The correlation between gun ownership and gun violence in the USA isn’t up for debate.
cameron burgess

The Reason video explains the basic problem with enacting “common sense gun reform” in the US. Even if it doesn’t boil down to large-scale confiscation — which it inevitably does — it still represents a major change in the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and as so will require repealing the Second Amendment in order to be enacted. Your “it’s just fucking hard to get your hands on a gun without a license. And good luck getting your hands on an assault rifle without a shit ton of cash.” will never pass Constitutional muster unless the Supreme Court throws the Heller decision and those that followed it straight out the window, which it essentially never does.

And no, there’s no such thing as an “assault rifle”. What the ignorant think is one is nothing more than a common hunting rifle with some cosmetic features to make it easier to handle and use. True military assault weapons are fully automatic, meaning they fire more than once for each pull of the trigger. The ugly guns that people claim are “military weapons that have no place in civilian society” are functionally identical to, and no more lethal than, the hunting rifles the gun grabbers claim to not want to touch.

The solution to the problem of violence — I refuse to use the term “gun violence”; the gun’s not the violent one — is not going to be found in simplistic answers like gun bans. It’s going to be in recognizing basic facts. Facts like the problem is concentrated in small areas of our cities that are heavily populated by minorities, while the vast majority of the country has a violence rate comparable to Switzerland. Facts like one particular cohort has a far higher rate of violent crime and violent death than any other. You know, inconvenient facts that cannot be wished away by leftists.

Allowing guns to be owned by “responsible gun owners” and letting the government define who’s “responsible” is fully as abhorrent as allowing only “rsponsible journalists” to publish in the media and letting the governement determine who’s “responsible”. It’s wrong, and just as fundamental to American jurisprudence.

And while I’m on the subject, I take it you’re an Australian, and therefore not as familiar with the basic tenets of American constitutional law as others. Not your fault. However, you should know that the Bill of Rights — the first ten amendments — are considered as fully binding on the government as any of the text of the basic Constitution. That’s because the Constitution would not have been ratified if those amendments were not part of the deal. They were there because there was considerable resistance to the idea of a federal government with much of any power that did not have firm prohibitions on infringing upon what were seen as fundamental rights.

And yes, the Constitution can be amended. Every amendment is in as full force and effect as the basic text. The only difference is that the text is cited as “Amendment II” instead of “Article I, Section 5” or some such. Want to adopt another amendment? The Reason video you deride is exactly correct on the facts of what’s required to do so.

Australia and the US are different enough that comparing violent crime rates is meaningless. Australia’s culture isn’t anything like America’s, and it especially does not have the inner city thug culture you’ll find in the US.

Finally, the Supreme Court destroyed the argument about the militia clause being other than explanatory. Further, under US law, every adult male between 18 and 45 who’s not in the military or National Guard is a member of the militia. See 10 USC 311. Simply put, the militia was understood by the Founders to be every able-bodied male citizen who could use a weapon. If you’re going to argue that modern weapons don’t count because they weren’t invented yet, then you don’t get to keep CNN, MSNBC, the Huffington Post, or the Daily Kos either under the First Amendment.

You lambaste A Nation of Cowards as being “frontiersman bullshit that is rooted in an 18th Century reaction to feudal society and deep suspicion of government”. You may think so, but what you don’t understand is that that’s exactly how Americans think of their government and their relation to it. Again, as an Australian, I don’t expect you to understand that; you probably believe government is of, by, and for the people, while Americans know the truth is much different.

So no, to me, you’re just another well-meaning foreigner trying to tell Americans what we believe and why we should throw away fundamental rights, the same kind of person who just doesn’t get it as to what Americans beleive and how Americans think. It’s really pretty damned tiresome.