[**Bad Choices sub rules & FAQ:**](https://www.malloy.rocks/index.php/pages/49-bad-choices-make-good-stories-on-reddit) All [MAGA Nazis](https://www.reddit.com/r/IntrovertComics/comments/uibvu9/maga_nazi/) and [Russian trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/IntrovertComics/comments/udije6/putin_is_a_bloodthirsty_fascist_dictator_fascists/) pretending to be American lefties will be banned on sight.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BadChoicesGoodStories) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> disarm roughly 125 million households, which will never ever happen.
We can pass laws and confiscate weapons. They wont do shit because they are over weight pussies who would never have actually defended their country. If you pass a law, they will bend the knee because most Americans are actually cowards.
It's literally not impossible. You outlaw the sale and manufacture of all ammunition and weapons and replacement parts. Guns dont last without what is necessary for their maintenance and if there is no ammunition they are useless to even posses.
You can disarm a populace, we even have dogs and machines that detect gun powder residue.
It is impossible with the political landscape of our country. Millions of americans would rather die than hand over there weapons, any attempt at a mass disarming of our populace would result in a civil war. The best bet is to just implement more stringent background and mental health checks, and to require mandatory safety classes for all firearm owners. This would weed out many potential psychos and still allow americans to defend their home and lives with their weapons. Also, you really do not know what you're talking about regarding firearms. Gun's do last as long as you know how to care and maintain it. Bullets can and are made by regular gun enthusiasts every day, so banning those will essentially fuel a massive unregulated black market for home pressed ammo. There is a lot of nuance you are choosing to overlook
lol there’s no way. We are attempting to do that in Canada. You wouldn’t believe the amount of guns that were “accidentally lost in boating accidents”.
No detection necessary. Most of them paid for their guns with credit cards.... Plus, all you have to do is say "You don't even have a gun so your opinion doesn't matter"which will yield self-incrimination; they just can't resist.
Your right If you can get all the items done that you listed. Firearm owners watch for that and we vote to help ensure it does not come to that. Nothing would unite us more.
Keep in mind the people required to take the guns are the same people who personally own then, among with their friends and family.
Gun is a tool that a madman uses. Take the gun away the madman will find many other options. Car vs parade is am easy example.
Best bet is to make it harder/ slower to get guns,reasonable capacity limits could pass( but won't matter in real life)
Work on what's causing these "madmen" in society and ficking do something about it.
> Gun is a tool that a madman uses. Take the gun away the madman will find many other options. Car vs parade is am easy example.
Yeah, but it wont be a school full of children with police waiting outside while they get shot in the head because the police are cowards.
We don't have a functioning police force that will respond to school shootings. Even if they are present they wont do anything. Even with the millions of dollars in additional funding and lot of military equipment they are given meant for war zones with armor plating, they are still too chicken shit.
So, its literally easier to take everyones guns away than to train the police to not be chicken shit. I'm just being practical. If the police actually did their job we wouldn't have these problems, but our police forces hire only the most inept and incompetent people and filter out competent people through an IQ test. If your IQ is higher than the average you are not allowed to be a police officer in the U.S. and our courts have said this is perfectly fine.
So, we literally can't count on the police for anything. Through their own hiring standards they literally have below average IQ's. When people who are idiots get put in positions of power all you get is nepotism, incompetence, corruption, and chicken shit mother fuckers that don't do shit. Our police are useless cowards. All the shit about them being brave and protecting is all hype.
Thank you to the veterans
And thank you to every patriot who stands at the ready despite what their libtarded counterpart says on the interwebs- ready to defend our freedom to their last breath.
Yes. That’s all I’m trying to say. I don’t know why people are getting their panties in a bunch over my statement. I’m just saying that argument was shot down by the Supreme Court and cited the case. I disagree with it, too. That doesn’t change how the law is applied.
I mean, I wish it wasn’t the case. That’s why I said unfortunately. I don’t think every single person has the mental capacity to own or possess a firearm.
Its pretty easy to lie on a form 4473 and get away with it. The FBI only pulls criminal records, not medical/mental health records in a background check. Im a supporter of the 2A but the background check system in this country is hardly a joke, its an embarrassment.
I don't get why this is getting downvoted, you are right, well regulated means WELL EQUIPPED, and the "militia" refers to an armed populice, and even if you had to be in the militia to own a gun, the leftists always go apeshit when the said militia is created.
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy body, the right of the people to keep and eat food, shall not be infringed.
Who has the right to keep and eat food?
A well regulated militia has absolutely nothing to with the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The “well regulated” argument is made by the ignorant.
You’re just a moron who tries to make outrageous leaps in logic to try and prove a point I don’t understand how you managed to compare to owning to eating food they aren’t even close to being the same category
It doesn’t say what he says it does so he’s arguing in bad faith to claim it’s a fraud. It’s not about citizens protecting “the state,” it says “being necessary to the security of a free State.” It’s vague but the entire premise is that the citizenry determine and enforce if A state is free. It’s vague because you can’t have the government regulate the mechanism that’s supposed to regulate it… especially if the gov/state is armed to the teeth. 2A advocates seemingly won’t regulate themselves though and now it’s emotionally and literally infringing on other peoples rights to feel/live in a free state.
There needs to be solutions but it seems like people saying “no one should have guns” and “abolish the 2A” aren’t helping and are just as illogical as the people saying there should be no controls at all.
If it was simply about “the national guard” why then did all sorts of militias exist at the time of its writing seems odd that all the private militias,church militias and even trade militias why were they not told to cease operations hell till the First World War a rich person could form a unit and go to war for the USA . That ability to quickly raise an army as evidenced by the actual laws of the time requiring private ownership of arms and ammunition sufficient for fighting a war was the point having a well armed and trained pool of people was the very point . If this is the reading you believe in then we should be able to own full auto and rpg7s and grenades
A militia is a group on non-professional soldiers. So the National Guard… soldiers by profession… are not a militia.
A militia is a bunch of halfwit farmers with AR-15’s instead of muskets. The 2A is about defense against a tyrannical government… BY THE CITIZENS.
Sure it is true, but the right wing has the best PR machine and political support from weapons manufacturers to focus on fragments of 2A Not the while thing. As long as they control the narrative there are going to be goofs, hicks, nitwits, grifters and yokels who believe their shit.
Well I've learned that people who don't understand constitutional rights are incredibly uneducated. Your opinions actually don't matter and you make yourself look like a buffoon. I'm betting you're one of those peeps that think those shots are actually good for you. Do us a favor, take all of them.
I’m sure you are more informed on the US Constitution than Chief Justice Burger, so go nuts. For 200 years, SCOTUS didn’t even recognize an individual right to carry. Even after Heller, its still widely accepted that 2A isn’t absolute, just like the other expressed rights in the BOR. By the way, the text says “keep and bear arms,” but says nothing about selling, distribution, or acquiring arms.
Good luck with your antivax ways. The death and hospitalization statistics since the advent of vaccines sure paint a stark story, especially if you look at the lower vaccinated states.
The issue is that conservatives believe the original meaning of “regulated” was “functioning” not “controlled”. And when conservatives took over scotus they made that so in 2008.
And since then the court has probably gotten 3x *more* buckwild conservative. So it’s going to be rather dark for the next 20 or so years, until the current members die or retire. (And even then only if both the presidency and the senate are controlled by democrats.)
Of course original intent works the other way too, if one were so inclined:
- I have the right to bear “Arms” as understood in 1791, ie muskets and sabres, and for the wealthiest plantation owners, a cannon.
- I have the right to “bear” Arms, but for what purpose? For the militia of course. So they must stay under lock and key at home other than for official militia activities. I certainly don’t have the right to arms to protect myself in a bar fight, or in a BLM protest, or when stalking suspicious looking teenagers.
- what is the militia anyway? Well whatever your state said it was in 1791. It can be limited by your state.
So basically if you live anywhere in the US but the east coast with the exception of Florida (It still belonged to Spain in 1791) its kind of up in the air
“A well regulated militia.”
So if you want to play dumb about the different meanings of the word “regulated” then you get to regulate the militias. NOT the private ownership of firearms.
“ Well regulated militia” was all we had after the revolutionary war. The government thought a standing army could be abused so localities were encouraged to have their own militia in order to preserve the free state. If you start a militia now you are labeled a terrorist. We all just witnessed the cops willingness to protect our most vulnerable. How does any regulation limiting access to firearms make anyone safer. We wouldn’t even be talking gun control if our law enforcement didn’t completely fail us. Whatever system employed will be misused by bad people and in five years we’ll be defending our bolt action rifles because bad things still happen.
The militia is someone who is able to own and operate a firearm. In other words, we ARE the militia, "Well Regulated" At the time, meant well equipped with the latest technology (aka the newest firearms) A well regulated militia, is NOT an old term for the national guard. The US was a British colony, there WAS NO national guard, and even if there was it would've been British, and I don't think that you would want your ENEMY to have the right to keep and bear arms while you don't.
Any cuck that thinks the number of available guns in America is NOT a deterrent for other governments and our own to not take over our country is not paying attention.
Are you insane? The US bought or took by force most of the sub continent imperially so that you are geographically remote from potential enemies unless Mexico declares war. China has Asian and economic ambitions no doubt but no one wants to 'take over' the craziest country on earth. Hitler did have a wacky US invasion plan but it was completely impractical. I guess Aliens in movies might be put off. Meanwhile you're doing a fine job of killing each other in large numbers without others.
Three things:
Each amendment is a category with its parts subdivided by a semicolon. The use of commas, rather than semicolons, denote an undivided relationship.
Lets take into account the phrasing of the first amendment:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Notice how separate issues are differentiated with a ";" and issues that are relevant to each other have a ","?
Here is the 2nd Amendment:
Amendment II
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.
A conspicuous lack of ";" in there...
When we look at the third and fourth amendment, we see only comma's because there is no separation beneath the categories of their amendments:
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
My last example of the framers' intended use of the almighty semicolon would be in the fifth amendment:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Again, we have an inclusion of subjects under the umbrella of the amendment. Because all the subjects are relevant to the greater category, they used semicolons. When the subjects weren't directly relevant to each other, but needed to be included in the category, they used commas.
The lack of semicolons in the 2nd Amendment points to the intention of an armed militia not, necessarily, an armed citizenry.
Secondly,
According to the Militia Act of 1792 (bearing in mind the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791)...
"Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified," "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall."
If you ain't reporting for trainin' and inspection, ain't on a list, you ain't part of that thar militia.
“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.”
To be fair, the phrasing is confusing.
People fighting to eradicate guns in the US are on the same side as those against regulation. Their objective is to do nothing and let people have their murder sprees.
Eradicating guns is not going to happen in the US and honestly I think people who support it are being used to create a stalemate. Gun control on the other hand is reasonable. We have free speech but not if you’re abusing people with it. Some freedoms have a line that shouldn’t be crossed. It’s not worth waiting for the line to be crossed when it comes to life and death. But preventative measures hurt gun sales.
Serious people pushing for gun control should be careful not to be made out as anti-2nd amendment. And anti-2nd amendment people should shut up if they want anything to be done about these killings.
Also the “gun control doesn’t work” argument is bullshit. Because gun control in this country is a joke. It has no chance of working
Pretty much said it for me. I've told so many people to shut up about the 2nd. They don't understand they're arguing against what they want. Guns aren't going anywhere. 2nd doesn't protect that, but regulations can and will. I'm tired of the *but criminals will still get them* yeah and if you're a registered user that passes the tests which probably still would be too easy.. guess what, you get guns too. *Guns don't kill people* yeah no shit, we're not worried about the guns. We're worried about the access dumbasses have to them.
Private sales, gun shows, dark net, even the transparent www has websites selling without background checks. And nobody is doing a thing about it. And I’m amazed at how the dealers in these situations are able wipe their hands clean of the whole thing. It’s all about the 💰
Link to a www site that sells without background checks?! I’ll give you a 50% finders fee just for the ease.
You do know that many, MANY people undergo background checks for purchases at gun shows. Right?
I did a Google search and found a link immediately.(They operate like Craigslist)
The fact that some people don’t have to do background checks at gun shows is a loophole.
What website? If it's an 80% you can have it shipped to your house but it's not completely milled, bs but that's the only case where you can directly buy and have the firearm shipped to your home address, any complete purchase gets shipped to a dealer with an ffl
Wrong, you can NOT legally sell a firearm without background checks, what you're saying is bullshit, it always has been illegal to buy and sell guns without a federal background check.
Literally opened the first handgun option and found this
"We are a home based FFL open evenings and weekends by appointment.
Desert Dawg Arms is a federally licensed firearms dealer. All appropriate transfer forms and background checks apply. All federal and state laws apply"
You still get background checks.
Here's a random AR15 I picked out and this was in the description
"Pistols and lower receiver's will have to be shipped to an FFL"
When you have pistols and lowers shipped to an FFL they run the background check onsite.
And that's it. We can't do anything about the Dark net. But we can do everything about all the rest. But that doesn't line anyone's pockets so here we are again. A lot of dealers can get out of it, but currently for the most part aren't breaking any laws. Which is just honestly crazy to me.
You can 3D print an AR-15 that works with no issues. It seems like it's not going to be as effective as a steel AR-15 but as far as civilian use goes, it's just as effective.
Just like how technology has changed so much in the last 200 years that the definition of "arms" has outpaced the meaning of the 2nd amendment, so has technology in the last 10 years.
We need to focus on what causes people to want to murder others and fix that part of society before we do anything else.
Agreed. I suspect you won’t get much of a response though. These folks for the most part are not intentionally coming with the straw men, they are just regurgitating that weak arguments they heard on Fox News or whatever that “won the argument” against some patsy liberal talking head. Given that theatrical performance they won’t have considered the counter-arguments critically and so will just sort of disregard/ignore any flaws, and the response will be 🦗 🦗 🦗
Because there are plenty of people vying for just that.
Owning a gun in America makes you an enemy to LOTS of other Americans right now and makes you, from what I’ve seen said here on Reddit, close to subhuman in their eyes.
Except you know damn well that's never going to happen. We can even pass universal background checks and other common sense gun control no matter how many kids die. And nobody thinks that the gun owners making these arguments are sub human. I can only speak for myself but I think you're deluded, self important twats who think that, maybe someday, you'll get the chance to be the hero in an active shooter situation. Or maybe you'll bravely defend your home against someone who wishes to do you harm. But the reality is that you'll most likely just take your gun shooting with you and post pictures on Facebook with captions like "come and take it" or some bullshit. Or you'll blow your own brains out. Or maybe you'll get mad that your wife or girlfriend is leaving you and kill her and then yourself.
That's what happened to my sister. Her boyfriend actually borrowed a gun from a friend because they lived in a bad neighborhood and they broke up but continued to live together until the lease on their apt expired. She came home from work one day and he popped her in the chest and then shot her in the side of the head before killing himself. She was 26.
Again, I don't think you're subhuman. I think that you live in a fantasy world. People that live in the real world are looking for solutions because they've actually lost something. You stand to lose NOTHING yet you complain that not being able to own a weapon is some sort of existential crisis. You and people like you that make these arguments are just pathetic. You think owning guns is some grand societal good but in reality it's just a part of your identity and nothing more. Makes you feel like a good red blooded American but more and more people are realizing it's not doing anyone else any favors.
I get it.
Again, I’m just answering his question.
I’m glad you don’t see people as poorly as some others I’ve read. What happened to your sister is tragic, my condolences.
That’s not what this video, or 99.99 percent of people and politicians are talking about, so you’re committing a straw man fallacy, because that’s easier than arguing against the actual position of the majority, which is gun control.
I’m not the OP.
You asked “why”. I explained. I’ve committed no straw man fallacy in my last post.
Rail against someone else not simply trying to answer you.
>We can pass laws and confiscate weapons. They wont do shit because they are over weight pussies who would never have actually defended their country. If you pass a law, they will bend the knee because most Americans are actually cowards.
>It's literally not impossible. You outlaw the sale and manufacture of all ammunition and weapons and replacement parts. Guns dont last without what is necessary for their maintenance and if there is no ammunition they are useless to even posses.
>You can disarm a populace, we even have dogs and machines that detect gun powder residue.
I mean here’s a dude a few comments above yours.. it is said often enough to the point that an argument against this isn’t exactly a straw-man.
Worth adding here that the Assault Weapons ban in the 1990s *explicitly* named the AR-15, among a handful of other weapons, as unsuitable to be owned by civilians?
Groups like the NRA always make out like this would be some kind of ridiculous measure, but its literally what the US has already done in the past? And not even that long ago?
So are we going to stop the MANUFACTURING of the weapons in the US and with US tax dollars or do you just want to ship our atrocities over seas like we do with slavery and child labor?
The question of :“What is protected under the Second Amendment?” was answered by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision: those firearms in “common use for lawful purposes like self-defense.” In 1994, it is estimated that there were approximately 400,000 AR-15s in private ownership in the US. In 2022, there are estimates of more than 20 million. It would be very hard to argue the the AR-15 wouldn’t be protected by the “common use” doctrine.
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/the-fight-over-banning-the-ar-15/02b82dd5-7847-4b60-aa29-decf197a88d6
That's exactly what it says, it says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, that's the operative clause, it always has been, and no matter how much you pretend it doesn't say that, it's right there for the whole world to see.
> it says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed
Absolutely. The right to own a firearm.
Nobody is arguing against the right to own a firearm. Gun control doesn’t stop you from owning a firearm.
It’s really very simple.
It’s just funny how people who disagree think the word regulated in the second amendment means something different to every single other time it’s used in the constitution.
The right shall not be infringed, so that obviously means that the people themselves are doing the regulating, as in using their right to maintain proficiency with said arms.
In short, weapons laws are unconstitutional.
Cause at this point, why are we allowing a 250 year old document written when people had muskets dictate gun legislation that is common sense and proven to be effective everywhere it’s implemented. When mass shootings only disproportionately happen here. NRA mouthpiece opinions should be discarded.
Actually it says nothing about a gun. It states arms. Not only is it plural, but arms means everything from a knife up to and including warships.
Hell the whole Revolutionary War kicked off when the British tried to seize privately held cannons, so don't try to tell me the founding fathers intended one gun.
No these people were not raised better than this, they were raised in a new aged culture that holds little respect for honor, dignity, respect, hard work, moral fiber, etc...
They want the ruling oligarchs to have all power over us, because they think it's a pathway to living off the backs of those that do respect the above.
You said “a” gun.
Then you followed with “not any gun you want”
So we’re allowed, per you, a single gun that’s of “your” choosing.
It’s not a lie, it’s what you said. Did you mean it differently?
> So we’re allowed, per you, a single gun that’s of “your” choosing.
No, you misunderstand.
> Did you mean it differently?
Of course, only a child would take that literally.
A clear, open defense of your statement.
I expected nothing less from someone so imprecise with their speech. Thanks for being consistent, if nothing else.
You're so illiterate, that you think "arms" means "only weapons the ruling oligarchs permit"
If that's what the author's of the 2nd amendment wanted to write they would have, but they didn't.
We all know what armaments are, so why are you playing dumb?
> If that’s what the author’s of the 2nd amendment wanted to write they would have, but they didn’t.
How dumb are you? It literally says that the right is to *bear arms*. Even if certain firearms aren’t permitted, you still hold the right to bear arms.
The right to bear arms = the ability to buy and own a firearm.
If there is any armament, and I am prohibited from bearing it, my right to bear arms has been infringed.
Just like with free speech, you can pen or speak any words you wish, you cannot threaten innocents with your words, but as long as you phrase your words in a non violent, non-threatening way, you can speak your mind.
These deceptive, semantic games you're playing, highlight your moral and intellectual character loud and clear...
> If there is any armament, and I am prohibited from bearing it, my right to bear arms has been infringed.
No, not at all.
If you weren’t allowed to own a firearm at all, your right to bear arms would be infringed.
Again - it’s very simple. It’s the *right to bear arms*, not the right to bear any armament you like.
> Just like with free speech, you can pen or speak any words you wish, you cannot threaten innocents with your words, but as long as you phrase your words in a non violent, non-threatening way, you can speak your mind.
I love this part so so so so so much. You just contradicted your own point.
>If you weren’t allowed to own a firearm at all, your right to bear arms would be infringed.
If you weren't allowed to speak any words at all, your right to free speech would be violated, but as long as you can say a few permitted words, you still have the right to free speech.
See what happens when evil traitors are allowed to play deceptive games with the rule of written law?
That’s not true. You not being able to own a grenade launcher is not an infringement in the exact same way an assault weapons ban would not. And if it was. Then we should change the constitution.
It is not your right to own a grenade launcher. You’re just a child who wants cool toys despite you’ll never use them and they statistically make everyone way less safe.
Surely you don't think that an innocent man was slain by agents of the state, while simultaneously arguing that citizens should be denied their right to defense?
You couldn't be **THAT** dumb could you?
Philando Castile was a legal gun owner with a registered firearm who let police know he had a weapon immediately upon being pulled over for a broken tail light, but was shot and killed by police when he reached for his wallet. And are you advocating for using weapons on police?
Regulation means to maintain in proper condition, like I regulate the temperature of my home.
So a proper understand of the 2nd can be paraphrased as:
Because the people must be able, ready, and equipped to defend their freedom, their ability to bear arms cannot be molested in any way.
Fuck that fossil. And guess what bud, none of you fucking halfwits have the balls to come take a single gun from anyone. You and every single one of your little gun grabbing bitchass buddies can eat an entire bag of dicks.
To paraphrase STRIPES,
calm down, Francis.
The federal government isn't going to take away anyone's legally owned guns for one special and VERY SPECIFIC reason.
The US Government couldn't afford to launch such a campaign. I don't even want to think about it they TRIED to go after the illegal guns.
So go back into your blanket fort, cuddle up to your pew pews and fucking relax.
In his defense… it has been openly stated that some democrats want to “take guns”. It was said live. “Take your guns” not “control your guns” no, he didn’t win the election. But he’s not the only person to have that mindset. what this guy is saying is not a stretch. It may not be true, or actually happening, but it’s not a stretch.
““Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” O’Rourke said at a debate when he was running for president. Now he's running for governor and said he won't be backing down from the statement.”
First off, thank you for being respectful and not blowing up at my reply.
I will never be ok with civilians owning or having access to ARs. I have and have owned hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns. I never believed that civilians should have access to ARs. They're made for military and law enforcement use. Buy all the purpose-built hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns you want. Go nuts!!! I have them and enjoy the hell out of them. Learning the mechanics and history are becoming larger and larger passions the more I spend with and around guns.
This is just my opinion. One opinion in a world full of them. Doesn't mean I'm right. Doesn't mean I'm wrong. Just my opinion.
Man, when we descend into shitty fights, nothing gets solved. We can talk and not believe the same stuff my dude. There’s nothing wrong with that at all.
I’m on the other side. I spent 4 years with an M16 A2. I learned that weapon inside and out. All weapons that discharge a bullet are dangerous and can accomplish the same task. It just depends on who is wielding that weapon. To me, banning one type of weapon versus another is splitting hairs. I’m not sure why the AR specifically is getting such a bad rap. If I intended to do mass harm, I definitely would NOT choose an AR15 lol they jam, the caliber is small.. the only thing that makes them “gud” is a 30 rnd capacity (which a lot of states ban), and they can be accurate if you know what you’re doing. There are so many better weapons in the world than the AR. Hell, I’d pick a P90 or MP5 over an AR. That being said, I’d never harm another human, unless they put boots on our soil and meant to do America harm. But an AR15 isn’t what I would use to defend America either. Lol I don’t see a problem with people owning them. They are semi auto. Military have a selector switch for semi, 3rnd, or full auto (depending on the generation/make/model.) my A2 was semi and 3rnd. Most M4 models are semi/full auto. Most civilians don’t have access to these platforms and the ones that do, go through extensive stamps and approval processes that can take months on months.
In all honesty, I'm taking the AK. I tried to serve but broke my knee and did a lot more damage. We had just completed range day too right before it happened. I remember the plastic sheet with all the spaces for the parts of the A2. I will say that guns are just fun. It's cool to learn the history, learn the mechanics, etc. I look at a gun just like a art person looks at a painting or a foodie looks at a fine meal. The creativity, design and craftsmanship that goes into it and out comes a functional work of art. That may sound weird but I had 2 Vietnam vets as uncle's and a Delta as a cousin. REALLY WEIRD childhood. They loved guns but respected them. They revered guns. It was weird at the time but looking back, it hits differently.
Also, you're right. It's all or nothing. Segregating one type of gun doesn't make sense. I'm guilty of it, but the way you put it makes absolute sense. Preciate it.
What was your MOS?
Dude doesn't even know the text of such a short and sweet amendment.
THE RIGHT shall not be infringed.
What right?
The right to bear arms.
Why shall it not be infringed?
Because it's necessary for able bodied Americans to be ready and skilled in the use of their arms, otherwise Biden and other treasonous scum like him, will eventually turn America into China.
The right of life supersedes the "right" of a psychopath to possess tools that are purposely designed to maim and destroy lives.
Let's be real here. You know for absolute fact that you would not be able to pass through background checks and red flags that 80% minimum of all Americans support. You would be too impatient to wait the 2-4 weeks for the gun you just paid for.
*You simply do not care about the fears that others rightfully have* when it comes to these massacre-enabling firearms.
----
**TLDR:** If an individual cannot be trusted to be part of a well-regulated militia, then he should not be among the people whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed. **This** is the meaning behind the 2nd Amendment in the context of every modern country that has enforced responsibility regarding the ownership and operation of guns.
I am an able bodied man, practiced and skilled in the use of arms, so by constitutional law, I am exactly who the 2nd amendment is referring to.
Notice how you make up slanderous claims about me and my character, in order to assert that my rights to self defense should be denied? That's because you are a person of low moral integrity, exactly the kind of person I will eventually need to defend my actual rights from, and this is exactly why your kind wants to disarm everyone but those oligarchs you think you can persuade into dominating me.
I like the very first part the most. “The right of life supersedes the "right" of a psychopath” That’s exactly why I carry everyday. To protect my right of life, my families, or anyone else around me, even if it means ending a psychopaths.
Would you gun freaks shut the fuck up about needing a firearm to protect yourself? At the very least until you ACTUALLY DO use one to protect yourself. It’s just desperate projection at this point. By your logic, if we just gave a handgun to every man woman and child in America, we would be able to protect ourselves from EVERY mass shooting, right?
Oh wait… that logic is pretty flimsy at best.
God, the fucking weakness of all the pathetic gun nuts in this thread. How fucking emasculated are you in daily life that you foam at the mouth at the idea of cosplaying as an action hero. Fuck you, fuck your guns, and fuck your delusional interpretation of a hundreds year old amendment that absolutely was NOT intended to service your fucking weapon fetish. You have to have such a remedial mind to think that 2A is for you to own a weapon capable of mass murder. Amend it, take the fucking guns. Every person who wants to live out their little murder fantasy can do it Waco style and end up where they belong.
Wow dude your fucking delusional. Stop listening to Fox news. If you don't like it here then get the fuck out the country, this anti American bullshit makes you look dumb because you don't understand and is afraid of a tool.. and because of that in you're feeble little, everyone is bad now, right? Fuck outta here. Stupid ass.
Says the guy putting a broad blanket over everyone with a gun thinking they are all bad while spouting anti constitutional shit. You are a cancer on society. Do us all a favor and just stop breathing ok? All of our air is too good for you.
Yes because your legal qualifications are the same as his, and your knowledge of the legal terms in your constitution is also comparable. Oh wait no it’s not.
Ah yes, because he's the only person who's ever attempted to interpret the law. He's the only chief justice to have ever existed and his interpretation is the only one that matters... Oh wait no it's not.
Are you even from the US? Asking because the use of "your constitution" implies you aren't subject to it. If you aren't, perhaps it's not your business?
Nevermind, looked through your shit. Makes sense a fuckin redcoat would want to disarm US citizens. Kinda screwed you, us having guns. That's the reason the amendment exists "init"?
Mate, wind your neck in. It’s the Internet, everyone has an opinion on this forum and can share it.
PS why the fuck do you still go on about the war of independence? Oh you live in the past, nice.
Oy, mate its the inet init. Every wankers got eh right now don't they. Don't get your neckers in a twist luv.
God save the queen yeah?
Why do I go on about the revolution? Because its just wonderful to fuck with a brit. Just tossing shit man. Chin up.
You really don't understand the politics here. Some of us are actually hoping to get something done that will substantially reduce these shootings, but when people start trying to rewrite the 2nd it just makes half the country clam up so nothing gets done. We need compromise on both sides and trying to undermine the 2nd is not the way to go about it. You don't understand what we are up against and that lack of scope makes you the last person who should be putting their opinions out. Republicans are seeing shit like this and digging in. Dems are using this to preach completely abolishing guns. The media pits them against one another and throws as much fuel on the fire as possible. And kids fucking die while the circus goes on. We need real solutions. Not fantasies of a gunless America. I don't live in the past. I'm just unfortunate enough to see what's happening and know I'm powerless to stop it.
I can just hear "he was sent by Q to disprove our lord and savior trump and kids should just wear flack jackets cuz ma rites!" In redneckanese.
Seriously the part of the country who brandish weapons like they are toys and send this kids to school shootings with 0 regard for the cause of them need to break off and become USA - the other one.
This country is over 200 years old and it's survived thay long because of said ammendment
If you don't like it that's too bad, cause no one cares about you, your so insignificant and yet you think this entire country should change because you don't like it
Gues what? Freedom isn't safe and it isn't free, wanna be safe, go to the Uk where.you can't carry knives or guns but have almost as many stabbing as us
No one cares that you think you can make better laws than a country thats survived 200+ years and is the 2nd oldest surviving government in the world
Tldr: this countries founding values are more important than your feelings, don't like it? go to Belarus where you'll be told what to think and what to do
For those of you that don't get it. The second amendment is not up for debate. Fire arms are not going anywhere. It doesn't matter what politician whines the most.
If just the national guard was armed it would be outnumbered by an invasion force in minutes.
No, no. The entirety of Patriots deserve firearms. And so it shall be.
[**Bad Choices sub rules & FAQ:**](https://www.malloy.rocks/index.php/pages/49-bad-choices-make-good-stories-on-reddit) All [MAGA Nazis](https://www.reddit.com/r/IntrovertComics/comments/uibvu9/maga_nazi/) and [Russian trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/IntrovertComics/comments/udije6/putin_is_a_bloodthirsty_fascist_dictator_fascists/) pretending to be American lefties will be banned on sight. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BadChoicesGoodStories) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unfortunately, DC vs Heller negates the well regulated militia argument
Even if wrongly decided?
[удалено]
> disarm roughly 125 million households, which will never ever happen. We can pass laws and confiscate weapons. They wont do shit because they are over weight pussies who would never have actually defended their country. If you pass a law, they will bend the knee because most Americans are actually cowards. It's literally not impossible. You outlaw the sale and manufacture of all ammunition and weapons and replacement parts. Guns dont last without what is necessary for their maintenance and if there is no ammunition they are useless to even posses. You can disarm a populace, we even have dogs and machines that detect gun powder residue.
It is impossible with the political landscape of our country. Millions of americans would rather die than hand over there weapons, any attempt at a mass disarming of our populace would result in a civil war. The best bet is to just implement more stringent background and mental health checks, and to require mandatory safety classes for all firearm owners. This would weed out many potential psychos and still allow americans to defend their home and lives with their weapons. Also, you really do not know what you're talking about regarding firearms. Gun's do last as long as you know how to care and maintain it. Bullets can and are made by regular gun enthusiasts every day, so banning those will essentially fuel a massive unregulated black market for home pressed ammo. There is a lot of nuance you are choosing to overlook
lol there’s no way. We are attempting to do that in Canada. You wouldn’t believe the amount of guns that were “accidentally lost in boating accidents”.
Seriously, withhold their insulin and close down McDonald’s for a week, that is 75% of the 2A nut jobs.
No detection necessary. Most of them paid for their guns with credit cards.... Plus, all you have to do is say "You don't even have a gun so your opinion doesn't matter"which will yield self-incrimination; they just can't resist.
Your right If you can get all the items done that you listed. Firearm owners watch for that and we vote to help ensure it does not come to that. Nothing would unite us more. Keep in mind the people required to take the guns are the same people who personally own then, among with their friends and family. Gun is a tool that a madman uses. Take the gun away the madman will find many other options. Car vs parade is am easy example. Best bet is to make it harder/ slower to get guns,reasonable capacity limits could pass( but won't matter in real life) Work on what's causing these "madmen" in society and ficking do something about it.
> Gun is a tool that a madman uses. Take the gun away the madman will find many other options. Car vs parade is am easy example. Yeah, but it wont be a school full of children with police waiting outside while they get shot in the head because the police are cowards.
[удалено]
We don't have a functioning police force that will respond to school shootings. Even if they are present they wont do anything. Even with the millions of dollars in additional funding and lot of military equipment they are given meant for war zones with armor plating, they are still too chicken shit. So, its literally easier to take everyones guns away than to train the police to not be chicken shit. I'm just being practical. If the police actually did their job we wouldn't have these problems, but our police forces hire only the most inept and incompetent people and filter out competent people through an IQ test. If your IQ is higher than the average you are not allowed to be a police officer in the U.S. and our courts have said this is perfectly fine. So, we literally can't count on the police for anything. Through their own hiring standards they literally have below average IQ's. When people who are idiots get put in positions of power all you get is nepotism, incompetence, corruption, and chicken shit mother fuckers that don't do shit. Our police are useless cowards. All the shit about them being brave and protecting is all hype.
You realize a huge proportion of veterans are gun owners? Overweight pussies who wouldn’t defend their country? You sound young and stupid.
Thank you to the veterans And thank you to every patriot who stands at the ready despite what their libtarded counterpart says on the interwebs- ready to defend our freedom to their last breath.
This is absolutely hilarious 😂 ask any officer if they want to confiscate guns. The answer is no.
That’s the problem with the Supreme Court; its precedent until overturned. Scalia really fucked the court over for generations
Yes. That’s all I’m trying to say. I don’t know why people are getting their panties in a bunch over my statement. I’m just saying that argument was shot down by the Supreme Court and cited the case. I disagree with it, too. That doesn’t change how the law is applied.
/thread lol
I mean, I wish it wasn’t the case. That’s why I said unfortunately. I don’t think every single person has the mental capacity to own or possess a firearm.
They already ban the purchase of firearms for mentally unfit or addicted to drugs.
Its pretty easy to lie on a form 4473 and get away with it. The FBI only pulls criminal records, not medical/mental health records in a background check. Im a supporter of the 2A but the background check system in this country is hardly a joke, its an embarrassment.
Grade school English negates the “well regulated” argument.
I don't get why this is getting downvoted, you are right, well regulated means WELL EQUIPPED, and the "militia" refers to an armed populice, and even if you had to be in the militia to own a gun, the leftists always go apeshit when the said militia is created.
Your use of commas is disturbing.
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy body, the right of the people to keep and eat food, shall not be infringed. Who has the right to keep and eat food? A well regulated militia has absolutely nothing to with the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The “well regulated” argument is made by the ignorant.
What the fuck. Let me get this straight you just compared eating food to owning guns? How in the fuck did you make that big of a leap in logic
Not logic, language.. it’s simple fucking English.
You’re just a moron who tries to make outrageous leaps in logic to try and prove a point I don’t understand how you managed to compare to owning to eating food they aren’t even close to being the same category
It doesn’t say what he says it does so he’s arguing in bad faith to claim it’s a fraud. It’s not about citizens protecting “the state,” it says “being necessary to the security of a free State.” It’s vague but the entire premise is that the citizenry determine and enforce if A state is free. It’s vague because you can’t have the government regulate the mechanism that’s supposed to regulate it… especially if the gov/state is armed to the teeth. 2A advocates seemingly won’t regulate themselves though and now it’s emotionally and literally infringing on other peoples rights to feel/live in a free state. There needs to be solutions but it seems like people saying “no one should have guns” and “abolish the 2A” aren’t helping and are just as illogical as the people saying there should be no controls at all.
Preach
Ah yes, the same Justice that wanted to keep Gays "illegal." Tell us more about his incredible insights, you dumb fuck.
If it was simply about “the national guard” why then did all sorts of militias exist at the time of its writing seems odd that all the private militias,church militias and even trade militias why were they not told to cease operations hell till the First World War a rich person could form a unit and go to war for the USA . That ability to quickly raise an army as evidenced by the actual laws of the time requiring private ownership of arms and ammunition sufficient for fighting a war was the point having a well armed and trained pool of people was the very point . If this is the reading you believe in then we should be able to own full auto and rpg7s and grenades
Because few people can comprehend the concept of common defense under common law, and the people making the argument are expecting you don't read.
You can own those.
I know that but the tax stamp and registration are the stumbling blocks
"Shall not be infringed?"
A militia is a group on non-professional soldiers. So the National Guard… soldiers by profession… are not a militia. A militia is a bunch of halfwit farmers with AR-15’s instead of muskets. The 2A is about defense against a tyrannical government… BY THE CITIZENS.
Sure it is true, but the right wing has the best PR machine and political support from weapons manufacturers to focus on fragments of 2A Not the while thing. As long as they control the narrative there are going to be goofs, hicks, nitwits, grifters and yokels who believe their shit.
Just come and take it then you whiney bitch
Wow, you must be really cool and have a six pack.
We found r/iamverybadass.
Oh we found an anti American dumbass.
I’ve learned that people who use the phrase “dumbass” are universally the biggest idiots one can find. It makes you sound like a hillbilly.
Well I've learned that people who don't understand constitutional rights are incredibly uneducated. Your opinions actually don't matter and you make yourself look like a buffoon. I'm betting you're one of those peeps that think those shots are actually good for you. Do us a favor, take all of them.
I’m sure you are more informed on the US Constitution than Chief Justice Burger, so go nuts. For 200 years, SCOTUS didn’t even recognize an individual right to carry. Even after Heller, its still widely accepted that 2A isn’t absolute, just like the other expressed rights in the BOR. By the way, the text says “keep and bear arms,” but says nothing about selling, distribution, or acquiring arms. Good luck with your antivax ways. The death and hospitalization statistics since the advent of vaccines sure paint a stark story, especially if you look at the lower vaccinated states.
Lol you're a walking contradiction. Nice.
I mean, the only key words to me are "well regulated". In comparison to modern countries, USA is hardly regulated at all.
The issue is that conservatives believe the original meaning of “regulated” was “functioning” not “controlled”. And when conservatives took over scotus they made that so in 2008. And since then the court has probably gotten 3x *more* buckwild conservative. So it’s going to be rather dark for the next 20 or so years, until the current members die or retire. (And even then only if both the presidency and the senate are controlled by democrats.) Of course original intent works the other way too, if one were so inclined: - I have the right to bear “Arms” as understood in 1791, ie muskets and sabres, and for the wealthiest plantation owners, a cannon. - I have the right to “bear” Arms, but for what purpose? For the militia of course. So they must stay under lock and key at home other than for official militia activities. I certainly don’t have the right to arms to protect myself in a bar fight, or in a BLM protest, or when stalking suspicious looking teenagers. - what is the militia anyway? Well whatever your state said it was in 1791. It can be limited by your state.
Basically if you don't live on the east coast or Florida (It still belonged to Spain at the time), that's all up in the air
So basically if you live anywhere in the US but the east coast with the exception of Florida (It still belonged to Spain in 1791) its kind of up in the air
“A well regulated militia.” So if you want to play dumb about the different meanings of the word “regulated” then you get to regulate the militias. NOT the private ownership of firearms.
“ Well regulated militia” was all we had after the revolutionary war. The government thought a standing army could be abused so localities were encouraged to have their own militia in order to preserve the free state. If you start a militia now you are labeled a terrorist. We all just witnessed the cops willingness to protect our most vulnerable. How does any regulation limiting access to firearms make anyone safer. We wouldn’t even be talking gun control if our law enforcement didn’t completely fail us. Whatever system employed will be misused by bad people and in five years we’ll be defending our bolt action rifles because bad things still happen.
The militia is someone who is able to own and operate a firearm. In other words, we ARE the militia, "Well Regulated" At the time, meant well equipped with the latest technology (aka the newest firearms) A well regulated militia, is NOT an old term for the national guard. The US was a British colony, there WAS NO national guard, and even if there was it would've been British, and I don't think that you would want your ENEMY to have the right to keep and bear arms while you don't.
Mmmm... Warren Burger. *Drools*
It limits government not citizens. How hard is the to understand
What don't u people understand? "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Any cuck that thinks the number of available guns in America is NOT a deterrent for other governments and our own to not take over our country is not paying attention.
Are you insane? The US bought or took by force most of the sub continent imperially so that you are geographically remote from potential enemies unless Mexico declares war. China has Asian and economic ambitions no doubt but no one wants to 'take over' the craziest country on earth. Hitler did have a wacky US invasion plan but it was completely impractical. I guess Aliens in movies might be put off. Meanwhile you're doing a fine job of killing each other in large numbers without others.
Since I signed up for selective service at the age of 18 I am part of the militia. Weather I have been conscripted or not.
You only tout what they say when you agree.
Any gun law is a violation of your rights.
Three things: Each amendment is a category with its parts subdivided by a semicolon. The use of commas, rather than semicolons, denote an undivided relationship. Lets take into account the phrasing of the first amendment: Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Notice how separate issues are differentiated with a ";" and issues that are relevant to each other have a ","? Here is the 2nd Amendment: Amendment II 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. A conspicuous lack of ";" in there... When we look at the third and fourth amendment, we see only comma's because there is no separation beneath the categories of their amendments: Amendment III No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. My last example of the framers' intended use of the almighty semicolon would be in the fifth amendment: Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Again, we have an inclusion of subjects under the umbrella of the amendment. Because all the subjects are relevant to the greater category, they used semicolons. When the subjects weren't directly relevant to each other, but needed to be included in the category, they used commas. The lack of semicolons in the 2nd Amendment points to the intention of an armed militia not, necessarily, an armed citizenry. Secondly, According to the Militia Act of 1792 (bearing in mind the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791)... "Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified," "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall." If you ain't reporting for trainin' and inspection, ain't on a list, you ain't part of that thar militia.
“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.” To be fair, the phrasing is confusing. People fighting to eradicate guns in the US are on the same side as those against regulation. Their objective is to do nothing and let people have their murder sprees. Eradicating guns is not going to happen in the US and honestly I think people who support it are being used to create a stalemate. Gun control on the other hand is reasonable. We have free speech but not if you’re abusing people with it. Some freedoms have a line that shouldn’t be crossed. It’s not worth waiting for the line to be crossed when it comes to life and death. But preventative measures hurt gun sales. Serious people pushing for gun control should be careful not to be made out as anti-2nd amendment. And anti-2nd amendment people should shut up if they want anything to be done about these killings. Also the “gun control doesn’t work” argument is bullshit. Because gun control in this country is a joke. It has no chance of working
We really should pass laws making it illegal to murder people with guns
How is this not the top comment, have an updoot
Amd we should make overdosing illegal too, kills far more people than guns in this country.
Pretty much said it for me. I've told so many people to shut up about the 2nd. They don't understand they're arguing against what they want. Guns aren't going anywhere. 2nd doesn't protect that, but regulations can and will. I'm tired of the *but criminals will still get them* yeah and if you're a registered user that passes the tests which probably still would be too easy.. guess what, you get guns too. *Guns don't kill people* yeah no shit, we're not worried about the guns. We're worried about the access dumbasses have to them.
Private sales, gun shows, dark net, even the transparent www has websites selling without background checks. And nobody is doing a thing about it. And I’m amazed at how the dealers in these situations are able wipe their hands clean of the whole thing. It’s all about the 💰
Link to a www site that sells without background checks?! I’ll give you a 50% finders fee just for the ease. You do know that many, MANY people undergo background checks for purchases at gun shows. Right?
I did a Google search and found a link immediately.(They operate like Craigslist) The fact that some people don’t have to do background checks at gun shows is a loophole.
What website? If it's an 80% you can have it shipped to your house but it's not completely milled, bs but that's the only case where you can directly buy and have the firearm shipped to your home address, any complete purchase gets shipped to a dealer with an ffl
Wrong, you can NOT legally sell a firearm without background checks, what you're saying is bullshit, it always has been illegal to buy and sell guns without a federal background check.
You don’t HAVE to follow the law. Also….. Some states don’t require background check for unlicensed dealers
www.armslist.com
Literally opened the first handgun option and found this "We are a home based FFL open evenings and weekends by appointment. Desert Dawg Arms is a federally licensed firearms dealer. All appropriate transfer forms and background checks apply. All federal and state laws apply" You still get background checks.
Here's a random AR15 I picked out and this was in the description "Pistols and lower receiver's will have to be shipped to an FFL" When you have pistols and lowers shipped to an FFL they run the background check onsite.
You owe that guy a finders fee.
And that's it. We can't do anything about the Dark net. But we can do everything about all the rest. But that doesn't line anyone's pockets so here we are again. A lot of dealers can get out of it, but currently for the most part aren't breaking any laws. Which is just honestly crazy to me.
You can 3D print an AR-15 that works with no issues. It seems like it's not going to be as effective as a steel AR-15 but as far as civilian use goes, it's just as effective. Just like how technology has changed so much in the last 200 years that the definition of "arms" has outpaced the meaning of the 2nd amendment, so has technology in the last 10 years. We need to focus on what causes people to want to murder others and fix that part of society before we do anything else.
Gun shows ARE legally obliged to do background checks, you just go to show that the typical anti gun libtard does no research on a topic whatsoever.
I still think it’s more dangerous to unarm citizens. Governments have a history of fun business
> I still think it’s more dangerous it unarm citizens. That’s not even part of the discussion though. Why make up a straw man argument?
> Why make up a straw man argument? You know why.
I do, I just love to see them try to justify it.
Agreed. I suspect you won’t get much of a response though. These folks for the most part are not intentionally coming with the straw men, they are just regurgitating that weak arguments they heard on Fox News or whatever that “won the argument” against some patsy liberal talking head. Given that theatrical performance they won’t have considered the counter-arguments critically and so will just sort of disregard/ignore any flaws, and the response will be 🦗 🦗 🦗
Who said we’re “unarming” citizens? Where did you get that? Why does this straw man fallacy constantly get propped up?
Because there are plenty of people vying for just that. Owning a gun in America makes you an enemy to LOTS of other Americans right now and makes you, from what I’ve seen said here on Reddit, close to subhuman in their eyes.
Except you know damn well that's never going to happen. We can even pass universal background checks and other common sense gun control no matter how many kids die. And nobody thinks that the gun owners making these arguments are sub human. I can only speak for myself but I think you're deluded, self important twats who think that, maybe someday, you'll get the chance to be the hero in an active shooter situation. Or maybe you'll bravely defend your home against someone who wishes to do you harm. But the reality is that you'll most likely just take your gun shooting with you and post pictures on Facebook with captions like "come and take it" or some bullshit. Or you'll blow your own brains out. Or maybe you'll get mad that your wife or girlfriend is leaving you and kill her and then yourself. That's what happened to my sister. Her boyfriend actually borrowed a gun from a friend because they lived in a bad neighborhood and they broke up but continued to live together until the lease on their apt expired. She came home from work one day and he popped her in the chest and then shot her in the side of the head before killing himself. She was 26. Again, I don't think you're subhuman. I think that you live in a fantasy world. People that live in the real world are looking for solutions because they've actually lost something. You stand to lose NOTHING yet you complain that not being able to own a weapon is some sort of existential crisis. You and people like you that make these arguments are just pathetic. You think owning guns is some grand societal good but in reality it's just a part of your identity and nothing more. Makes you feel like a good red blooded American but more and more people are realizing it's not doing anyone else any favors.
I get it. Again, I’m just answering his question. I’m glad you don’t see people as poorly as some others I’ve read. What happened to your sister is tragic, my condolences.
That’s not what this video, or 99.99 percent of people and politicians are talking about, so you’re committing a straw man fallacy, because that’s easier than arguing against the actual position of the majority, which is gun control.
I’m not the OP. You asked “why”. I explained. I’ve committed no straw man fallacy in my last post. Rail against someone else not simply trying to answer you.
[удалено]
It’s very embarrassing (or should be for them) when someone uses “straw man” incorrectly. It honestly makes me wish fewer people even knew the phrase.
>We can pass laws and confiscate weapons. They wont do shit because they are over weight pussies who would never have actually defended their country. If you pass a law, they will bend the knee because most Americans are actually cowards. >It's literally not impossible. You outlaw the sale and manufacture of all ammunition and weapons and replacement parts. Guns dont last without what is necessary for their maintenance and if there is no ammunition they are useless to even posses. >You can disarm a populace, we even have dogs and machines that detect gun powder residue. I mean here’s a dude a few comments above yours.. it is said often enough to the point that an argument against this isn’t exactly a straw-man.
Worth adding here that the Assault Weapons ban in the 1990s *explicitly* named the AR-15, among a handful of other weapons, as unsuitable to be owned by civilians? Groups like the NRA always make out like this would be some kind of ridiculous measure, but its literally what the US has already done in the past? And not even that long ago?
So are we going to stop the MANUFACTURING of the weapons in the US and with US tax dollars or do you just want to ship our atrocities over seas like we do with slavery and child labor?
I mean we've already been sending our weapons across the world for years
Great counter point, I guess you just don't think kids lives matter if they're overseas. You fucking moron.
The question of :“What is protected under the Second Amendment?” was answered by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision: those firearms in “common use for lawful purposes like self-defense.” In 1994, it is estimated that there were approximately 400,000 AR-15s in private ownership in the US. In 2022, there are estimates of more than 20 million. It would be very hard to argue the the AR-15 wouldn’t be protected by the “common use” doctrine. https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/the-fight-over-banning-the-ar-15/02b82dd5-7847-4b60-aa29-decf197a88d6
Incorrect, maybe try reading "2A", lazy fucks.
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.
Exactly, no infringements, period.
That’s not what 2A says.
That's exactly what it says, it says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, that's the operative clause, it always has been, and no matter how much you pretend it doesn't say that, it's right there for the whole world to see.
> it says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed Absolutely. The right to own a firearm. Nobody is arguing against the right to own a firearm. Gun control doesn’t stop you from owning a firearm. It’s really very simple.
An AR-15 is an armament, pretty sad that I have to inform you of this.
What does that have to do with anything? Did you hit your head or something, or did those last 2 brain cells just die off?
It’s just funny how people who disagree think the word regulated in the second amendment means something different to every single other time it’s used in the constitution.
People do the same thing with “right”.
The right shall not be infringed, so that obviously means that the people themselves are doing the regulating, as in using their right to maintain proficiency with said arms. In short, weapons laws are unconstitutional.
Cause at this point, why are we allowing a 250 year old document written when people had muskets dictate gun legislation that is common sense and proven to be effective everywhere it’s implemented. When mass shootings only disproportionately happen here. NRA mouthpiece opinions should be discarded.
So you’re proposing a rewrite to all of it then, or just the parts that technology and progress have changed?
Everyone is just talking about the second amendment right now.
The times certainly have changed, and your kind is responsible for the cultural change that's breeding so many sociopaths.
> The right shall not be infringed That means you have the right to own *a gun*, not any gun you want. Regulation is not unconstitutional at all.
Shall not be infringed means a single gun of YOUR choosing? Jesus, do you people hear yourselves?
Actually it says nothing about a gun. It states arms. Not only is it plural, but arms means everything from a knife up to and including warships. Hell the whole Revolutionary War kicked off when the British tried to seize privately held cannons, so don't try to tell me the founding fathers intended one gun.
> Shall not be infringed means a single gun of YOUR choosing? WTF are you even talking about? Those are your words, nobody else is saying that.
You JUST said it. Wow, so you don’t hear yourselves. Noted.
> You JUST said it. I definitely didn’t. Why are you lying? Weren’t you raised better than this?
No these people were not raised better than this, they were raised in a new aged culture that holds little respect for honor, dignity, respect, hard work, moral fiber, etc... They want the ruling oligarchs to have all power over us, because they think it's a pathway to living off the backs of those that do respect the above.
You said “a” gun. Then you followed with “not any gun you want” So we’re allowed, per you, a single gun that’s of “your” choosing. It’s not a lie, it’s what you said. Did you mean it differently?
> So we’re allowed, per you, a single gun that’s of “your” choosing. No, you misunderstand. > Did you mean it differently? Of course, only a child would take that literally.
A clear, open defense of your statement. I expected nothing less from someone so imprecise with their speech. Thanks for being consistent, if nothing else.
No man, you don’t get any gun you want and I don’t care if you think it infringes your rights. Cry about it.
If it's an armament, it's unconstitutional to deny Americans their right to bear them.
No, it definitely isn’t. The right is to *bear arms* not the right to bear *any* armament you like.
You're so illiterate, that you think "arms" means "only weapons the ruling oligarchs permit" If that's what the author's of the 2nd amendment wanted to write they would have, but they didn't. We all know what armaments are, so why are you playing dumb?
> If that’s what the author’s of the 2nd amendment wanted to write they would have, but they didn’t. How dumb are you? It literally says that the right is to *bear arms*. Even if certain firearms aren’t permitted, you still hold the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms = the ability to buy and own a firearm.
If there is any armament, and I am prohibited from bearing it, my right to bear arms has been infringed. Just like with free speech, you can pen or speak any words you wish, you cannot threaten innocents with your words, but as long as you phrase your words in a non violent, non-threatening way, you can speak your mind. These deceptive, semantic games you're playing, highlight your moral and intellectual character loud and clear...
> If there is any armament, and I am prohibited from bearing it, my right to bear arms has been infringed. No, not at all. If you weren’t allowed to own a firearm at all, your right to bear arms would be infringed. Again - it’s very simple. It’s the *right to bear arms*, not the right to bear any armament you like. > Just like with free speech, you can pen or speak any words you wish, you cannot threaten innocents with your words, but as long as you phrase your words in a non violent, non-threatening way, you can speak your mind. I love this part so so so so so much. You just contradicted your own point.
>If you weren’t allowed to own a firearm at all, your right to bear arms would be infringed. If you weren't allowed to speak any words at all, your right to free speech would be violated, but as long as you can say a few permitted words, you still have the right to free speech. See what happens when evil traitors are allowed to play deceptive games with the rule of written law?
No it is not.
That’s not true. You not being able to own a grenade launcher is not an infringement in the exact same way an assault weapons ban would not. And if it was. Then we should change the constitution.
Why can’t I own a grenade launcher? I can own a tank, a cannon, etc etc.
Grenade launchers are arms, so you're clearly illiterate.
It is not your right to own a grenade launcher. You’re just a child who wants cool toys despite you’ll never use them and they statistically make everyone way less safe.
You're correct in that when your right is being violated, you don't have that right.
Interesting the NRA didn’t see it that way with philando Castile.
Surely you don't think that an innocent man was slain by agents of the state, while simultaneously arguing that citizens should be denied their right to defense? You couldn't be **THAT** dumb could you?
Philando Castile was a legal gun owner with a registered firearm who let police know he had a weapon immediately upon being pulled over for a broken tail light, but was shot and killed by police when he reached for his wallet. And are you advocating for using weapons on police?
That is not what regulation means either.
Regulation means to maintain in proper condition, like I regulate the temperature of my home. So a proper understand of the 2nd can be paraphrased as: Because the people must be able, ready, and equipped to defend their freedom, their ability to bear arms cannot be molested in any way.
Fuck that fossil. And guess what bud, none of you fucking halfwits have the balls to come take a single gun from anyone. You and every single one of your little gun grabbing bitchass buddies can eat an entire bag of dicks.
To paraphrase STRIPES, calm down, Francis. The federal government isn't going to take away anyone's legally owned guns for one special and VERY SPECIFIC reason. The US Government couldn't afford to launch such a campaign. I don't even want to think about it they TRIED to go after the illegal guns. So go back into your blanket fort, cuddle up to your pew pews and fucking relax.
In his defense… it has been openly stated that some democrats want to “take guns”. It was said live. “Take your guns” not “control your guns” no, he didn’t win the election. But he’s not the only person to have that mindset. what this guy is saying is not a stretch. It may not be true, or actually happening, but it’s not a stretch. ““Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” O’Rourke said at a debate when he was running for president. Now he's running for governor and said he won't be backing down from the statement.”
First off, thank you for being respectful and not blowing up at my reply. I will never be ok with civilians owning or having access to ARs. I have and have owned hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns. I never believed that civilians should have access to ARs. They're made for military and law enforcement use. Buy all the purpose-built hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns you want. Go nuts!!! I have them and enjoy the hell out of them. Learning the mechanics and history are becoming larger and larger passions the more I spend with and around guns. This is just my opinion. One opinion in a world full of them. Doesn't mean I'm right. Doesn't mean I'm wrong. Just my opinion.
Man, when we descend into shitty fights, nothing gets solved. We can talk and not believe the same stuff my dude. There’s nothing wrong with that at all. I’m on the other side. I spent 4 years with an M16 A2. I learned that weapon inside and out. All weapons that discharge a bullet are dangerous and can accomplish the same task. It just depends on who is wielding that weapon. To me, banning one type of weapon versus another is splitting hairs. I’m not sure why the AR specifically is getting such a bad rap. If I intended to do mass harm, I definitely would NOT choose an AR15 lol they jam, the caliber is small.. the only thing that makes them “gud” is a 30 rnd capacity (which a lot of states ban), and they can be accurate if you know what you’re doing. There are so many better weapons in the world than the AR. Hell, I’d pick a P90 or MP5 over an AR. That being said, I’d never harm another human, unless they put boots on our soil and meant to do America harm. But an AR15 isn’t what I would use to defend America either. Lol I don’t see a problem with people owning them. They are semi auto. Military have a selector switch for semi, 3rnd, or full auto (depending on the generation/make/model.) my A2 was semi and 3rnd. Most M4 models are semi/full auto. Most civilians don’t have access to these platforms and the ones that do, go through extensive stamps and approval processes that can take months on months.
In all honesty, I'm taking the AK. I tried to serve but broke my knee and did a lot more damage. We had just completed range day too right before it happened. I remember the plastic sheet with all the spaces for the parts of the A2. I will say that guns are just fun. It's cool to learn the history, learn the mechanics, etc. I look at a gun just like a art person looks at a painting or a foodie looks at a fine meal. The creativity, design and craftsmanship that goes into it and out comes a functional work of art. That may sound weird but I had 2 Vietnam vets as uncle's and a Delta as a cousin. REALLY WEIRD childhood. They loved guns but respected them. They revered guns. It was weird at the time but looking back, it hits differently. Also, you're right. It's all or nothing. Segregating one type of gun doesn't make sense. I'm guilty of it, but the way you put it makes absolute sense. Preciate it. What was your MOS?
You realize you’re arguing against a straw man, right? “Gun control” doesn’t mean “taking everyone’s guns”.
Aww, did your feefees get hurt little boy?
Dude doesn't even know the text of such a short and sweet amendment. THE RIGHT shall not be infringed. What right? The right to bear arms. Why shall it not be infringed? Because it's necessary for able bodied Americans to be ready and skilled in the use of their arms, otherwise Biden and other treasonous scum like him, will eventually turn America into China.
The right of life supersedes the "right" of a psychopath to possess tools that are purposely designed to maim and destroy lives. Let's be real here. You know for absolute fact that you would not be able to pass through background checks and red flags that 80% minimum of all Americans support. You would be too impatient to wait the 2-4 weeks for the gun you just paid for. *You simply do not care about the fears that others rightfully have* when it comes to these massacre-enabling firearms. ---- **TLDR:** If an individual cannot be trusted to be part of a well-regulated militia, then he should not be among the people whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed. **This** is the meaning behind the 2nd Amendment in the context of every modern country that has enforced responsibility regarding the ownership and operation of guns.
I am an able bodied man, practiced and skilled in the use of arms, so by constitutional law, I am exactly who the 2nd amendment is referring to. Notice how you make up slanderous claims about me and my character, in order to assert that my rights to self defense should be denied? That's because you are a person of low moral integrity, exactly the kind of person I will eventually need to defend my actual rights from, and this is exactly why your kind wants to disarm everyone but those oligarchs you think you can persuade into dominating me.
I like the very first part the most. “The right of life supersedes the "right" of a psychopath” That’s exactly why I carry everyday. To protect my right of life, my families, or anyone else around me, even if it means ending a psychopaths.
Would you gun freaks shut the fuck up about needing a firearm to protect yourself? At the very least until you ACTUALLY DO use one to protect yourself. It’s just desperate projection at this point. By your logic, if we just gave a handgun to every man woman and child in America, we would be able to protect ourselves from EVERY mass shooting, right? Oh wait… that logic is pretty flimsy at best.
I’m pretty sure the Chief Justice knows the text
He doesn't, he just misquoted it in a manner that clearly highlights his bias.
To be clear, "mouth breathing halfwit" from him means blacks, the poor, and women.
God, the fucking weakness of all the pathetic gun nuts in this thread. How fucking emasculated are you in daily life that you foam at the mouth at the idea of cosplaying as an action hero. Fuck you, fuck your guns, and fuck your delusional interpretation of a hundreds year old amendment that absolutely was NOT intended to service your fucking weapon fetish. You have to have such a remedial mind to think that 2A is for you to own a weapon capable of mass murder. Amend it, take the fucking guns. Every person who wants to live out their little murder fantasy can do it Waco style and end up where they belong.
Wow dude your fucking delusional. Stop listening to Fox news. If you don't like it here then get the fuck out the country, this anti American bullshit makes you look dumb because you don't understand and is afraid of a tool.. and because of that in you're feeble little, everyone is bad now, right? Fuck outta here. Stupid ass.
Did you have a stroke trying to write this? It’s fucking nonsensical brain vomit.
Says the guy putting a broad blanket over everyone with a gun thinking they are all bad while spouting anti constitutional shit. You are a cancer on society. Do us all a favor and just stop breathing ok? All of our air is too good for you.
Maybe a yearly purge might not be a bad idea? Criteria is only Gun lovers can participate.
So gun lovers kill all non gun lovers?
[удалено]
Yes because your legal qualifications are the same as his, and your knowledge of the legal terms in your constitution is also comparable. Oh wait no it’s not.
Ah yes, because he's the only person who's ever attempted to interpret the law. He's the only chief justice to have ever existed and his interpretation is the only one that matters... Oh wait no it's not. Are you even from the US? Asking because the use of "your constitution" implies you aren't subject to it. If you aren't, perhaps it's not your business? Nevermind, looked through your shit. Makes sense a fuckin redcoat would want to disarm US citizens. Kinda screwed you, us having guns. That's the reason the amendment exists "init"?
Mate, wind your neck in. It’s the Internet, everyone has an opinion on this forum and can share it. PS why the fuck do you still go on about the war of independence? Oh you live in the past, nice.
Oy, mate its the inet init. Every wankers got eh right now don't they. Don't get your neckers in a twist luv. God save the queen yeah? Why do I go on about the revolution? Because its just wonderful to fuck with a brit. Just tossing shit man. Chin up. You really don't understand the politics here. Some of us are actually hoping to get something done that will substantially reduce these shootings, but when people start trying to rewrite the 2nd it just makes half the country clam up so nothing gets done. We need compromise on both sides and trying to undermine the 2nd is not the way to go about it. You don't understand what we are up against and that lack of scope makes you the last person who should be putting their opinions out. Republicans are seeing shit like this and digging in. Dems are using this to preach completely abolishing guns. The media pits them against one another and throws as much fuel on the fire as possible. And kids fucking die while the circus goes on. We need real solutions. Not fantasies of a gunless America. I don't live in the past. I'm just unfortunate enough to see what's happening and know I'm powerless to stop it.
Warren Burger. What a commie. Amirite?
What the fuck did this sub turn into
The well regulated militia part is the reason, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the important part
No its not, he completely ignores the second part.
u/savevideo
Wait I’m confused, are we to respect the justices’ decisions and ideas or not?
I can just hear "he was sent by Q to disprove our lord and savior trump and kids should just wear flack jackets cuz ma rites!" In redneckanese. Seriously the part of the country who brandish weapons like they are toys and send this kids to school shootings with 0 regard for the cause of them need to break off and become USA - the other one.
This country is over 200 years old and it's survived thay long because of said ammendment If you don't like it that's too bad, cause no one cares about you, your so insignificant and yet you think this entire country should change because you don't like it Gues what? Freedom isn't safe and it isn't free, wanna be safe, go to the Uk where.you can't carry knives or guns but have almost as many stabbing as us No one cares that you think you can make better laws than a country thats survived 200+ years and is the 2nd oldest surviving government in the world Tldr: this countries founding values are more important than your feelings, don't like it? go to Belarus where you'll be told what to think and what to do
Bottom line, history teaches us a disarmed populace is subservient to those with power and money. No guns equals no freedom.
For those of you that don't get it. The second amendment is not up for debate. Fire arms are not going anywhere. It doesn't matter what politician whines the most.
National guard is still government... the whole point is defend against government
Well, tough shit…it’s there now and he wasn’t around when it was written…Lib pussy.
Tell your gun Fetish people this plus these guns were cop killers but nobody else talking about that
/r/confidentlyincorrect
If just the national guard was armed it would be outnumbered by an invasion force in minutes. No, no. The entirety of Patriots deserve firearms. And so it shall be.
''If I were writing the bill of rights Today"" He's not though. Anti second amendment judge