Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (32) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84361 
Subject: Re: Background Checks
Date: 03/14/23 9:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 6
We're screwed by an extremist partisan SCOTUS that will assure lots of bloody 2A headlines for a long time.

I don't think SCOTUS is the body primarily responsible for lots of bloody 2A headlines.

SCOTUS' recent precedent does make it unlikely that any serious legislative efforts to control firearms would be found unconstitutional. But the federal government hasn't even attempted any serious legislative efforts to control firearms. At all. Whatever point you think was the furthest that federal legislation got towards addressing firearm deaths (maybe the assault weapons ban in the 1990's?), it was the merest moiety of a molehill relative to the causes of firearm deaths - the huge number of non-assault weapon firearms throughout the country, especially handguns.

The same is true of even state legislation. While a handful of cities went so far as to all-but-ban private ownership of handguns (New York, DC), no state has ever come close to adopting legislation that could meaningfully reduce gun deaths. Even some of the strictest regulations, like those of California, still allow guns to be obtained with ease and volume that is unthinkable in most other Western developed countries. Not even the most restrictive state wants to impose any real, serious obstacles in the path of law-abiding citizens buying as many handguns as they want. Which makes meaningfully reducing gun deaths all-but-impossible.

I don't think it's all that meaningful that SCOTUS has now blocked legislation that would never get adopted. The bottleneck was upstream from them. Some minor, marginal legislation might end up falling to their jurisprudence - limited to the point of inutility by its scope (assault weapon bans) and/or geography (municipal bans in Chicago or NYC, surrounded by thriving gun markets in Illinois and New York state).

We're awash in guns because of our political choices, not SCOTUS.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (32) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community