comment: >
  
  Nobody says the right to vote isn't recognized. It's just not explicit.
  Just like how the right to an abortion was recognized but not explicit.
context: Americans are brainwashed that they need guns to live and all the deaths associated with them are worthwhile collateral. >
  
  
  Vote for politicians that want to implement proper regulations on gun ownership?
  
  Like who?
  There are some things I support that would probably pass constitutional muster - like waiting periods (with the ability of a judge to issue a waiver).
  But Biden's AR ban would do nothing but mean BillyBob keeps his 15 ARs, and the blue haired trans person he hates can't buy one to protect themselves.
  High taxes on guns (unconstitutional) or ammo just means rich people get guns, not the poors.
  The upcoming brace ban accomplishes nothing much that I can see, except (putting on tin foil hat) a back door government gun registry.
  Lots of other common sense laws, like limiting the age of purchase, requiring training/licenses/insurance, that I might personally support are unconstitutional, or classist. >
  
  No, I am a registered Democrat in my 50s, and I vote Democrat almost exclusively.  I am a Bernie-style democrat - left of most.  I disagree with the Democrat platform on this issue though.  Considering the alternative is Fascism, I am voting for democracy, however flawed.
  Your reply is a cop out.  
  What proposed legislation does anything but grandstand?  If BillyBob already has 15 ARs, and is antagonistic towards anyone not white and right, what proposed legislation addresses that?  What legislation would you propose for that? >
  
  
  What do you propose?
  
  Bottom line, nothing *can* be changed significantly with the second amendment as it is.
  I am not saying there *is* a solution - guns have saturated the country to the point half-assed measures are going to be ineffective, and NO credible politician is advocation for forced confiscation.  The only solution I see as things are in the country now is mutual deterrence.
  If I were grand Poobah, though, I'd propose something meaningful and constitutionally sound - modifying the second amendment in a way that would have enough support to actually pass muster.  In particular - limiting edit: ~~Assault Rifle~~ Semi Automatic rifle purchases to 25 and older.  That would be hard for the GoP to argue against.
  Almost all school shootings and many other mass shootings are done by teenagers/early twenties young adults.  I think you could get broad support for something like that across the aisles, maybe even enough to pass, and it would have a significant impact.  I think a big majority of the population would like to see that limitation on both sides.
  I also think waiting periods, that could be overridden by a Judge (like if a person were credibly in fear of an ex-spouse or something), would actually be constitutionally sound now.  That would knock out a good chunk of crimes of passion.  Why has that not been proposed vs the AR ban?
  Also, Democrats should drop obviously unconstitutional, stupid or grandstanding gun control measures from their platform, and replace it with an emphasis on mental health and other social programs.  There are enough left leaning and minority gun owners now that make up a sizable chunk voters, that could be reliable Dem voters. >
  
  Your whole comment depends on this:  
  
  hard for the GoP to argue against
  
  This is laughable, and the point I think the other commenter had originally made (and others here).  You clearly underestimate the power of denial the GOP has and uses.  It's arguably the greatest reason we're in the state of gun death affairs that we're in.  
  They preach ignorance to the most ignorant, and have changed the whole culture around their interpretation of the constitution and use of the 2nd amendment by promoting nonsensical arguments against common sense.  It even extends to Dems.  That's been made especially evident by their unique ties to the NRA and its nefarious practices.  
  All we get are the thoughts & prayers paid for by millionaires and their billionaire handlers, while the millionaire lawmakers walk away with NRA support "scores".  Why even bother putting up common sense legislation when the overwhelmingly over-powerful Republicans who capitulate to capitalist terrorism organizations are running the show and will religiously block it to sustain their bottom line?  
  We get at least that much because Republicans have convinced too many that gun deaths are the "cost of doing business", a.k.a freedom. >
  
  You can pretty closely estimate the per capita death rate from firearms by taking the per capita gun ownership number and dividing it by 10,000.
  USA 120,500 predict: 12.05 actual: 12.21
  Switzer 27,600 predict: 2.76 actual: 2.64 >
  
  How is 120,500 the per capita ownership number? >
  
  "Per capita" in that case means per 100k people. They could've made that a bit more clear >
  
  Ah, gotcha. That makes more sense. Ty. >
  
  What's there to explain? We have too many guns and too few regulations thanks almost exclusively to the GOP and NRA. >
  
  I mean, there’s also a very self-oriented culture. No one wants to support their fellow citizens most susceptible to reaching for a firearm out of desperation. If they did, you would see it in the representation, policies, etc. The support is just not there. >
  
  Bad things can happen when the government has a monopoly on gun ownership. 100 million people were killed by their governments in the 20th century.
  Nazi Germany, USSR, Imperial Japan, Cambodia genocide (Pol Pot) Indonesian genocide, Armenian genocide, Rwandan genocide, Chinese "great leap forward" all had something in common. The government had all of the guns and had no fear of retaliation from the people. >
  
  I agree with your sentiment, and also believe there ought to be some tighter regulations and more funding & focus on mental health. The people have a right to bear arms but we gotta do something man. >
  
  That's all well and good until the people making the regulations decide they don't want certain people to own guns. Are you for or against voter ID? It's the same principle. 
  Before the Supreme Court Bruen ruling it was next to impossible to get a concealed carry permit in some states unless you were rich/famous/politically-connected or donated heavily to the sheriff's re-election campaign. New York is fighting this ruling by saying "restricting who can carry guns is constitutional because we used to ban Native Americans and black people from doing it!" and then they quote laws from the 1800's to say that the precedent has been set. >
  
  It's pretty simple: we have a founding document that states in very few and unspecific terms that Americans have a right to weaponry and a supreme court which for many years has been sympathetic to taking mostly the most open interpretations of it. 
  There, explained. >
  
  I wish the SCOTUS was as militant about protecting voting rights as they are about supposed gun rights. >
  
  Voting Rights isn't even explicitly in the constitution. >
  
  Yes, it is (unless you meant in the original text, which is correct).  Numerous Constitutional amendments mention the right to vote. >
  
  It's not explicit like the 'right to bear arms'.
  There's no 'right to vote'.
  The 15th amendment says you can't stop people from voting because of race. The 19th amendment says you can't stop people from voting because of sex. The 24th amendment says you can't stop people from voting because they didn't pay a tax. And, the 26th amendment says you can't stop people from voting because of age (if you are over 18).
  But there is no amendment that guarantees a person's right to vote. In most constitutional democracies the right to vote is the most sacred right. In Canada's it's section 3 of their constitution:
  
  Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
  
  But in the US that right isn't explicitly defined. >
  
  I could not disagree more strongly.  It is ridiculous to say "yes, the phrase 'the right to vote' appears in the Constitution, but that doesn't mean there is actually a right to vote." >
  
  Yes, I am aware that some folks believe that to be the case.  But I think it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that it's not an explicitly protected right when the Amendments use the phrase "he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote" and similar.  
  It is pretzel logic to read that and say the Constitution doesn't recognize a right to vote.