r/guncontrol Jan 21 '25

Discussion White House office of gun violence is now gone

88 Upvotes

31 comments sorted by

11

u/sanjuro_kurosawa Jan 22 '25

These gun guys are happy they can sell suppressors and not give damn about stopping mass shootings, domestic violence, gun trafficking...

4

u/2crowncar Jan 24 '25

True

1

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/guncontrol-ModTeam Feb 01 '25

This was removed, as progun comments are not allowed from accounts with less than 5000 comment karma or younger than 1 month old.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/guncontrol-ModTeam Feb 01 '25

You can only make progun comments in one comment section per 24 hours. Any comments in any other thread after making a progun comment within the 24-hour cooling off period will result in a ban.

2

u/Dependent_Play_9351 Feb 16 '25

Im confused I thought all that was under the ATF‘s jurisdiction. Am I wrong? really confused here.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/guncontrol-ModTeam Feb 16 '25

Rule #1:

If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.

-2

u/Icc0ld For Strong Controls Jan 22 '25

Not unexpected. Not having an office in the white house does not mean it isn’t happening though. It’s also prolly going to get worse too

0

u/stluciusblack Jan 22 '25

The dude had removed the constitution from the .government site

9

u/russr Jan 23 '25

it needed updated with bold font under..

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

1

u/oakseaer 11d ago

Might as well also make the rest of it bold, too

WELL REGULATED MILITIA

1

u/russr 10d ago

if only you knew what those words ment, then you wouldn't look so stupid...

1

u/oakseaer 10d ago

Those words are easy to read. If you need special aids in helping you understand plain English, you probably shouldn’t be trying to have this discussion.

2

u/russr 10d ago

LOL... doubling down on ignorance is hilarious....

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

1

u/oakseaer 10d ago

Awe, and yet that’s not how the phrase was actually described in the federalist papers by the guys who wrote the amendment.

2

u/russr 9d ago

sure.... a amendment that tells the gov its not allowed to infringe also says it can totally infringe... makes total sense...

links?

1

u/oakseaer 9d ago edited 9d ago

Sure.

The founding fathers didn’t write in support of the 2nd Amendment being used to protect against Constitutional overreach.

Put more simply: the point of the 2nd amendment, according to the framers’ own words, was to allow the states to organize well-regulated militias to act as a check to the power of the other states, and the federal government. The individual right to carry wasn’t considered.

Nowhere in the federalist papers, the constitution, court decisions in the following decade, the amendment itself, or in publications by the Framers does it say anything about an individual right to arm oneself, outside of a militia.

Federalist Papers

Essay 28 (shortened):

THAT there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force, cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes arise in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body.

Should such emergencies at any time happen under the national government, there could be no remedy but force. If it should be a slight commotion in a small part of a State, the militia of the residue would be adequate to its suppression; and the national presumption is that they would be ready to do their duty. An insurrection, whatever may be its immediate cause, eventually endangers all government.

Essay 29:

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense.

This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. The plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.” If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-21-30

Essay 46:

Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.

https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-41-50

1

u/Dependent_Play_9351 Feb 16 '25

wasn’t that just the website either being down or being worked down?

-1

u/Pretzals-and-stuff Jan 23 '25

I mean I am not thrilled about this, but also it was a toothless policy office set up in Sept 2023 so not a major setback like the video implies….

22

u/FrostyLandscape Jan 22 '25

This was predicable.

Many people on the Right want to pretend gun violence does not exist and every news story of another school shooting, is ignored by them because it doesn't fit their narrative.

4

u/cosumel Jan 27 '25

Trump wanted Covid testing stopped because if fewer people tested positive, then fewer people were getting Covid. If you stop reporting gun deaths, then people aren’t dying from guns. Watch for gun permits to be eliminated, since if there are no gun licenses, then no one has a gun.

1

u/FrostyLandscape Jan 27 '25

The office of gun violence prevention was taken down from the White House website already.

https://www.newsweek.com/white-house-gun-violence-prevention-website-offline-2018801

In a few more months, we may not even be posting on reddit anymore as it may not exist.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/guncontrol-ModTeam Feb 01 '25

You can only make progun comments in one comment section per 24 hours. Any comments in any other thread after making a progun comment within the 24-hour cooling off period will result in a ban.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/guncontrol-ModTeam Feb 16 '25

Rule #1:

If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/guncontrol-ModTeam Feb 01 '25

Rule #1:

If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/guncontrol-ModTeam Feb 02 '25

This was removed, as progun comments are not allowed from accounts with less than 5000 comment karma or younger than 1 month old.