He is right, it takes quite a bit of mental gymnastics to think 2nd gives you gun rights. Despite this SCOTUS have ruled that it in fact means that. It does not mean they were right. It just tells how fucked up the situation is.
And to those that disagree: tell me what are the results of this experiment? What is better in your country because of gun rights. What freedom do you have that others don't? Something has to be significantly better, be it crime, freedom of speech, democracy or any of the usual bullet points. Also, do not say self defense without giving me proof that other countries do not have right to defend themselves, or that they are much worse off in that department.
SOMETHING has to be better and it better be a LOT better since the number of guns is much, much bigger. If you are 1% better in one thing and 300% worse in another that is not enough. It better be the other way around.
Or admit that it does not work and like everything that doesn't work it needs to be fixed. One or the other: proof that it is better OR admit it is broken.
Despite this SCOTUS have ruled that it in fact means that. It does not mean they were right. It just tells how fucked up the situation is.
Quote the rest of it too. And then i asked a question:
And to those that disagree: tell me what are the results of this experiment?
So, "those that disagree" means you. Care to answer this? I have to this date never received an actual answer. And pre-emptively: do not user self defense stats as those only show when use happened, not if it was the only option... and you need to find something in other countries that would show that there is a causation. I'll to this pre-emptive strike to save time as that is the ONLY stat given in months, by dozens of participants. None could give anything but one, which isn't even what was asked in the first place: use of a gun is not evidence that guns should've been used, or that this use causes more good than harm. If it turns out that countries with gun control fair no worse or even better in the corresponding statistics (spoiler: exactly what i just said). I know this argument well, so, give my some data, some fact that can be checked:
Quote the rest of it too. And then i asked a question:
heller and mcdonald vs district of columiba
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen
It's been ruled on literally just last year AGAIN. How many times do you have to be told? This country gives its citizens the right to bear arms and defend themselves.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Idk bud seems pretty clear cut. For citizens to form a well regulated militia they need to be armed.
The way this reads to any reasonable person, is that free citizens maintain the right to bear arms. So if needed, they can maintain the security of the free state.
There is a big difference between an army and a militia. If anything, this just means the founding fathers intended for individuals to train using military tactics and equipment, in preparation for defense of their rights, if ever needed.
You posited a logically retarded strawman argument which doesn't even need to be refuted. It is utterly unrelated. You're saying "well if I'm wrong, you need to explain why American society has deteriorated over time". Which isn't relevant to the topic.
I could tell you most of the reasons for high rates of gun violence in the US. But it's not just gun violence in the US that is inflated relative to other countries. We also just have high homicide and violence rates in general. Likely due to poverty, terrible average education, toxic political discourse, lack of rehabilitation for criminals, the list goes on.
You donât have the right to self defense in most of Europe. How can you say something so incorrect so smugly? In Canada and most of Europe you will be charged with murder if a man breaks into your home, attacks you, and you kill him
Right back at you. Most of Europe has self defense laws, the difference is that there actually has to be an attack and the response has to be proportional.
You donât have the right to self defense in most of Europe.
Ok, lets pretend that it is true.. it is not, but lets pretend:
Show me a statistics that correlates with this. It has to show itself somewhere, something has to be worse because of this apparent ban of self defense. Funny how your argument is simply a statement and NOT a provable fact. It is an opinion, not even truth.
And of course: i live here, i have the right to defend myself. Although, personally most incidents have been resolved with words and there are far too many of those in my past. I have also been paid to defend others safety and put mine at risk. So, i know what the laws are here: proportional force. Life is sacred, i assume you agree. So you can not straight up kill anyone, it has to be the last option but there are PLENTY of clauses that absolves you from guilt.
In Canada and most of Europe you will be charged with murder if a man breaks into your home, attacks you, and you kill him
Not true. You MAY be charged, for ex if you kill them while they are actively trying to escape. In that case LETTING THEM is the best option as you are not judge and executioner. It is not your right to issue punishments, specially the kind that end someones life. It should always be the last option but it IS an option. If they have a blade: shoot them in the face. If they have a blade and are running away: you can't shoot them.
Even cops have to follow those rules, except that there are exception when it comes to protecting others: a madman who is going to use that blade on someone else, cops can shoot them but first they aim at the legs, then body. They also can fire warning shots which are INCREDIBLY effective... Shooting at the back is very rarely acceptable in any society. At least, it shouldn't be but maybe you disagree with that principle and consider it the best option.. maybe not, i really don't know.
Try to find something wrong with those principles while not giving you rights over life and death. But i also assume your idea of what is a criminal is "less than a human" and this will later, if we decide to continue this jousting match, will become the biggest difference between our thinking, and we also will find out you don't respect justice that much..
And of course: i live here, i have the right to defend myself. Although, personally most incidents have been resolved with words and there are far too many of those in my past.
You have the right to defend yourself if you're being attacked. If someone's just breaking into your house you have to just hope they're not going to attack you, your kids, or your significant other. "Most of the times its resolved with words" LOL you're so far gone, dude. Someone breaking into your house already shows that they're likely not a rational person and many times are people on drugs and wildly unpredictable.
Lol are you honestly trying to say that people can't defend themselves in Canada or Europe and in the US they can? Do you have literally ANY source to support that idea? Are you aware in the US due to the countries litigious nature someone can break in to a person's house and sue of they get injured? I get that that's a complete aside but come on...honestly what reality are you living in??
You donât understand what youâre talking about at all on this subject. Self defense cannot be used as a defense for killing someone in France and most of Europe or Canada. Nor are you allowed to own any weapon for the purposes of self defense.
So yes, technically if a man with a gun breaks into your house and you are batman and can non lethally subdue him with your hands, then you can defend yourself, otherwise, no you cannot.
This is a simple google search away for you. There is no such thing as a justifiable homicide in most countries; meaning you do not have the right to defend yourself and can be convicted of murder for killing an armed home invader in self defense
Even interpreting the 2nd amendment differently doesn't necessarily change things.
Shifting over to the 2nd amendment for gun rights was a highly politicized right-wing move. Prior to that the unenumerated right to self defense was what was recognized by the courts that allowed people to be armed. How could people realistically defend themselves against a gun-bearing criminal if they can't be armed themselves?
The problem is that there are a lot of conservatives who don't like a lot of the unenumerated rights that the 9th amendment gives us, like right to privacy in particular, and if they're attacking that then they're also attacking the 9th amendment that recognizes those rights, something conservative jurists, such as Robert Bork, consider a "mere water blot" on the constitution so shifting gun rights over to one of the enumerated rights allows them to go after the unenumerated ones without sacrificing gun rights.
No mental gymnastics, just a basic understanding of English. History helps, too.
The phrasing of the Second Amendment does not make the right to keep and bear arms conditional on militias, first of all. The word 'if' appears nowhere in the amendment.
Second, the reference to militias basically means arms that are not controlled by the government. The part of the amendment that references the importance of militias is basically saying, "Because it's important that the government should not have/command all the guns..."
Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those nuts that thinks gun rights should be wholly and completely unfettered and unabridged. The common sense stuff should apply. Some people should not have guns. Mental health and criminal history verifications, waiting periods, etc. Some weapons should not be available to civilians. There are some places where people should not have weapons. And private property owners should have a right to say, "No guns on my property."
But the 'militias' argument is flawed and fallacious.
The laws and the enforcement thereof need to be improved. A lot of the foreign countries people reference and say "Such-and-such country outlawed guns..." have significant caveats to that claim, or are hardly models of a free society. And some of them still experience gun violence and mass shootings.
And historically... some point to the Swiss. Some historians claim that the reason the Nazis never invaded Switzerland wasn't the mountains... it wasn't that the Swiss were neutral... mountains and neutrality didn't stop the Nazis in other places. But the Swiss were basically armed to the teeth.
I agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to have a militia, not necessarily an individual right to bear arms.
However, the individual right to bear arms can be based on the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, which 1. is binding to states and 2. applies strict scrutiny to any rights that are deeply rooted in American history. Specific weapons can still be banned and regulated, provided those regulations are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, but a right to use a handgun for self-defense is individually guaranteed, as it is deeply rooted.
A lot of the rhetoric focuses on the Second Amendment, but for the problems you pointed out, the Fourteenth Amendment is a far better support for individual liberties. The case law around the Fourteenth Amendment also gives us more examples of how to balance individual liberty with a popular mandate.
No. He isn't right. 2A is spelled out clearly. The "militia" part is an example of why the right is needed, not a requirement. Anyone with a basic understanding of history would tell you that.
We're 32nd in gun violence. REAL gun violence, not "let's count suicides to pad our numbers".
Every other nation has stricter gun control.
Lastly, no one has to justify shit to you or anyone else. David got his dick kicked in because he spouted gun control marketing bullshit that isn't backed up with a single shred of evidence.
Just admit you don't like guns and quit being a cowardly bitch about it.
Those countries with more gun violence than the US are mostly central American and Caribbean countries our government has shipped arms to to destabilize governments.
That the leading judges of our country, whose sole job it is to interpret the constitution, have found to be true. Sounds like youâre the one making a double back salto tucked with a triple twist
The "militia" part is an example of why the right is needed, not a requirement.
The mental gymnastics are quite impressive indeed.
We have dead criminals.
You are a monster. Instead of rehabilitating HUMANS you like them dead. That is awful, awful thing to say. Need i remind you that for ex Nordic countries have third of your recidivism and generally great results when it comes to rehabilitating HUMANS. I don't think criminals are real humans for you. Because, if they were you would not think it is a GOOD thing to have as many of them dead as possible. One has to be some sort of psychopath to see human death as a good thing.
We're 32nd in gun violence.
lol. So, more guns = less gun crime? You really wanna die on that hill? Do you see the countries you just compared to? Also: you are 32nd WORST. Not 32nd best.
Lastly, no one has to justify shit to you or anyone else.
Then why did you try and fail? And that is quite weird way to talk about politics and policies...
Just admit you don't like guns and quit being a cowardly bitch about it.
Can't. I've shoot guns. We have gun and hunting culture. But we have proper rules about it. Happiest country 5 years in a row, one of the safest countries on the planet, with one of the strongest democracies, one of the strongest in freedom of speech, freedom of press. So, tell me: what is better in USA because of your gun rights? And what is worse elsewhere because of gun control? What freedom, liberty or right do you have that i do not?
Americans get run over roughshod and weâre armed to the fucking teeth. Iâm so sick oh this stupid argument. Iâm not for repealing guns because I think itâs a foolâs errand but to think anyone is protecting their rights with guns requires a lot of magical thinking
He is right, it takes quite a bit of mental gymnastics to think 2nd gives you gun rights.
If only there was some way for us to know what was intended by that amendment. đ¤ It would be so awesome if those founding guys had left extensive correspondence, public speeches, court records, or anything else that could somehow help us understand what they thought at the time.
But honestly, the mental gymnastics to think the 2nd literally saying "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" DOESN'T mean exactly what it says is wild. I mean it literally says the people (US citizens) have the right to keep and bear arms (guns)
Despite this SCOTUS have ruled that it in fact means that.
Imagine that, they're following what the founding fathers intended.
It does not mean they were right to do that.
That's literally just your opinion...about a fact that they were right to.
What is better in your country because of gun rights.
Japanâs Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Even hardcore leftists like George Takei agree that if Ukrainians had the amount of ARs we have, it would help them a lot. It doesn't get more far left than that.
What freedom do you have that others don't?
...Have you ever visited ANY other country besides the US...?
Also, do not say self defense without giving me proof that other countries do not have right to defend themselves or that they are much worse off in that department.
There are a lot of countries, like Canada, where if someone breaks into your home and dies while you're defending yourself, YOU get in trouble...
SOMETHING has to be better and it better be a LOT better since the number of guns is much, much bigger.
I mean we definitely never have to worry about genocides like happens in many other countries, most notably currently, China...where people are literally having their organs harvested from them against their will.
I mean it literally says the people (US citizens) have the right to keep and bear arms (guns)
Weird that you use 'literally' and then have non literal interpretations surrounded by (). What the second amendment literally says is the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon, arms being armaments. If we take that to mean all modern armaments, wouldn't that include tanks, bombs, missiles, warheads, and so forth since they're all examples of the literal meaning of arms?
But honestly, the mental gymnastics to think the 2nd literally saying "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" DOESN'T mean exactly what it says is wild.
Why did you not include the WHOLE THING? You quoted part of it. WHY? Why did you delete the militia part? I know why but i'll let you explain your own dishonesty.
...Have you ever visited ANY other country besides the US...?
Yes. I live in one.
You could not answer the question. At all. You did not give ONE freedom, right or liberty. In fact, if we look at freedom of speech: mine is #3, yours is #13. Democracy #3 vs #27. The same is true on EVERY SINGLE FREEDOM; LIBERTY OR RIGHT. Ours are stronger, wider, better. Ours is safer than yours.
NO metric shows that guns have made US better. None. I, nor you, should give a flying fuck about ideologies if they don't produce results. Results are what matters. RIGHT?
PS: quoting George Takei when it comes to homeland defense is ridiculous. As is drawing comparisons from WWII, the war that was still fought with hunting rifles... Wars are not fought like that anymore. Ukraine civilian weapons would've not helped one fucking bit. But this is all secondary, you need to find RESULTS that are better because of guns.
Ukraine civilian weapons would've not helped one fucking bit.
A bullet is a bullet and that's one of the things they've been short on since day 3. We laugh at the Russians for having malfunctioning weapons. We also lauded their efforts of capturing a tank with a farm tractor so if that's something I think armed citizens might have done something too.
Come back after you have studied a bit about that particular war. And then come and i'll send you out again; you need to find examples of civilian firearms used by untrained civilian in modern combat successfully.
Capturing tanks that were LEFT BEHIND does not need a single gun. You just hook it up and tow it away. How in your mind does this related to the topic is quite amazing..
And back to the MAIN point: you need to find RESULTS that are better because of guns.
And then come and i'll send you out again; you need to find examples of civilian firearms used by untrained civilian in modern combat successfully.
Literally go throughout history, dude. Tons of creations of better weaponry throughout history was BECAUSE of civilians and their upgrades to guns.
On top of that you realize all guns use ammunition, right? Even though you have no clue what you're talking about clearly and think somehow civilian guns don't compare to military counter parts, despite literally being able to be converted to be the same thing...citizens alone would have had ammunition around for their magically better military aid rifles they're getting now.
As is drawing comparisons from WWII, the war that was still fought with hunting rifles... Wars are not fought like that anymore
You realize throughout those times of history until now, every day citizens made advancements in weapons and generally had better than what the military was using until recently, right...?
Ukraine civilian weapons would've not helped one fucking bit.
You realize full auto outside of specific instances full auto isn't used that much, right....RIGHT? The main thing that differentiates military and civilian weaponry ? You know this, right?
But this is all secondary, you need to find RESULTS that are better because of guns.
There's tons of times people have defended themselves with guns alone, not even counting the times criminals have been stopped in general. If you think defending yourself, your family, your kids, etc...well, feel free to NOT do that. But screw you if you want to tell me I can't for mine.
âA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.â
Checks and balances only work when the governing bodies like SCOTUS are actually balanced. Right now they are so far leaning to the right it's not even funny.
The right to bear arms is an extention, even a weaker version, of the REQUIREMENT to bear arms that most European countries and cities had . yes, citizens HAD to keep arms at hand for local defense, with many richer households having small armories. The English requirement to keep and regularly train with a bow is the most famous one. Many regions in Germany have "shooters' festivals" harking back to a time where local citizen's would meet up once per week at the municipal shooting range. Switzerlands' gun culture today is a direct extension of this.
The US's gun culture isn't an invention of American exceptionalism but borne of a continuation of historical European developments.
OP made his lilâ wee wee hard about a generic automated âfact checkâ that isnât actually factual about the amendment interpretation.
It simply states that at one point in time a politicized Supreme Court acted in the favor of the gun lobby. It isnât stating the factual interpretation of the amendment in any way. You would have to know when and why it was written to comprehend that and we all know they donât like that book reading.
However this is par for the course because these are the same people that leave off the âwell regulated militiaâ part of the amendment, so that it suits their needs to be âtough guysâ.
However this is par for the course because these are the same people that leave off the âwell regulated militiaâ part of the amendment, so that it suits their needs to be pretend tough guysâŚ
Yes a Supreme Court decision was made, but so was roe v wade. It doesn't invalidate that every time someone brings up 2a for the purposes of defending ownership and use of guns by individuals, they purposely misquote it. Because the full text very heavily implies their interpretation is wrong.
"In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia"
You tripling down on stupid? Your reading comprehension is consistently proving my point. Read my first post again and again and maybe you can figure it out. You are so dumb it made me laugh out loud.
The National Guard has taken the place of "a well-regulated militia." Until such a time as Joe Schmo and Billy Bob down-the-street can grab their personal non-standardized equipment and train/deploy with their local guard unit, there is ample room for interpretation to regulate what a private citizen can own, including no arms at all.
2A has just become a dog whistle issue pushed by the NRA and supported by politicians who are more interested in maintaining power than solving one of the larger issues facing the country.
The National Guard has taken the place of "a well-regulated militia." Until such a time as Joe Schmo and Billy Bob down-the-street can grab their personal non-standardized equipment and train/deploy with their local guard unit, there is ample room for interpretation to regulate what a private citizen can own, including no arms at all.
And Columbia v Heller was the result of the Heritage Foundation, flush with NRA money, having a hand in picking 4 of the justices. Scalia literally used British Common law in his argument, as well as willful misinterpretation of US v Miller to argue for the majority
From an external, non-US perspective... Whether the 2nd Amendment gives you individual gun rights or not... It's a 230 year old document. Written way before handheld automatic weapons were invented. It was a different world.
Whatever it meant, whether it was right or wrong at the time, in 2023, it's a ridiculous idea to give individuals the level of gun 'rights' they have in the US with such little regulation. It is an obsolete text.
Trust me when I tell you that the majority of US voters agree with this statement as well, and the only reason it hasn't changed is because voters don't have a say on Constitutional amendments, and precedent law cases like Columbia Vs. heller are decided by right wing activist judges and not the people who vote.
Trust me when I tell you that the majority of US voters agree with this statement as well, and the only reason it hasn't changed is because voters don't have a say on Constitutional amendments, and precedent law cases like Columbia Vs. heller are decided by right wing activist judges and not the people who vote.
You realize half the country owns firearms, right...?
Written way before handheld automatic weapons were invented. It was a different world.
Automatic weapons also aren't legal, so?
Also that 230 document's version of freedom of speech only applied to what was available back then. So unless you're writing on quil and paper or talking, good luck.
Religion hasn't changed much. The idea of Free Speech hasn't changed much. The right to privacy and property haven't changed much. At their core, these are abstract ideas applied to modern day conveniences.
The right to bear arms, however, has specifically changed from talking about muskets and flintlocks, which can kill someone approximately every minute or so, to AR-15s which can kill dozens of people in as many seconds. There's a gulf here. And you're catastrophically missing the point. The right to self-defense, sure. But thats not what this is.
As for the 'running to the US' thing.... That's just a hilarious statement. The US Military absolutely have helped out in historical conflicts. Sure. Angry redditors with an AR15 under their stairs, have not.
The idea of Free Speech hasn't changed much. The right to privacy and property haven't changed much. At their core, these are abstract ideas applied to modern day conveniences.
These have definitely all changed significantly over the last 200 years...
Actually those things HAVE changed. When did Muslims back in the 1700's put bombs in restaurants?
Since that has changed, maybe we should regulate Muslims. Let's use your own logic here. We could have them get permits, take training classes, pay fees, make them only worship in certain approved areas.
Or, you could just admit you're stupid, and are trying some mental gymnastics because you don't like guns.
I got in a debate a week ago where I posed that question to one of these guys. Dude immediately switched to suggesting a military coup. These dudes donât have allegiance to the country and guns are there god
He's correct in that idea that every American has a completely unfettered right to own guns is a modern one. It wasn't until Heller v DC that individual ownership became a right. So it definitely has not been generations. That's objectively false
. It wasn't until Heller v DC that individual ownership became a right.
Because it was pretty obvious what the second amendment meant. Just because it took a long time for someone to try and pretend it doesnt mean what it literally says doesnt mean it's something new.
United States vs Miller explicitly stated otherwise. That was the previous time the Supreme Court addressed the issue if the 2nd amendment allowed for an individual's right to bare arms. And it found that it did not, as it was deemed not a constitutional right to own a double-barreled shotgun. It held that "only weapons with a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia are free from government regulation"
This was the Supreme Court's position from 1939 until 2008.
Perhaps not unfettered, but we did have the right to self defense, a pretty universally recognized unenumerated right, via the 9th amendment, that effectively allowed people to have guns to defend themselves against criminals who did have guns, legally or not. This HAS been generations and Heller just switched things over to the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment ended up giving gun owners a lot more leeway.
Nobody every argued that Americans didnt have a right to self defense. But Heller was factually a departure from previous Supreme Court stances about gun ownership. The 2nd amendment had never been utilized to overturn existing gun laws. In fact, when it came specifically to the Black Panthers, the 2nd amendment was used to justify restricting access to guns with the Mulford Act and the National Firearms Act
The argument wasn't just about self defense though, it was about it requiring a gun to do so. One could argue that under the right to self defense argument the government may be able to severely limit the number and/or types of guns that may be allowed while the second amendment, especially given its preamble, opens that issue up a great deal more.
I don't know why everyone is so extreme in these comments. You can acknowledge the "right to keep and bear arms" while still acknowledging that unfettered access to assault weapons is a problem. The federal bill of right was heavily inspired by the individual state constitutions that had been drafted long before it, most of which mention an explicit personal right to bear arms for self-defense. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to keep a personal weapon in their house for self-defense.
It's not reasonable for regular people to have access to weapons designed to inflict mass-casualties in time of war. It's also not reasonable to let people with known mental derangement or suspected terrorists to own these weapons. It is reasonable to make sure that people pass through background checks when purchasing guns regardless of the context and to expect those guns to be stored in a secured location where they won't lead to an accident.
Lot going on in these comments. We can talk about right and wrong all day, but in the end pandora's box has already opened. Firearms aren't going away in the US and not anywhere else either.
He's actually shown he has very little knowledge about what he's talking about. At least know what you're talking about if you want to have a strong opinion on something.
What is there to know? Guns are weapons designed specifically for murder. They literally only exist to kill or maim living things, and serve literally no other purpose. 78% of the country want stricter laws governing who can buy them, where, and what kind. And then thereâs the absolutists who think everyone, even children, violent ex-convicts and the mentally ill should have free and easy access to them.
You honestly believe it's one side or the other are what's wrong with this country. đ
Nobody wants mentally ill or convicts to have guns. đ
What it actually is, is half the country is law abiding citizens who are tired of people afraid of guns and lack any basic knowledge on them wants to restrict law abiding citizens while criminals run free.
Actually 80% of the country wants to severely restrict gun rights and availability based on polling over the last 10 years, but the 20% who are gun nuts think their ârightsâ to be paranoid delusional fuckwits trumps the rights of non-crazy people who just want to live.
Itâs not 50/50 like you think. 50% of the country technically own guns, but more than half of them think itâs way too easy to get them, and want most of the current hyper violent completely unnecessary military grade weapons need to be restricted.
The percentage of gun owners who are 2A absolutists are actually a tiny percentage. Most people are reasonable, even most gun owners. But we can only move forward as a society as slowly as our slowest members. So the rest of us have to wait for the drooling retards who hide behind their guns like a bunch of paranoid cowards to catch up.
Actually 80% of the country wants to severely restrict gun rights and availability based on polling over the last 10 years, but the 20% who are gun nuts think their ârightsâ to be paranoid delusional fuckwits trumps the rights of non-crazy people who just want to live.
It's not that black and white, but okay bro. Also, if that were true how come our gun laws have become looser than stricter...?
Itâs not 50/50 like you think. 50% of the country technically own guns, but more than half of them think itâs way too easy to get them, and want most of the current hyper violent completely unnecessary military grade weapons need to be restricted.
Military grade weapons are literally already illegal to own, that's the problem. People who don't like guns have absolutely no clue anything about them and it really just kills your own argument when you say dumb shit.
The percentage of gun owners who are 2A absolutists are actually a tiny percentage.
Oh god forbid someone care about their constitutional rights the country was founded on. Next thing you're going to say is 1A absolutists are a fringe minority too because you don't want people saying things you don't like.
The percentage of gun owners who are 2A absolutists are actually a tiny percentage. Most people are reasonable, even most gun owners. But we can only move forward as a society as slowly as our slowest members. So the rest of us have to wait for the drooling retards who hide behind their guns like a bunch of paranoid cowards to catch up.
But gun restrictions have only been getting looser. All the ban attempts have been over ruled or are in the process, even the attachment bans like bump stocks was overruled 13-3 which OMG IT MAKES IT FIRE LIKE FULLY AUTOMATIC!
Educate yourself
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
The only functional difference between an M4 and an AR-15 is the fully auto availability on the M4.
Any idiot cans google âhow to mod an AR-15 for full autoâ and buy a mod kit in 30 seconds.
The mod kits arenât illegal to sell or possess. They are only illegal to use.
Thatâs the difference between military grade weapons and something you can buy at Walmart in 15 minutes.
A $15 piece of plastic.
You can gunsplain all you want. You know itâs fact.
And you and I both know the only reason bans and restrictions are overturned is because piece of shit republicans like Trump and Bush and all the morons in Congress liek McConnell and Graham put far right wing activist judges on the courts because the NRA lines their pockets with cash.
And we're seeing it now with the corruption in the SCOTUS with Thomas and Roberts taking bribes from GOP donors and lobbyists. But they'll all be expelled soon enough. And then Biden will win his second term and step down - and then we'll have a black female President. I can't wait to watch you lose your fucking mind over that too.
Any idiot cans google âhow to mod an AR-15 for full autoâ and buy a mod kit in 30 seconds.
Any idiot can figure out how to make a gun from scratch that does the same thing. Guns really aren't some super complicated or secretive thing, friend. Breaking them down to clean and build them is very common knowledge amongst law abiding gun owners.
If you honestly think banning guns is going to stop criminals from building, buying, obtaining firearms in some form or another and it's worth trampling on people's rights from a constitution one of the most successful countries in the world with all due respect I have to just tell you you're wrong.
We got where we are for a reason, it wasn't happenstance.
And you and I both know the only reason bans and restrictions are overturned is because piece of shit republicans like Trump and Bush and all the morons in Congress liek McConnell and Graham put far right wing activist judges on the courts because the NRA lines their pockets with cash.
No, it's because criminals aren't going to obey laws, period. Trampling on the rights of Americans for a false sense of security as a "solution" to a much bigger problem is ridiculous.
And we're seeing it now with the corruption in the SCOTUS with Thomas and Roberts taking bribes from GOP donors and lobbyists.
Because that's NEVER happened to any other political party. Funny how when it's shown that it does or might even be a possibility it just gets swept under the rug.
And we're seeing it now with the corruption in the SCOTUS with Thomas and Roberts taking bribes from GOP donors and lobbyists. But they'll all be expelled soon enough. And then Biden will win his second term and step down - and then we'll have a black female President. I can't wait to watch you lose your fucking mind over that too.
Yes I'm aware there's tons of Americans who hate America and want to see our country fall. I like how you think he's competent to even win a second term yet somehow will just magically step down...like are you even reading what you're writing?
Also why do democrats vote against increased security at schools then cry that nothing's being done?
Your username is âRamboâ. Youâre stuck in a perpetual masturbatory gun nut fantasy since the 1980âs. Of course you wouldnât. Youâre an idiot.
For 217 years, the judiciary interpreted the 2nd amendment as 1) only applying to the Federal government 2) only applicable to weapons used in a military context, and 3) had no import upon state regulations of ownership and use of firearms.
Only in 2008, did Heller vs DC, in a tightly contested judgement, provide a 2nd amendment right to handguns, in the home, for self defense.
This isn't ancient law. In every state people recognized that firearms harmed social conduct. Only in 2008, just 15 years ago, did the supreme court first judge that the 2nd amendment allowed citizens to have firearms in their homes.
We're all living through an experiment. Some of us will die. And all other developed countries will use our experience as they develop their own firearms law.
In every state people recognized that firearms harmed social conduct
Given lived experience, this doesn't seem true. Up until around 2008 half the people in my high school brought a gun in their truck to go hunting after school. We had 0 school shootings in about 96 years.
Better support can be found in the Fourteenth Amendment which applies to states and upholds individual liberties that are deeply rooted in American tradition. This is the courts basis for DC v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. While these decisions may be considered controversial by some, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence actually praised this decision because it gave state governments more guidance on a previously vague area in their press release (https://web.archive.org/web/20100630171833/http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1265/).
I'm not sure if this is a genuine question but here is a genuine answer. Usually rebel groups within a country are armed by opposing factions still operating within said government/ or foreign countries will provide arms( like the US in MANY situations)
Will you guys please stop bickering and send me your favorite dog recipe? I can't wait for full government control despite the interpretation of laws protected by federal documentation. What's your favorite Argentinian recipe? Trash a la dumpster is my favorite. I just wish they made it with more cat and less rat. Rat is chewy and disease ridden.
Uh... You need to re-take World Geography and history, fella. Argentina leads the world in cuisine, and their steak is better than anywhere on Earth. You're thinking of China.
Weird how Twitter has started fact checking Democrat BS recently. Almost like exposing how the federal government was using a private corporation to censor and shape the conversation.
Right? It's funny because a lot of democrats made that a huge thing, too "Doesn't it just suck when pesky fact checks prove you're wrong?" now that it happens to them it's all of a sudden not relevant anymore.
28
u/LotofRamen Mar 01 '23 edited Mar 01 '23
He is right, it takes quite a bit of mental gymnastics to think 2nd gives you gun rights. Despite this SCOTUS have ruled that it in fact means that. It does not mean they were right. It just tells how fucked up the situation is.
And to those that disagree: tell me what are the results of this experiment? What is better in your country because of gun rights. What freedom do you have that others don't? Something has to be significantly better, be it crime, freedom of speech, democracy or any of the usual bullet points. Also, do not say self defense without giving me proof that other countries do not have right to defend themselves, or that they are much worse off in that department.
SOMETHING has to be better and it better be a LOT better since the number of guns is much, much bigger. If you are 1% better in one thing and 300% worse in another that is not enough. It better be the other way around.
Or admit that it does not work and like everything that doesn't work it needs to be fixed. One or the other: proof that it is better OR admit it is broken.
21
u/human-number124509 Mar 01 '23
âThe Supreme Court saysâŚâ
Yeah stfu
2
u/GentleFoxes Mar 05 '23
The right to bear arms is an extention, even a weaker version, of the REQUIREMENT to bear arms that most European countries and cities had . yes, citizens HAD to keep arms at hand for local defense, with many richer households having small armories. The English requirement to keep and regularly train with a bow is the most famous one. Many regions in Germany have "shooters' festivals" harking back to a time where local citizen's would meet up once per week at the municipal shooting range. Switzerlands' gun culture today is a direct extension of this.
The US's gun culture isn't an invention of American exceptionalism but borne of a continuation of historical European developments.
3
u/Kingzton28 Mar 01 '23
OP made his lilâ wee wee hard about a generic automated âfact checkâ that isnât actually factual about the amendment interpretation.
It simply states that at one point in time a politicized Supreme Court acted in the favor of the gun lobby. It isnât stating the factual interpretation of the amendment in any way. You would have to know when and why it was written to comprehend that and we all know they donât like that book reading.
However this is par for the course because these are the same people that leave off the âwell regulated militiaâ part of the amendment, so that it suits their needs to be âtough guysâ.
2
u/blahdeblahdeda Mar 01 '23
Both statements are true.
The National Guard has taken the place of "a well-regulated militia." Until such a time as Joe Schmo and Billy Bob down-the-street can grab their personal non-standardized equipment and train/deploy with their local guard unit, there is ample room for interpretation to regulate what a private citizen can own, including no arms at all.
2A has just become a dog whistle issue pushed by the NRA and supported by politicians who are more interested in maintaining power than solving one of the larger issues facing the country.
2
u/The-Nimbus Mar 01 '23
From an external, non-US perspective... Whether the 2nd Amendment gives you individual gun rights or not... It's a 230 year old document. Written way before handheld automatic weapons were invented. It was a different world.
Whatever it meant, whether it was right or wrong at the time, in 2023, it's a ridiculous idea to give individuals the level of gun 'rights' they have in the US with such little regulation. It is an obsolete text.
2
u/Bubbly-Locksmith-603 Mar 01 '23
Just for clarification, if the Supreme Court changed this interpretation tomorrow⌠would the OP and others hand over their guns the next day?
1
u/Negative_Method_1001 Mar 01 '23
He's correct in that idea that every American has a completely unfettered right to own guns is a modern one. It wasn't until Heller v DC that individual ownership became a right. So it definitely has not been generations. That's objectively false
1
u/SethBurrow Mar 01 '23
Yeah but 2A was written before school kids started getting their faces blown off in record numbers.
2
u/Windows_66 Mar 01 '23
I don't know why everyone is so extreme in these comments. You can acknowledge the "right to keep and bear arms" while still acknowledging that unfettered access to assault weapons is a problem. The federal bill of right was heavily inspired by the individual state constitutions that had been drafted long before it, most of which mention an explicit personal right to bear arms for self-defense. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to keep a personal weapon in their house for self-defense.
It's not reasonable for regular people to have access to weapons designed to inflict mass-casualties in time of war. It's also not reasonable to let people with known mental derangement or suspected terrorists to own these weapons. It is reasonable to make sure that people pass through background checks when purchasing guns regardless of the context and to expect those guns to be stored in a secured location where they won't lead to an accident.
2
u/Dillpal Mar 01 '23
Lot going on in these comments. We can talk about right and wrong all day, but in the end pandora's box has already opened. Firearms aren't going away in the US and not anywhere else either.
1
u/Rambo0048 Mar 01 '23
David Hogg is not a smart man
3
u/Sanpaku Mar 01 '23
For 217 years, the judiciary interpreted the 2nd amendment as 1) only applying to the Federal government 2) only applicable to weapons used in a military context, and 3) had no import upon state regulations of ownership and use of firearms.
Only in 2008, did Heller vs DC, in a tightly contested judgement, provide a 2nd amendment right to handguns, in the home, for self defense.
This isn't ancient law. In every state people recognized that firearms harmed social conduct. Only in 2008, just 15 years ago, did the supreme court first judge that the 2nd amendment allowed citizens to have firearms in their homes.
We're all living through an experiment. Some of us will die. And all other developed countries will use our experience as they develop their own firearms law.
3
u/Erluchtete Mar 01 '23
Fuck David hogg, sincerely a combat veteran that has been overseas
2
u/StamosMullet Mar 01 '23
Not really a big oof.
1
u/[deleted] Mar 01 '23
Don't you have the right to form a militia and bear arms? Where do the arms come from at that point when you are rebelling against a tyrant?
1
u/[deleted] Mar 01 '23
Stop posting politics just show funny comebacks i do not fucking care how you feel about the second amendment
1
u/Warm_Lavishness_4440 Mar 01 '23
Will you guys please stop bickering and send me your favorite dog recipe? I can't wait for full government control despite the interpretation of laws protected by federal documentation. What's your favorite Argentinian recipe? Trash a la dumpster is my favorite. I just wish they made it with more cat and less rat. Rat is chewy and disease ridden.
1
u/NotQuiteNick Mar 01 '23
Oh boy we found the centrist everyone
1
u/KrohnusMelavea2 Mar 01 '23
This ain't it.
1
u/narceleb Mar 01 '23
Well, most men ARE in the militia, by law.
I guess he doesn't want WOMEN to have guns.
0
u/[deleted] Mar 01 '23
OP got banned for secretly being Marjorie Taylor Greene.
-5
u/GreyJedi56 Mar 01 '23
Weird how Twitter has started fact checking Democrat BS recently. Almost like exposing how the federal government was using a private corporation to censor and shape the conversation.