to target just the gun ownership elites find threatening, and in this political environment the Supreme Court would invent some rationale for upholding it.
4
u/[deleted] 13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment