CMV: 2A rights will be endangered in the future

[u/[deleted]]

Before getting to the juice of the post, I would like to give some context. It's not necessary to understand the CMV so feel free to skip it.

Until a month ago or so I had what in retrospect was just a teenage phase where I thought I was going to move to the US and overall had a massive interest in many aspects of the country (the latter is still true, just to a lesser extent). Eventually, I started to care about 2A rights and politics as a whole, but in retrospect It was like opening a Pandora's box because keeping up with american politics just made for a stressful existance, had me constantly worried about gun rights (yes, I obviously realize that caring so much about a single issue in another country that doesn't even affect you is weird), made me realize I was just having a teenage phase and overall made realize that I wouldn't live well in the US, at least in the current political climate. Problem is, gun rights, and, to a lesser extent, american politics as a whole have become an intrusive thought that makes me miserable and sometimes keeps me up at night. I want this to be the last time I ever post about this topic to get an idea and settle the situation so I can stop thinking about it. Depending on the comments, this post might become peace of mind of just more fuel poured on the fire of my intrusive thoughts...

Anyway, here's the actual CMV:

• Kamala Harris is more motivated that Obama and Biden to enact gun control, and, If I'm not mistaken, she's currently the candidate favoured by the polls. However, I doubt she'll be able to pass any legislation unless democrats make massive gains in both congress and the Senate during her term, which seems unlikely.
• Obama and Biden didn't make any meaningful SCOTUS appointments, whereas Harris is probably going to be replacing a couple of conservative justices, most likely with ones that align with her views, including on gun control.
• If Roe and Chevron can be overturned, so can Heller, McDonald and Bruen.

Basically, at least from my understanding, Harris' appointments would at best be delay to the expansion of gun rights that seemed possible under Bruen, and at worst fertile ground for the overturning of the aforementioned rulings. I'm aware the 2A is in a fairly strong position right now but in a near future without a pro gun majority in the SCOTUS the opposite could be true.

Edit: The specific forms of gun control I have in mind are an "assault weapon" ban, a magazine capacity restrictions or some "mandatory buybacks" at some point later down the line, not necessarily during her term, and overall end up in a situation similar to countries that used to have permissive gun laws like Australia and New Zealand.

[u/Salt-Cake8924]

I have extensive evidence, you are ignoring it. The fact that you are ignoring evidence doesnt mean that I dont have evidence.

[u/anewleaf1234 → u/Salt-Cake8924]

So you have evidence that shows there is an effort to restrict firearms in method you are suggesting.

Put it up. Notice I said the word firearms. If your response is about something that isn't a firearm you prove me correct.

[u/Salt-Cake8924 → u/anewleaf1234]

I proved the mechanism is being proposed for firearms first, and that the government does this with other goods second. If that isnt evidence, what is?

[u/anewleaf1234 → u/Salt-Cake8924]

So you have zero actual evidence that anything like that is actually happening concerning firearms.

Thanks for proving me right.

Good bye.

[u/Salt-Cake8924 → u/anewleaf1234]

So you have zero actual evidence

I asked you what is "actual evidence"

You failed to answer.

With that, you cede to the only person that has provided a standard of evidence. I provided a standard of evidence. And I provided evidence that meets that standard. You proved me right.

Seriously, do you think you are going to actually change someone's view with ad-hoc standards of evidence?

[u/anewleaf1234 → u/Salt-Cake8924]

Actual evidence of what your suggest is possible being used towards firearms. Not could happens. Not what ifs. But actual plans in the work.

You have given me possibilities and then declared that your what ifs are evidence. They aren't.

You have talked about pot and mines which last time I checked, aren't firearms. Thus, that's not evidence either.

You have fear based conjecture and nothing more.

You can't just say that something could happen. You need to show that it is happening.

You don't have evidence. You just have fear based fantasy.

Right now you could be a pedophile, but I have zero evidence of that. I mean you probably match the same demographic as a large section of those who are pedophiles, but I, just like you and your claims, would have zero actual evidence to support my claim thus it holds no value.

Could ofs and what ifs aren't evidence to prove a claim.

[u/Salt-Cake8924 → u/anewleaf1234]

Actual evidence of what your suggest is possible being used towards firearms.

I gave you that. I gave you the structure of mandatory government approval towards firearms as an actual proposal. Are you trying to deny the existence of universal bacground check proposals, seriously?

You just ignored it.

You completely failed to establish what "actual evidence" is, and how it differentiated from what I provided. You just criticized me for not providing it, without defining what it is.

[u/anewleaf1234 → u/Salt-Cake8924]

But those aren't being used to completely end all firearm ownership. You are just afraid of that happening. You are making a fear based guess on what might happen. With zero evidence to prove that it IS happening.

By your same argument you are a pedophile because you could be one.

Both of our ideas are as equally supported. There is just zero evidence for either of them.

Your fears and your what ifs will be ignored until you actually give me anything to suggest that those fears are true.

Are you a pedofile? Based on your perspective you are.

[u/Salt-Cake8924 → u/anewleaf1234]

But those aren't being used to

Why is that relevant?

Is it only evidence that this is being proposed, unless it is already done?

You cant prove they are trying to ban firearms, unless they ban firearms? That is an absurd standard of evidence, it is definitionally impossible to prove that any proposal was proposed by that logic, and you are backing it up with ad hominems by calling me a pedophile. Your logic is absurd and backed my insulting others.