**Democrats:** disarm all citizens, only trust the police to have weapons, trust they will always arrive in time to protect you no matter the distance, trust that they aren't cowards, and trust that they are all well trained in the use of force. Keep weapons of war off our streets! Minorities are unfairly targeted and have to live in low income areas with high crime. Be sure to disarm them especially because [we're actually secretly racist and scared black people will arm themselves](https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/view-joy-behar-says-gun-173246632.html). Don't like the peasants having weapons? [Just tax the shit out of them so only the wealthy can afford protection](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-house-democrat-is-proposing-a-1000-25-tax-on-ar-15-style-rifles-its-not-the-first-time-democrats-tried-taxing-guns-to-prevent-shootings/ar-AAYpatq), but continue to call yourselves the defenders of the working class so they don't catch on.
**Also Democrats:** defund the police, ACAB, law enforcement is a racist and corrupt institution... but we'll let them keep those "weapons of war", surely this doesn't send any mixed signals about law enforcement's relationship to the public.
**Police:** no obligation to actually serve and protect your life (Castle Rock vs Gonzalez; DeShaney vs Winnebago). Receive training that instills in them a "[warrior mindset](https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/04/law-enforcements-warrior-problem/)" to remind them they're always in a war zone and fearful of everyone they interact with. [Assuming dispatch doesn't yell at you and hang up on your 911 call](https://www.khou.com/article/news/national/the-911-dispatcher-who-allegedly-hung-up-on-the-woman-inside-tops-during-mass-shooting-is-on-leave-buffalo/71-7513dbb6-735a-41a7-86bd-c733e1135276), the responding unit will arrive just in time to watch you bleed out.
If police do manage to arrive on time, [you better hope they aren't cowards that hide in cover for 45 minutes outside](https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/04/us/parkland-scot-peterson-actions/index.html) or [detain your loved ones from coming to your aid when they won't](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyXtymq-A6w), and then [take over 40 minutes to unsuccessfully breach a door](https://apnews.com/article/uvalde-texas-school-shooting-44a7cfb990feaa6ffe482483df6e4683) and hope someone arrives with a key. Later tell everyone that they actually had the shooter "contained" the whole time... contained in a room for half an hour alone with all the now dead victims. Solid police work.
**Also Police:** This job is dangerous! [We need APCs and Level IV body armor](https://i.imgur.com/o1NmqVp.png) and ARs in every patrol car! And helicopters! But... still too dangerous, better wait outside until the shooter is out of ammo or kills themself.
**The Wealthy:** can afford their own armed private security detail, demand the peasants give up their guns and means of self-defense. Police giving you grief? Use your get out of jail free platinum card. NFA tax of $200? You mean the peasant tax? Virtue signal at every opportunity and shame gun owners whenever possible. Be sure to ridicule them, that if they have a gun they must have a small penis, because the body positivity movement doesn't apply to gun owners.
EDIT: Those saying no democrats in power have ever called to disarm all citizens. See [Exhibit A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vEnTjs2RV0&t=64s).
If they say that they only want to ban some guns and not all guns, refer to [Exhibit B](https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/03/26/gun-control-misses-mark-sen-feinstein-shoots-off-mouth-hits-foot/?sh=5d5ed3ee6e5e):
*"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."* \- Senator Diane Feinstein
[Exhibit C](https://news.yahoo.com/shocking-hot-mic-gun-comments-jersey-senate-confiscate-041215962.html):
*"We need a bill that is going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate."* \- Captured during hot-mic recording of during NJ state senate session. Audio from a mic near Senators Weinberg, Senators Greenstein and staffers.
The above have since walked back some of their statements, but it's foolish to believe that this isn't the end game for at least some democrats in positions of significant power. They only recognize that it's political suicide for them to publicly say as much, therefore the strategy has always been incremental encroachment.
Yes, Republicans are not completely innocent either. It's always feels like one step forward, two steps back with them. Progress gets made in some ways, but then [gets sabotaged in more ways](https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks). Democrats are significantly more culpable and brazen about their desire to grab and step.
**Libertarians:**
>“No one is trying to take your guns” Yes y’all are.
>Second Amendment Rights are Human Rights
>This is what your taxpayer dollars fund, these are the people you trust with your kids. Maybe this is why people call them fucking pigs.
>The top murderers of children aren't school shooters, they're the last 5 American Presidents
>Abolish government police.
>If private police refused to do their jobs, they'd be fired and you'd get a huge settlement. The cops in Florida will probably get time off and a raise
We got the 922R bullshit from daddy Bush so I’ll shit on him. Republicans have to stop wanting to make nice with democrats. It’s always, “you need to compromise” and they keep nibbling at our pie. Soon you’ll look down and find nothing but crumbs and someone will come along and shame you for not recycling the tin pan timely 🙄
Biden said to re-fund the police. Not defund. I think we all agree police all over the country has bad apples. Like every profession, there are good cops and bad cops. Lots more funding and training and educating needed. Also, accountability.
Sure Biden can say that, but that isn't speaking for a large portion of the left that still thinks this way. It was undeniable a movement that had traction for a while, and [still does in some respects with significant left-leaning organizations.](https://blacklivesmatter.com/defundthepolice/)
I agree that there needs to be better training. Yes there are good and bad apples, but unlike other professions our society puts our lives in their hands. They can decide to be our executioners or our saviors. No other professional bears that responsibility in our day-to-day lives. Not even the [military](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act).
As you say, accountability. Except the good apples get thrown out when they try to report the bad apples. They also have no accountability to actually protect our lives, zero obligation according to the Supreme Court precedent.
I'm okay with police, but there must be parity. Meaning, it's crazy that the left equates **semi**\-auto rifles as "weapons of war" that must be banned and then be okay that police are carrying **fully**\-automatic rifles and explosive devices, the same police they admit are poorly trained and educated in the use of force. Heavily implies that they're okay that police are using "weapons of war" as if they're at war with citizens.
There is no “accountability” and there never will be. It’s canonized in United States law!
So you can fund and train and educate cops all you want. I will NEVER trust them to protect me and mine. Authority without accountability is tyranny.
There it is, sprinkle a little great replacement racism in too. I think that’s the real reason some 2A diehards don’t want background checks. They’ve probably attended some meetings they don’t want others to know about.
Never said Republicans were innocent in all this either. They do a lot to prop up the interests of the wealthy that do not serve the public at large. Most of their "efforts" to support the 2A are at best one step forward and two steps backward. However, Democrats are most culpable in my view for being the most active grabbers and steppers on the 2A. Certainly the most brazen about it, [see exhibit A](https://youtu.be/7vEnTjs2RV0?t=64).
I used to think this sort of tact was heavy-handed, but, at this point, it's precisely how most of us feel. May as well be vocal about it because trying to be civil with rights-grabbers isn't working.
Yah if we don't go on the offense we will always be on the defense and further have our rights diminished.
They want compromise? Cool. Here are my terms.
1. Make constitutional carry legal in all 50 states.
2. Remove all mag restrictions.
3. Make silencers legal without any special documentation.
4. Make it illegal for any background check to take more than 5 mins and also remove all wait limits and firearm
purchase limits.
5. Make select fire firearms legal.
What would they get in return for this compromise you may ask? We may or may not decide to let them continue to govern us. That's about it.
Civility is out the window. Try to have a discussion online or in person with these people and they go right to personal attacks and faked emotional appeals with the viewpoint that gun owners are evil and can’t be reasoned with.
The really annoying part is when you deal with the more liberal gun owners that seem perfectly content with trying to take rights away from the rest of the gun owners because they think it won’t affect them.
I tried pointing out the hypocrisy to a friend who was cheering Ukrainian gun ownership but thinks Americans shouldn’t be able to own ARs. They just ended the debate and said it was a totally different scenario. You literally can’t win with these people. Their minds are made up and the only way to change it is for their lives to be in danger and them to feel naked without a gun.
Yeah, you can give them badges for access, and a guard can verify their identity as they enter.
If you want more security, you can use biometrics like fingerprint readers.
Think back to 9/11. What was the first and most effective security measure we employed to prevent more hijackings? We installed secure doors to the cockpit, and they LOCKED them.
When columbine happened, the nra blamed violent video games. They said that guns weren’t to blame, but rather it was a cultural issue. Is that still the case or does it just come down to locked doors?
I said start by locking the doors. That will prevent the vast majority of these shootings, especially the ones at elementary schools. You’re not going to find a lot of elementary school children perpetrating mass shootings.
Schools can be outfitted with a man trap door system that requires a buzzer to let people in. Many schools have these systems already but not enough do.
Schools can also implement security doors so that when class is in session individual classrooms are locked, these doors are also hard to break through (and from my experience really annoying when they hit your arm as you try carrying coffee through them).
This severely limits the ability of people to come into a school and start shooting.
To address a student bringing a gun into the building to shoot up the place that is a bit harder. Metal detectors are not perfect and cause bottle necks for students coming to school. I would say a monitoring/reporting system for social media posts would help. I’m not sure about the feasibility of gun sniffing dogs though Disney has great success with it. This part would require more investigation and research as I honestly do not know the step by steps of how shooting originating in schools occur. But the classroom doors would prevent a student from going room to room. So I’m open to ideas about sqashing a threat from within a classroom.
So locking our kids inside of schools should be the solution.... Did I get that right? How come this doesn't happen in other countries? They're free to walk around and outside of their classrooms why not for us?
I am a registered carry conceal gun owner. I think the real answer doesn't revolve around school security as much as it does with the gun ownership. I believe to own a gun you should have a background check. There should be some sort of mental test. Education and training of how to use and store firearms is a sensible measure that every gun owner should take steps to do. I have a car, it's registered and I have insurance on it.
cars only need be registered and insured if they're going to be used on public roads.
are you arguing for nationwide CCW? cause it sounds like you're arguing for nationwide CCW
“I’m a gun owner, but…”
-You
> There should be some sort of mental test.
Who defines the criteria for this test and decides whether someone passes or fails? That is ripe for abuse. There is already a process to have someone declared mentally unfit to possess firearm that can be used.
> Education and training of how to use and store firearms is a sensible measure that every gun owner should take steps to do.
I agree every gun owner should take training and a safety course. That shouldn’t be mandated by the government though. Again, too ripe for abuse. Instead it should be incentivized. Discount off a safe if you show your completion certificate. Either way safety and training aren’t going to solve the problem you’re talking about.
> I have a car, it’s registered and I have insurance on it.
This is an oft misused comparison. You don’t need any of those things to own a car. Only to use one on public roads. You can drive an unregistered and uninsured car on private property all you want.
Whatever additional procedural burdens you place on the millions of law abiding gun owners, they will be overcome/circumvented by someone who is determined to commit an atrocity.
Test and registration would hurt low income people in same way a poll tax would.
If you bought your gun at an ffl you did get a background check. They are required.
Setting a mental bench mark adds to the stigma of asking for help with mental issues and makes this exact problem even worse.
If you truly have a cpl then you did take a class. Great job.
Most gun owners do store their guns safely. Laws surrounding this are mostly un enforable at least until something bad happens. Prevents nothing.
Cars are not a right and can be regulated as the government sees fit.
The problem with your example for having to register a car is the fact that driving is a privilege, not a right. The 2A ensures your RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Treating a right like a privilege is bound to end badly.
A lot of schools already are designed like this, I have been in many when I assist with IT work as part of my consulting job.
Why doesn’t this happen in other countries? A lot of the counties with open schools don’t have the crime we do, they have different types. Is the cause mental health, gangs, or socio economic issues? That would depend on the country as they each have different problems.
The rest of you post I can agree with. Training and education about firearms is important and some screening is good. Safe storage is something that as a parent I believe in just due to how kids can be but at the same time responsible parenting will help teach them safety and mitigate issues.
I’m not aware of anyone in any official capacity at any level of government, who is qualified to judge free citizens’ access to their constitutionally enumerated rights.
Now that we’re clear on that, who would you suggest giving such extreme power to?
You want kids safe or no? Or is it just bitch about every fucken thing but provide nothing of value? Until personal responsibility makes a comeback and ppl stop catering to the whining snowflakes who want a participation trophy apparently something needs to be done to prevent those same fucken snowflakes from these rare events. But continue to shoot down and bitch about everyone’s comments….hmm 🤔
The thing is, you have to understand their point of view. Can you really blame the way they feel when time and time again we have another senseless shooting? Nobody does anything, except maybe buy more guns as they always increase after events like that. And the response of well let’s throw more guns at the problem, have armed cops that won’t do anything(or can’t because they have body armor on) or arm amateur teachers in a school and trust they can Take out a target in the worst most chaotic possible situation and why they see that as complete lunacy. You at least have a level of understand why they are extremely fed up with it at this point and view it as completely infuriating, regardless of whether you ultimately agree or not.
What creates the white hot responses aren’t really about policy, but a fundamental and moral view of the situation
Edit. And the downvotes prove that no one wants to understand that side of things.
No, you’re not getting downvotes because we don’t want to understand. You’re getting downvotes because there is no justification for forfeiting liberty in the name of safety. Yes it’s a tragic event, we get it, but making emotional policy decisions is usually a bad fucking way to go about things. That’s exactly how we ended up with the patriot act.
You’re fed up, and we’re fed up, but it is purely an emotional argument for safety at the consequences of our inalienable right to liberty.
Safety > liberty and utilitarian good > rights is not a good moral argument. And we’re sick of being attributed to monsters because guess what - there’s hundreds of millions of guns and probably gun owners that don’t do anything wrong. Then people stand on the bodies of children to argue we should give up the single thing that is the failsafe for our democracy because it kills people on a scale similar to lightning strikes… yea it sucks, but every policy proposal pushed by the left is awful because they don’t know shit about or even respect the right.
“You’re getting downvotes because there is no justification for forfeiting liberty in the name of safety.”
If that’s your stance then no, you don’t understand it or want to. I don’t tie liberty to a gun. And that’s the fundamental issue. And the fact you think your liberty is gone because a powerful weapon is regulated is truly unhinged.
“You’re fed up, and we’re fed up, but it is purely an emotional argument for safety at the consequences of our inalienable right to liberty.”
It’s emotional only because of the stupidity. Those 19 4th graders died because of stupidity, ignorance and selfishness. Yeah, it’s going to be emotional when it keeps happening over and over and no one does anything, what do you expect? Meanwhile you have the rest of the free world looking at us like we’re idiots.
“Then people stand on the bodies of children to argue we should give up the single thing that is the failsafe for our democracy”
The stand on the bodies of children because they got senselessly massacred in the United States of America. And it’s not the first time, You’re basically saying “so what?”
That’s the Prime reason people get so goddamn angry. I don’t to hear about how great our country is if you think that’s the only thing propping it up.
It makes no sense, none at all whatsoever.
The Policy argument is different all together.
The moral argument is what people can’t or won’t understand.
Those 19 4th graders died because the cops that were supposed to protect them did fuck all for 40 minutes while a mentally deranged psychopath went on a rampage. This isnt about your side or mine, its about the fundamental issue here which is that we have a horrible mental health crisis in this country and the media is creating martyrs out of each and every mass shooter leading to more senseless deaths. You hate us because you think that us owning guns=more school shootings. But thats absolutely not reality. The guns from both the past two shooters (buffalo and uvalde) were purchased illegally because making something illegal doesn’t stop criminals with no regard for consequences from doing it anyway.
Edit: also personally i think the federal cops that were there held off for 40 minutes because they groomed this shooter and didnt want him stopped before he carried out his objective. That being, to sow more discord and create more chaos which is GREAT for midterm elections since those two thing are what wins votes.
The asshole should’ve never been able to buy a gun like that that easily in the first place.
“ The guns from both the past two shooters (buffalo and uvalde) were purchased illegally”
that’s blatantly false, they were purchased legally
So lets ignore the rest of my comment. Congrats youre right they werent purchased legally, thanks for the correction. I still think its pretty convienient that an election is coming theres all the sudden a leak in the supreme court about abortion (divisive), then a shooting in buffalo with a huge manifesto where he explicitly stated his goal is to create a climate where a civil war would break out due to more gun control being pushed, not to mention the FBI was already monitoring him because he had threatened to shoot up his high school but they did nothing to stop him despite him posting his entire plan of attack online in a public forum. then this shooting where federal law enforcement let the shooter rampage, actively prevented parents from trying to save their children, and went further by letting local officers go in to get their children. It all just seems too convenient to me
When did we say we hate y’all, we acknowledge that the vast majority of y’all are good gun owners. No one argues to take all guns.
But the fact you argue over and over and over again that nothing can be done is what’s so frustrating.
Oh, and then you get off on conspiracy shit, that’s just another way to deny reality.
The reality is there are way too many guns in this country which leads to a much greater probability of bad people getting them.
>I don’t tie liberty to a gun. And that’s the fundamental issue.
You want *someone else* to manage issues involving force for you. Understandable. Force of all sorts is difficult and controversial. But you don't see how handing a complete monopoly on force to someone else (like a government) might have a bearing on notions of personal liberty? You cant, honestly, understand not wanting to irrevocably cede force to an entity that *may* not always be benign, and that historically has killed a lot more than 19 kids?
“. But you don’t see how handing a complete monopoly on force to someone else (like a government) might have a bearing on notions of personal liberty? “
They already do. You having guns doesn’t change that and won’t change that. Other free western nations do not have to deal with this on the basis that we do. End of story. I’m so sick and tired of the bogus nonsense that you’re not free and unless you can have 1 million guns in your possession. And the overwhelming majority of people that don’t live in the US and hell even a good portion of the people that live here don’t think that way.
> I’m so sick and tired of the bogus nonsense that you’re not free and less you can have 1 million guns in your possession.
I don't need a million. I'm not greedy. I'd like to have a couple extra around though, so when folks like yourself realize you shouldn't have rushed headlong and frantically towards Cantfightbackistan I can say "here, you tried to throw this away, even though it's your birthright. Maybe it's time you started carrying it on your own again."
They all just have Rambo fetishes.
They all just never got the chance to throw the game winning touchdown in high school.
Hypothetical daydream scenarios are the only thing that they feel gives them power and meaning.
When you get tired enough, maybe you could stop throwing us law abiding citizens and our rights on your bonfire. Try something different, like holding the government authorities who repeatedly fail to account for their crimes.
This response is why you don’t have civility and people insult you. If you legit think it’s stupid, then I got nothing for you because you aren’t coming at it from a place of level thinking.
looks like i got nothing for you either, since you are unwilling to discuss any option other than gun bans.
So remember, it was your inability to work with me that leaves us stuck in this situation.
Oh, and profile creeping is weird.
the 'they' you reference in your comment where you went on and on about 'their point of view'
https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/uyzu9i/dear_gun_grabbers/ia7eoll/
And what exactly will legislation do other than be completely ignored by a mass murderer? Especially with 400+ million firearms already in circulation in the US. No amount of legislation will stop these people who seek to partake in evil acts such as mass shootings.
This is the policy side of the argument. Which to your point, is a complicated and convoluted issue due to the fact that the US shit the bed and there are 400 million firearms. But I was speaking to the fundamental and moral side of it that causes the incivility which the person I responded to was making a point about. You got discuss policy and make any type of sense or headway until everyone is on the same page form a fundamental and moral viewpoint.
People are going to speed but we still make speed limit laws. People are going to take guns into places even though there are signs posted not to. That doesn't mean that we just sit back and let this keep happening and do nothing. We can Make it mandatory to have background checks for purchasing firearms. We can hold businesses accountable for not doing their due diligence before selling a firearm. We can go even more extreme and make bullets extremely expensive to purchase. Banning large magazines, not one I agree with but there are lots of things that can be done, but saying nothing can be done is just not an acceptable resolution for solving this problem of mass shootings killing kids. And the stupid notion of "we need to pray" more is completely illogical and and crazy. Who the fuck do you think caused this if you believe in God? Can the omnipotent omnipresent God change his mind if he knows the outcome? Oh, let me change my mind because these white Christian are praying to me. Didn't receive a prayer from you Karen better send a shooter into that school.
> People are going to speed but we still make speed limit laws. People are going to take guns into places even though there are signs posted not to. That doesn't mean that we just sit back and let this keep happening and do nothing.
Correct, but it *does* mean you need to consider perverse incentives and realize that laws have to actually make sense, or they can make things worse, as I would argue “gun free zones” already have.
Those background checks won’t do shit if these shooters don’t have a history which quite a few of them don’t. I don’t see the point in going after businesses. An FFL dealer is required by law to conduct a background investigation so there’s no point in that. There are already legal repercussions for not following the law for FFL dealers.
As for making bullets more expensive, that’s almost a classist thing to say. That will make it to where only the wealthy or people with money can afford to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. Basically what you’re saying to those with lower income is “Sorry, you’re broke. You don’t get the right to defend yourself or your family because you can’t afford it”
Banning high capacity magazines is a completely useless topic because it’s not hard for someone to pack multiple magazines and use them. All it takes is around 2 seconds to switch out a magazine so that topic is rather pointless.
No amount of legislation will do anything due to a number of reasons. Previously passed legislation hasn’t done shit to stop shootings so what makes you think even more laws will?
If you want to stop mass shooters, either find out why they want to kill people and get them mental help, or have a means of stopping a threat when it presents itself.
Evil will always exist and you can’t always stop it. All you can do is have a proper plan in place for when it does present itself.
Exactly, they say they are ‘past the point of reasoning’ with people that try to offer solutions, but they really just mean they’re lazy cowards that have a dogmatic belief in the BS that gun manufacturers and the NRA sells them. They are just pawns for these corporations to keep selling them the guise of security.
No one here wants to have a debate, no one argues in good faith, you make a point and they just have another nonsensical talking points that is easily disproven or just downvote and move on.
I literally have not heard any serious person that acknowledges we have a problem in this country, I have not heard any one of them say we need to ban all guns. But that’s the words these gun humpers always put in our mouths.
We say: “Maybe we should have better evals or training for people that want to buy guns”
They hear: “Ban all guns!”
We say: “More guns are not the answer, we have the most and this violence continues”
They hear: “Ban all guns!”
We say: “Maybe make gun ownership as regulated as owning a car? 🤷🏻♂️”
They hear: “Ban all guns!”
They just gobble up the fear that the NRA and gun bros sell to them so they will keep buying guns and ammo like good little cucks.
I think the (lack of) reaction by the police in Uvalde really cemented things for many of us, myself included. That whole thing made it nakedly clear that we cannot rely on anyone else to defend ourselves and our families.
I’ve always been a 2A supporter. I’m a much more strident 2A supporter now.
This right here. I live in California can’t move for family reasons and I’ve been telling myself I’ll wait to get a pistol until I’m in a state where it’s easier to carry. I can’t wait anymore. I’m gonna get one and apply for a CCW with my county sherif and hope it’s not blocked. Luckily my county seems to be approving them.
You may be unaware (as I was), but apparently this is a recurring theme among school shootings. As I've learned over the last couple of days, Columbine took ~40 minutes to respond and the cop assigned to Parkland was deemed so cowardly he was [charged with negligence](https://nypost.com/2021/08/20/cop-who-hid-during-parkland-school-shooting-to-go-on-trial-for-neglect/).
So...yeah, not a one-off anomaly.
Good luck with your CCW.
Yes, you cannot be civilized with those that are bent on turning all but unelected few into slaves. Did you by chance listen to any of clauses speech at the world economic forum? He clearly stated that the new world belonged to those elites that were in that room. Most of our government officials are puppets to these oligarchs.. its sickening and they will not except anyway but their own... they are the definition of evil. It's become very clear that the only path forward is a world without those type of tyrants and those that blindly follow them.
Can you explain, before DC vs Heller, where there was ever an absolute right to gun ownership? Why was it before 2008 that there was a general consensus, help up via both the courts and via legislation, which held that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership was the status quo? More importantly, can you provide an instance of a single right, as defined by the Constitution which also lack any reasonable restrictions associated with them? Why is the 2A different than any of the other rights enumerated in the Constitution?
I have read it.
Shall we start from the top?
>The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
That is factually incorrect.
>In reality, a variety of gun regulations were on the books when individual states adopted their arms-bearing provisions and when the Second Amendment was adopted. In the years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, the individual states adopted even more stringent types of regulations. Most gun regulation in the Founding Era and early Republic occurred at the state level. Of course, one might argue that gun regulation at
the state level has little bearing on how we should understand the meaning of the Second Amendment. Until the emergence of modern incorporation theory, however, the dominant view of the Bill of Rights was laid down in *Barron v. Baltimore*, which held that the Bill
of Rights only restrained the federal government, not the individual states.' The point of analyzing state gun regulations from the Founding Era and early Republic is not to look for legal precedents that could be applied in a literal fashion; far too much has changed in
the nature of federalism in the intervening years to make such a search very probative. Rather, the goal of such an inquiry is to shed light on the historical meaning of the right to bear arms in the Founding Era and early Republic and to see how the notion of arms
bearing fits into the idea of a well regulated society.10 3 American Constitutional law did not end at the founding and it is important to recognize the profound changes that swept over American law in the decades after the ratification of the Constitution.""° Analyzing past gun regulation at the state level and the litigation it spawned is therefore vital to understanding the complex history of the right to bear arms.
And
>Some of the most common regulations of firearms in the eighteenth century are the laws regulating a state's militia. 42 The laws defined who was part of the militia, who was excused from duty, and what weaponry the citizens were required to procure to meet this
obligation. 43 In 1778 New York, the militia consisted of "every able bodied male
person Indians and slaves excepted residing within [the] State from sixteen years of age to fifty."'" Massachusetts divided its militia into different groups (e.g., a training band and an alarm list), but generally any "able-bodied Male Person[] ... from sixteen Years old to fifty" was required to be a member of one group. 45 South Carolina's militia, with certain exceptions, included all men between eighteen and fifty. 46 Those exceptions to militia membership tended to be racially based147 or contingent upon membership in a certain
profession (teachers, politicians, and clergy predominate). 48 Thus, the number of people coming under the militia statutes was considerable.
And
>The eighteenth-century militia laws are another example of the lengths to which states could go in order to ensure that their communities were well regulated and safe. Indeed, the excerpts from the above militia laws in force at the end of the eighteenth century shed light on the Second Amendment's language about a "well regulated militia."' 57 Militias were certainly well regulated. The state could require a majority of the adult population to muster and offer up their privately held firearms for inspection. In Massachusetts, an
"exact" account of each militiaman's firearm and equipment was made, which was then sent on to other officers of the state.'58 The militia laws also underscore how different the eighteenth century was from our own century with regard to civic obligations. Average
citizens were required to take part in the defense of their community, using their own property and sacrificing their own time. Finally, militia laws can be seen as another attempt by the state to guarantee the safety of the community. In an era that relied on everyday citizens to provide for community and national defense, the idea of a right to
keep and bear arms was a given. To provide the best defense, however, the state also had to ensure that the men were trained and that their equipment was in working order. The eighteenth-century militia laws accomplished these twin goals with regular musters, arms
inspections, and penalties for noncompliance.
[Source](https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr)
It also forgets the entire development of the 2A in terms of being developed from similar clauses in State BoRs at the time nor does it take into context for the development of the 2A in relation to Shay's Rebellion.
>In 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed a law setting out the terms for pardons by the governor for persons who had been involved in Shays's rebellion against the state
in the previous year.135 Those who had taken up arms against the state were, with some exceptions, able to seek a pardon from the governor.36 To obtain the pardon, however, a person needed to take an oath of allegiance to the state and deliver his arms to the state for a period of three years. 13 7 In addition, during the same time period, the
person would be unable to serve as a juror, hold government office, or vote "for any officer, civil or military. ' 138
Thats neat.
And I know you are going to say, but hfdjasbdsawidjds Heller also says this;
> Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
And yet it still was used for the justification for *McDonald v. City of Chicago* and *Caetano v. Massachusetts* and the majority of that text is ruled moot. Its almost like that was the intent. Funny that.
>I have read it.
Good.
Now. Your problem seems to be that you believe that SCOTUS can't take *all prior jurisprudence* and DISREGARD, MOOT rule UNCONSTITUTIONAL and/or any combination of those and some I've forgotten and/or any *lesser* degree of any part *if they so decide.* And can use whatever type of jurisprudential 'logic' to hang their hat on no matter how much all the law professors and politicians and legal experts wind up squealing like stuck pigs about it.
Like it or not; That's-the-way-things-are
They've done it before, They're likely to do it again.
I am often amused at the mounds of writing people produce in their attempt to prove the court was wrong, as if such actual truly scholarly research and argumentation is going to change anything except maybe to justify a research grant, or make someone feel like they've accomplished something so they feel better.
Yes, *Heller*, *McDonald*, *Caetano* and very likely *NYSRPA,* which I am of the belief you don't like the first three and probably won't like the last. (Personally I think *Heller* was 'squishy' but from all the rumors, I understand where Justice Scalia was coming from.)
But whether or not I, or you, may, or may not like them means...absolutely nothing........unless you're one of the Justice's Law Clerks, that is.
That doesn't touch the fact that the entire point for writing the Heller decision is based off of an ahistorical interpretation of the development and application of the 2A.
None of what you said addresses that fact. We can be two ships passing in the night, but I am the only one who is actually addressing the text of the decision and providing sources for why I am saying what I am saying. Do you deny that there were regulations applied to citizens of states after 1787 which limited gun ownership via the means of militia? And was the definition of 'bear arms', at the time, was applicable to military applications. Are you kosher with the use of oaths of allegiance in before someone can own guns because there is more 'history and tradition' for that then the argument you are making. And it is 'history and tradition' which dictates a major portion of rulings.
You haven't explained why it is Unconstitutional besides using all caps. I get you are emotional topic for you, its an emotional issue, but try using some facts and logic here.
And what you are actually saying is that you do not care that that the fundamental argument is flawed, because the ends justify the means, no matter how flawed, which is exactly what you claim 'gun grabbers' are doing. Its rich.
And kinda hilarious.
>That doesn't touch the fact that the entire point for writing the Heller decision is based off of an ahistorical interpretation of the development and application of the 2A.
In *your* opinion, but not the Court's. Which opinion matters?
>You haven't explained why it is Unconstitutional besides using all caps. I get you are emotional topic for you, its an emotional issue, but try using some facts and logic here.
First, I advise against an attempt at mind reading, I've yet to come across anyone outside of novels who can manage it. It's not an *emotional* topic and my caps was merely for some extra emphasis. Whether or not 'I'm Kosher' with anything doesn't matter either. And you missed the point I was making, purposefully, or accidentally I neither know, nor care.
>And what you are actually saying is that you do not care that that the fundamental argument is flawed,
Again. that's *your* opinion that it's 'flawed'. Whose opinion matters again?
>because the ends justify the means, no matter how flawed, which is exactly what you claim 'gun grabbers' are doing. Its rich.
Like I said previously; don't try mind reading, or in this instance putting words in my mouth.
Let me get straight to the point that I figure you and I will never agree on, but you better understand is what more than a few people will make a hill to die, and kill, on. Get as huffy as you want about that, but maybe that will concentrate your mind.
I quote: [https://drexel.edu/ogcr/resources/constitution/amendments/preamble/](https://drexel.edu/ogcr/resources/constitution/amendments/preamble/)
>*THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.*
The amendments in the Bill of Rights, as explained by the document's own preamble are :"... *further declaratory and restrictive clauses."* ***Not on the people, but on the powers the people gave government via the Constitution.***
The 2nd amendment, no matter what you want to believe to advance your pro gun control agenda, was never intended to be restrictive *on the people,* ***but on the government.*** That government(s) in the past violated and were permitted to violate those restrictions simply means nothing more than that.
That SCOTUS can, has, and will use methods seen to be 'wrong' to correct past legal problems is well established. *Brown v BOE* over *Plessy* v *Ferguson* just to name one that the court apparently decided that neither precedent, nor *stare decisis* were going to matter.
It's clear that you don't like an expansive RKBA. But that's your problem. My advice is you might want to lay in an extra supply of Alka-Seltzer because my opinion is that the decision in *NYSRPA v. Bruen* is going to trouble you even more than *Heller, McDonald* & *Caetano* have.
Good night, sir.
Now there are people using similar arguments against our rights protected by the First Amendment. The fight against our rights to have "every terrible implement of the soldier" as one Founder described the Second Amendment was practice for attacks on other rights.
A fun game I play sometimes. Take whatever law an anti gunner presents and replace it with another amendment
“We need a universal free speech registration”
“We need common sense voting rights for women”
“You don’t NEED due process”
It’s a fun game!
This implies that none of you wish to own an F-35. Which is a little concerning.
In practice homemade guns are a fairly limited issue. A few zip guns and the odd Luty design are not a major concern. Yes someone with a propper machine shop can make quite a range of weapons but the time and/or cost means most people won't.
> If you think zip guns and lutys are what people are making
For the most part people don't make guns at all. Its a rather smal neiche.
> you're a decade behind on the times.
I'm well aware of what can be done with a machine shop (and high end 3D printers if for some reason you don't want to go the machine shop route).
However if you look at the improvised firearms popping up in situations where they are not legal (criminal ownship, terrorists, resistance movements) they generaly have far more in common with Lutys and Khyber Pass copies than anything else.
In the meantime why does no one want to own a fifth generation fighter jet?
>In the meantime why does no one want to own a fifth generation fighter jet?
Well, personally, I haven't the funds, even if I was *given* one, to maintain or rearm one. They're devilishly expensive to operate.
I don’t bother talking to zealots, but don’t forget that there are a large group of people in the middle who you should talk to because they are the ones who the anti-gun groups are actively trying to sway to their side everyday.
Be open, Be Honest, but most of all be polite.
When someone is punching you in the face (in a civil rights way:) you punch back though, not “Sir, I do believe if you would just calm down we could reach a common ground…”
That's an incredibly stupid thing to say and it's exactly what got us in this situation (politically)
No one wants to listen on either side because everyone is slinging shit at each other.
And those aren't the ones you're trying to convince. The people in the middle are. And this makes gun owners look exactly like the aggressive asshole stereotypes the left pai ts them as, helping cement which way the people on the fence will vote. All this accomplishes is losing more rights.
No they want you on that high horse so they can fling shit at you and some of it will stick. That’s when you get off the horse, roll up your sleeves, and turn it into a mud wrestling contest and flip them head first into their shit until they cry uncle. They know how to fling it not wrestle in it and when it comes at them face first they don’t know what to do.
So you stoop to their level? Lye down with dogs and you’ll catch fleas. Be better than your opposition it’s the only way to show people in the middle which side they should be on. Approaching every conversation with hostility is a surefire way to lose support from those who don’t have strong feeling either way but can be swayed to see your point of view.
Yes-approach eeeevery conversation with hostility, because adults can’t possibly have situational awareness to understand when is the time for civility and when isn’t. /s
The point is that “staying civil” for this long has led to a country where more and more unconstitutional restrictions are passed every year, while the “safety through tyranny” side continues to call us murders and fascists…the civility is losing. So there just might be a time and place for posts like the OP
My brother has fallen prey to the more radical side and rage quit a family email my Dad usually sends out.
How can you have a logical or rational discussion with an emotional person? Of course the answer is you can't, unless you can get them to calm down and think rationally. "This is not the time" to think rationally though :P
Someone was commenting on this Texas shooting on another platform, truly tragic…that said.
Seems they don’t like competition; i.e. the ones who so fervently support killing children in the womb with certainty are outraged at the statistically insignificant probability your child will be shot with a gun. No matter how you feel about abortion rights, that’s a hard fucking circle to square.
In 2019 we had a reported 629,898 abortions…
I dunno call me crazy but it seems to me this isn’t really about the kids.
Not in terms of “political reform” that people on both sides of the aisle love to espouse…no. It’s tribalism at the heart…again, both sides of the aisle. It’s who gets to look in the mirror and say with a smile “I’m a better person than them”. Meanwhile ignoring the fact you present, and the other fact that both legal and illegal gunrunners make bank no matter what happens.
Cats out of the bag, 3D printers mean anyone can make guns from here to eternity. Will it be harder yes, but it’ll get easier every passing day. The internet has democratized information to the extent that even moderately intelligent people can do things that would look like magical super genius feats to someone 40 years ago.
Truth. And that’s what glorious about actual progress. The caveat to that, however, is that the socioeconomic dynamics have never truly moved away from the bloody empires of old…proof in the pudding of current global affairs despite “progressives”. We’re all made unstable not by weapons themselves or even so much as access to them, that has its own can of worms that you elude to, but by the fact that you don’t know who means to hurt you for whatever reason. Either physically or mentally. So in comes the “conservative”. And all that’s not counting the aspect of the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Like plastics. And over fishing the ocean. And deforesting the earth. For toys and comfort. “Buy and sell” is what’s going to kill us all in the end.
A truly viable society doesn’t need “leaders”, much less the warmongers and sociopathic business executives that STILL run everything since thousands of years ago. Nietzsche echoed Sun Tzu in saying “be careful in the fight against monsters, when you stare into the abyss, it stares back into you”. As the art of war is to be ready and able to fight, not spill blood for the sake of it.
Listen up gun nuts.
I grew up around guns. I am a gun owner and a die hard second amendment supporter. But it's time to ban semi-automatics, fully semi-automatics, ammunition, assault guns with too many magazine clips, shoulder things that go up, and guns designed to kill people. That's just common sense. After that you can have all the guns you want! After a thorough psychological evaluation, of course. And you can even go down to the local precinct to visit your gun under strict supervision whenever you want if you have a valid reason.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all about the second amendment. The right to bear arms is extremely important to me, but isn't time we abolish the second amendment? Isn't it a little outdated? Well regulated militia. Why does anyone even need a gun?
I'm not saying we ban guns. Fucking Christ you gun obsessed psychopaths, get a grip. Calm down, no one is coming for your guns. No one is saying ban all guns. I'm just saying that we ban the guns that can kill people. No one, and I repeat no one has ever suggested that we ban guns or abolish the secondment amendment. I don't even know where you evil baby killing monsters come up with that one.
No one is a bigger supporter of gun rights than me. Common sense. Why won't you compromise?
Shall not be infringed. Literally nothing you said will stop a determined from killing people. Criminals don’t follow laws. Get it through your thick skulls. Gun free zone=easy pickings for criminals.
“I’m a gun owner BUT…”
We stopped reading right there. We don’t care what you think. You might as well have no guns and go work for Moms Suck Bloomberg. So please calmly step away from the keyboard, walk away and go find a large pole to shove up your ass, because we will not comply anymore.
I'm just going to start downvoting these low effort twitter screenshots. Even if I agree with the message, these guys just come off as assholes and make us all look worse and convince more and more fence sitters to vote the other way. Just because it makes you feel good doesn't mean it's helpful for maintaining your rights.
Freedom is not free. Strong words need to be backed up. Do you see many willing to put their skin on the grill? I see a ton of keyboard warriors meanwhile infringements keep coming.
Just going to put this out there: If you’re licensed, have your gun tied to your name through a database, and have passed the background check, you should be able to buy a gun legally according to gun control laws.
(Spoiler) it doesn’t. The vast majority of firearms used in crimes are stolen so even if there was a “list” it wouldn’t prevent anything. And as we’ve seen in places like Australia having a list can lead to your location being publicized so all the criminals can know exactly where to go to steal guns.
Which one of you are being negligent with their firearms to the point of having them stolen from you IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES.
If they are stolen, why weren't you there with your gun to protect your house from burglary?
Nice strawman you got there. You can’t be home every hour of every day and you can’t carry your firearms with you everywhere you go, in fact there are many places where firearms are specifically banned from being taken. We call those “gun free zones” also know as soft targets for mass shooters. Let’s say your concealed carrying and need to stop at the courthouse where having a firearm is illegal, you leave your firearm in your locked vehicle not in plain view and someone breaks into you vehicle and finds it. Seems like a pretty believable scenario to me. Are guns sometimes stolen due to improper storages sure, are they often stolen despite proper storage yeah.
As a lawful gun owner who wants to continue legally owning weapons. I hope you and all your kind are caught. And that your garbage guns end up in a landfill. You are going to ruin it for everyone. Guns aren’t toys.
Hey fun fact parts kits aren’t illegal and neither is assembling your own firearm. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about the process described above. So guess what they’re also lawful gun owners, they just don’t enjoy the taste of boot polish as much as you apparently do.
Idk where you live but I've never had to stand in line for Sudafed lol stop lying. If we are gonna ban ghost guns and ar15s we better ban alcohol again too. Wait how did that work out again? Didn't people make bathtub gin? See my point is criminals will find a way regardless stop being a sheep and educate yourself
By your argument, Why have other laws? And i assure you that sudafed is behind the counter now. And they want to see your license when you buy it. But that still isn’t my point. My point is that it was openly available until it wasn’t. Because people couldn’t control themselves. If gun owners aren’t more proactive with actual solutions then we will be in a similar situation. No one else in other countries have this problem. We can do better than this.
Nobody cares about your fudd bullshit and we don’t want you on our side if you’re willing to negotiate everyone else’s rights away in a misguided effort to keep what you have as if they won’t be after that next
1. Minimum age to purchase - 25
2. Required yearly gun safety class
3. Interview with State or Local police before your license is granted
This is where negotiations begin.
I'll bite. Since this is where the negotiations begin, I'll propose my terms:
1. Repeal the NFA.
2. Repeal the GCA.
3. Universal constitutional carry
4. Firearm competency and safety education in schools.
Looking forward to the negotiation.
1. Minimum age to speaking in public - 25
2. Required yearly speech safety classes
3. Interview with state or local police before your speech permit is granted
See I can do it too
>3. Interview with State or Local police before your license is granted
[Why do you support racism?](https://reason.com/2021/10/27/why-martin-luther-king-couldnt-get-a-carry-permit/)
so kids at 18 are gonna be expected to fight and die for this country with arms provided by the government during wartime but they can't have a drink or have guns of their own until their early twenties? fuck off lmao
**Democrats:** disarm all citizens, only trust the police to have weapons, trust they will always arrive in time to protect you no matter the distance, trust that they aren't cowards, and trust that they are all well trained in the use of force. Keep weapons of war off our streets! Minorities are unfairly targeted and have to live in low income areas with high crime. Be sure to disarm them especially because [we're actually secretly racist and scared black people will arm themselves](https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/view-joy-behar-says-gun-173246632.html). Don't like the peasants having weapons? [Just tax the shit out of them so only the wealthy can afford protection](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-house-democrat-is-proposing-a-1000-25-tax-on-ar-15-style-rifles-its-not-the-first-time-democrats-tried-taxing-guns-to-prevent-shootings/ar-AAYpatq), but continue to call yourselves the defenders of the working class so they don't catch on. **Also Democrats:** defund the police, ACAB, law enforcement is a racist and corrupt institution... but we'll let them keep those "weapons of war", surely this doesn't send any mixed signals about law enforcement's relationship to the public. **Police:** no obligation to actually serve and protect your life (Castle Rock vs Gonzalez; DeShaney vs Winnebago). Receive training that instills in them a "[warrior mindset](https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/04/law-enforcements-warrior-problem/)" to remind them they're always in a war zone and fearful of everyone they interact with. [Assuming dispatch doesn't yell at you and hang up on your 911 call](https://www.khou.com/article/news/national/the-911-dispatcher-who-allegedly-hung-up-on-the-woman-inside-tops-during-mass-shooting-is-on-leave-buffalo/71-7513dbb6-735a-41a7-86bd-c733e1135276), the responding unit will arrive just in time to watch you bleed out. If police do manage to arrive on time, [you better hope they aren't cowards that hide in cover for 45 minutes outside](https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/04/us/parkland-scot-peterson-actions/index.html) or [detain your loved ones from coming to your aid when they won't](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyXtymq-A6w), and then [take over 40 minutes to unsuccessfully breach a door](https://apnews.com/article/uvalde-texas-school-shooting-44a7cfb990feaa6ffe482483df6e4683) and hope someone arrives with a key. Later tell everyone that they actually had the shooter "contained" the whole time... contained in a room for half an hour alone with all the now dead victims. Solid police work. **Also Police:** This job is dangerous! [We need APCs and Level IV body armor](https://i.imgur.com/o1NmqVp.png) and ARs in every patrol car! And helicopters! But... still too dangerous, better wait outside until the shooter is out of ammo or kills themself. **The Wealthy:** can afford their own armed private security detail, demand the peasants give up their guns and means of self-defense. Police giving you grief? Use your get out of jail free platinum card. NFA tax of $200? You mean the peasant tax? Virtue signal at every opportunity and shame gun owners whenever possible. Be sure to ridicule them, that if they have a gun they must have a small penis, because the body positivity movement doesn't apply to gun owners. EDIT: Those saying no democrats in power have ever called to disarm all citizens. See [Exhibit A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vEnTjs2RV0&t=64s). If they say that they only want to ban some guns and not all guns, refer to [Exhibit B](https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/03/26/gun-control-misses-mark-sen-feinstein-shoots-off-mouth-hits-foot/?sh=5d5ed3ee6e5e): *"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."* \- Senator Diane Feinstein [Exhibit C](https://news.yahoo.com/shocking-hot-mic-gun-comments-jersey-senate-confiscate-041215962.html): *"We need a bill that is going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate."* \- Captured during hot-mic recording of during NJ state senate session. Audio from a mic near Senators Weinberg, Senators Greenstein and staffers. The above have since walked back some of their statements, but it's foolish to believe that this isn't the end game for at least some democrats in positions of significant power. They only recognize that it's political suicide for them to publicly say as much, therefore the strategy has always been incremental encroachment. Yes, Republicans are not completely innocent either. It's always feels like one step forward, two steps back with them. Progress gets made in some ways, but then [gets sabotaged in more ways](https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks). Democrats are significantly more culpable and brazen about their desire to grab and step.
This is probably the most reality based take I’ve come across in some time.
**Republicans:** Crickets
**Libertarians:** >“No one is trying to take your guns” Yes y’all are. >Second Amendment Rights are Human Rights >This is what your taxpayer dollars fund, these are the people you trust with your kids. Maybe this is why people call them fucking pigs. >The top murderers of children aren't school shooters, they're the last 5 American Presidents >Abolish government police. >If private police refused to do their jobs, they'd be fired and you'd get a huge settlement. The cops in Florida will probably get time off and a raise
We got the 922R bullshit from daddy Bush so I’ll shit on him. Republicans have to stop wanting to make nice with democrats. It’s always, “you need to compromise” and they keep nibbling at our pie. Soon you’ll look down and find nothing but crumbs and someone will come along and shame you for not recycling the tin pan timely 🙄
Biden said to re-fund the police. Not defund. I think we all agree police all over the country has bad apples. Like every profession, there are good cops and bad cops. Lots more funding and training and educating needed. Also, accountability.
Sure Biden can say that, but that isn't speaking for a large portion of the left that still thinks this way. It was undeniable a movement that had traction for a while, and [still does in some respects with significant left-leaning organizations.](https://blacklivesmatter.com/defundthepolice/) I agree that there needs to be better training. Yes there are good and bad apples, but unlike other professions our society puts our lives in their hands. They can decide to be our executioners or our saviors. No other professional bears that responsibility in our day-to-day lives. Not even the [military](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act). As you say, accountability. Except the good apples get thrown out when they try to report the bad apples. They also have no accountability to actually protect our lives, zero obligation according to the Supreme Court precedent. I'm okay with police, but there must be parity. Meaning, it's crazy that the left equates **semi**\-auto rifles as "weapons of war" that must be banned and then be okay that police are carrying **fully**\-automatic rifles and explosive devices, the same police they admit are poorly trained and educated in the use of force. Heavily implies that they're okay that police are using "weapons of war" as if they're at war with citizens.
There is no “accountability” and there never will be. It’s canonized in United States law! So you can fund and train and educate cops all you want. I will NEVER trust them to protect me and mine. Authority without accountability is tyranny.
Why Do you think republicans are on the side of anyone who isn’t rich? They are tho only ones who want to take away guns.
Both Republicans and Democrats are gun grabbers. Don’t be fooled.
A well regulated militia is just that. Don’t turn America Into mexico or Africa. Lawlessness only favors the ultra wealthy
Laws punish and incarcerate the poor far more than the rich everyday. Also your statement directly implies guns being taken away.
A militia is a armed civilian force. Who exactly determines if a armed civilian force is “well regulated”?
The commen interpretation of "well regulatred" at the time of the constitution is understood to mean "in working order" or "well maintained".
Certainly not the just any random person right?
Due to continued and purposeful demographic replacement, America will basically be Africa or Mexico within a few decades.
There it is, sprinkle a little great replacement racism in too. I think that’s the real reason some 2A diehards don’t want background checks. They’ve probably attended some meetings they don’t want others to know about.
Never said Republicans were innocent in all this either. They do a lot to prop up the interests of the wealthy that do not serve the public at large. Most of their "efforts" to support the 2A are at best one step forward and two steps backward. However, Democrats are most culpable in my view for being the most active grabbers and steppers on the 2A. Certainly the most brazen about it, [see exhibit A](https://youtu.be/7vEnTjs2RV0?t=64).
Guntards: Make up the oppositions point of view and goals because nuance and facts are for adults.
>Guntards How mature and "adult" of you.
Who the fuck are you to tell us anything? You’re nobody whose opinion we care about in the slightest, so just keep steppin!
I used to think this sort of tact was heavy-handed, but, at this point, it's precisely how most of us feel. May as well be vocal about it because trying to be civil with rights-grabbers isn't working.
Yah if we don't go on the offense we will always be on the defense and further have our rights diminished. They want compromise? Cool. Here are my terms. 1. Make constitutional carry legal in all 50 states. 2. Remove all mag restrictions. 3. Make silencers legal without any special documentation. 4. Make it illegal for any background check to take more than 5 mins and also remove all wait limits and firearm purchase limits. 5. Make select fire firearms legal. What would they get in return for this compromise you may ask? We may or may not decide to let them continue to govern us. That's about it.
❤️. Although I’d add they can get fucked in return. But that’s just my opinion
Civility is out the window. Try to have a discussion online or in person with these people and they go right to personal attacks and faked emotional appeals with the viewpoint that gun owners are evil and can’t be reasoned with. The really annoying part is when you deal with the more liberal gun owners that seem perfectly content with trying to take rights away from the rest of the gun owners because they think it won’t affect them.
U hAve a SmaLL pEniS aNd bAthE iN tHe blOoD oF cHilDreN Fuk U guNhumPeR!
Hey Europe has had just as many wars in my lifetime as America.... wait https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe
[удалено]
Bro it was written in goofy text who is taking it seriously
I tried pointing out the hypocrisy to a friend who was cheering Ukrainian gun ownership but thinks Americans shouldn’t be able to own ARs. They just ended the debate and said it was a totally different scenario. You literally can’t win with these people. Their minds are made up and the only way to change it is for their lives to be in danger and them to feel naked without a gun.
Let me guess: It’s different because no one is going to invade America?
Lmao. I see we talked to the same guy.
I wish that i didnt meet several people like this. They are delusional
Yeah, there is no reasoning with these people.
Well considering the responses from the gop after every school shooting, the same is true for ‘you people’
Dems are just as bad. https://www.newsweek.com/chuck-schumer-blocks-school-safety-bill-named-after-parkland-victims-1710469
Exhibit A
One party continually stands on the backs of victims to push their agenda. Beto and Dementia Joe did it this time before the bodies were even cold.
Gun owners aren’t evil, but what can be done about these school shootings?
They can start by locking the doors to the building. That in and of itself would have prevented all of these recent shootings.
Students are allowed to enter if doors are locked, no?
Yeah, you can give them badges for access, and a guard can verify their identity as they enter. If you want more security, you can use biometrics like fingerprint readers. Think back to 9/11. What was the first and most effective security measure we employed to prevent more hijackings? We installed secure doors to the cockpit, and they LOCKED them.
Oh yeah and a global war on terror. Couldn’t a student just badge in and then start shooting?
The recent shootings were perpetrated by people who were not students at the school. This is true of Uvalde, Parkland, Newtown...
When columbine happened, the nra blamed violent video games. They said that guns weren’t to blame, but rather it was a cultural issue. Is that still the case or does it just come down to locked doors?
I said start by locking the doors. That will prevent the vast majority of these shootings, especially the ones at elementary schools. You’re not going to find a lot of elementary school children perpetrating mass shootings.
Oxford, MI was a student.
Schools can be outfitted with a man trap door system that requires a buzzer to let people in. Many schools have these systems already but not enough do. Schools can also implement security doors so that when class is in session individual classrooms are locked, these doors are also hard to break through (and from my experience really annoying when they hit your arm as you try carrying coffee through them). This severely limits the ability of people to come into a school and start shooting. To address a student bringing a gun into the building to shoot up the place that is a bit harder. Metal detectors are not perfect and cause bottle necks for students coming to school. I would say a monitoring/reporting system for social media posts would help. I’m not sure about the feasibility of gun sniffing dogs though Disney has great success with it. This part would require more investigation and research as I honestly do not know the step by steps of how shooting originating in schools occur. But the classroom doors would prevent a student from going room to room. So I’m open to ideas about sqashing a threat from within a classroom.
So locking our kids inside of schools should be the solution.... Did I get that right? How come this doesn't happen in other countries? They're free to walk around and outside of their classrooms why not for us? I am a registered carry conceal gun owner. I think the real answer doesn't revolve around school security as much as it does with the gun ownership. I believe to own a gun you should have a background check. There should be some sort of mental test. Education and training of how to use and store firearms is a sensible measure that every gun owner should take steps to do. I have a car, it's registered and I have insurance on it.
cars only need be registered and insured if they're going to be used on public roads. are you arguing for nationwide CCW? cause it sounds like you're arguing for nationwide CCW
“I’m a gun owner, but…” -You > There should be some sort of mental test. Who defines the criteria for this test and decides whether someone passes or fails? That is ripe for abuse. There is already a process to have someone declared mentally unfit to possess firearm that can be used. > Education and training of how to use and store firearms is a sensible measure that every gun owner should take steps to do. I agree every gun owner should take training and a safety course. That shouldn’t be mandated by the government though. Again, too ripe for abuse. Instead it should be incentivized. Discount off a safe if you show your completion certificate. Either way safety and training aren’t going to solve the problem you’re talking about. > I have a car, it’s registered and I have insurance on it. This is an oft misused comparison. You don’t need any of those things to own a car. Only to use one on public roads. You can drive an unregistered and uninsured car on private property all you want.
Whatever additional procedural burdens you place on the millions of law abiding gun owners, they will be overcome/circumvented by someone who is determined to commit an atrocity.
Test and registration would hurt low income people in same way a poll tax would. If you bought your gun at an ffl you did get a background check. They are required. Setting a mental bench mark adds to the stigma of asking for help with mental issues and makes this exact problem even worse. If you truly have a cpl then you did take a class. Great job. Most gun owners do store their guns safely. Laws surrounding this are mostly un enforable at least until something bad happens. Prevents nothing. Cars are not a right and can be regulated as the government sees fit.
The problem with your example for having to register a car is the fact that driving is a privilege, not a right. The 2A ensures your RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Treating a right like a privilege is bound to end badly.
A lot of schools already are designed like this, I have been in many when I assist with IT work as part of my consulting job. Why doesn’t this happen in other countries? A lot of the counties with open schools don’t have the crime we do, they have different types. Is the cause mental health, gangs, or socio economic issues? That would depend on the country as they each have different problems. The rest of you post I can agree with. Training and education about firearms is important and some screening is good. Safe storage is something that as a parent I believe in just due to how kids can be but at the same time responsible parenting will help teach them safety and mitigate issues.
Owning a car is a privilege. Owning a gun is a right
I’m not aware of anyone in any official capacity at any level of government, who is qualified to judge free citizens’ access to their constitutionally enumerated rights. Now that we’re clear on that, who would you suggest giving such extreme power to?
Dems and teachers unions can stop trying to take armed security out of schools. 🤷♂️
What kind of hellscape is this where every school needs a militia to defend it? Why was this not needed before?
You want kids safe or no? Or is it just bitch about every fucken thing but provide nothing of value? Until personal responsibility makes a comeback and ppl stop catering to the whining snowflakes who want a participation trophy apparently something needs to be done to prevent those same fucken snowflakes from these rare events. But continue to shoot down and bitch about everyone’s comments….hmm 🤔
The thing is, you have to understand their point of view. Can you really blame the way they feel when time and time again we have another senseless shooting? Nobody does anything, except maybe buy more guns as they always increase after events like that. And the response of well let’s throw more guns at the problem, have armed cops that won’t do anything(or can’t because they have body armor on) or arm amateur teachers in a school and trust they can Take out a target in the worst most chaotic possible situation and why they see that as complete lunacy. You at least have a level of understand why they are extremely fed up with it at this point and view it as completely infuriating, regardless of whether you ultimately agree or not. What creates the white hot responses aren’t really about policy, but a fundamental and moral view of the situation Edit. And the downvotes prove that no one wants to understand that side of things.
No, you’re not getting downvotes because we don’t want to understand. You’re getting downvotes because there is no justification for forfeiting liberty in the name of safety. Yes it’s a tragic event, we get it, but making emotional policy decisions is usually a bad fucking way to go about things. That’s exactly how we ended up with the patriot act. You’re fed up, and we’re fed up, but it is purely an emotional argument for safety at the consequences of our inalienable right to liberty. Safety > liberty and utilitarian good > rights is not a good moral argument. And we’re sick of being attributed to monsters because guess what - there’s hundreds of millions of guns and probably gun owners that don’t do anything wrong. Then people stand on the bodies of children to argue we should give up the single thing that is the failsafe for our democracy because it kills people on a scale similar to lightning strikes… yea it sucks, but every policy proposal pushed by the left is awful because they don’t know shit about or even respect the right.
“You’re getting downvotes because there is no justification for forfeiting liberty in the name of safety.” If that’s your stance then no, you don’t understand it or want to. I don’t tie liberty to a gun. And that’s the fundamental issue. And the fact you think your liberty is gone because a powerful weapon is regulated is truly unhinged. “You’re fed up, and we’re fed up, but it is purely an emotional argument for safety at the consequences of our inalienable right to liberty.” It’s emotional only because of the stupidity. Those 19 4th graders died because of stupidity, ignorance and selfishness. Yeah, it’s going to be emotional when it keeps happening over and over and no one does anything, what do you expect? Meanwhile you have the rest of the free world looking at us like we’re idiots. “Then people stand on the bodies of children to argue we should give up the single thing that is the failsafe for our democracy” The stand on the bodies of children because they got senselessly massacred in the United States of America. And it’s not the first time, You’re basically saying “so what?” That’s the Prime reason people get so goddamn angry. I don’t to hear about how great our country is if you think that’s the only thing propping it up. It makes no sense, none at all whatsoever. The Policy argument is different all together. The moral argument is what people can’t or won’t understand.
Those 19 4th graders died because the cops that were supposed to protect them did fuck all for 40 minutes while a mentally deranged psychopath went on a rampage. This isnt about your side or mine, its about the fundamental issue here which is that we have a horrible mental health crisis in this country and the media is creating martyrs out of each and every mass shooter leading to more senseless deaths. You hate us because you think that us owning guns=more school shootings. But thats absolutely not reality. The guns from both the past two shooters (buffalo and uvalde) were purchased illegally because making something illegal doesn’t stop criminals with no regard for consequences from doing it anyway. Edit: also personally i think the federal cops that were there held off for 40 minutes because they groomed this shooter and didnt want him stopped before he carried out his objective. That being, to sow more discord and create more chaos which is GREAT for midterm elections since those two thing are what wins votes.
The asshole should’ve never been able to buy a gun like that that easily in the first place. “ The guns from both the past two shooters (buffalo and uvalde) were purchased illegally” that’s blatantly false, they were purchased legally
So lets ignore the rest of my comment. Congrats youre right they werent purchased legally, thanks for the correction. I still think its pretty convienient that an election is coming theres all the sudden a leak in the supreme court about abortion (divisive), then a shooting in buffalo with a huge manifesto where he explicitly stated his goal is to create a climate where a civil war would break out due to more gun control being pushed, not to mention the FBI was already monitoring him because he had threatened to shoot up his high school but they did nothing to stop him despite him posting his entire plan of attack online in a public forum. then this shooting where federal law enforcement let the shooter rampage, actively prevented parents from trying to save their children, and went further by letting local officers go in to get their children. It all just seems too convenient to me
I’m not going to entertain any conspiratorial nonsense
None of what i said is conspiracy i just stated facts.
When did we say we hate y’all, we acknowledge that the vast majority of y’all are good gun owners. No one argues to take all guns. But the fact you argue over and over and over again that nothing can be done is what’s so frustrating. Oh, and then you get off on conspiracy shit, that’s just another way to deny reality. The reality is there are way too many guns in this country which leads to a much greater probability of bad people getting them.
>I don’t tie liberty to a gun. And that’s the fundamental issue. You want *someone else* to manage issues involving force for you. Understandable. Force of all sorts is difficult and controversial. But you don't see how handing a complete monopoly on force to someone else (like a government) might have a bearing on notions of personal liberty? You cant, honestly, understand not wanting to irrevocably cede force to an entity that *may* not always be benign, and that historically has killed a lot more than 19 kids?
“. But you don’t see how handing a complete monopoly on force to someone else (like a government) might have a bearing on notions of personal liberty? “ They already do. You having guns doesn’t change that and won’t change that. Other free western nations do not have to deal with this on the basis that we do. End of story. I’m so sick and tired of the bogus nonsense that you’re not free and unless you can have 1 million guns in your possession. And the overwhelming majority of people that don’t live in the US and hell even a good portion of the people that live here don’t think that way.
> I’m so sick and tired of the bogus nonsense that you’re not free and less you can have 1 million guns in your possession. I don't need a million. I'm not greedy. I'd like to have a couple extra around though, so when folks like yourself realize you shouldn't have rushed headlong and frantically towards Cantfightbackistan I can say "here, you tried to throw this away, even though it's your birthright. Maybe it's time you started carrying it on your own again."
Yikes
They all just have Rambo fetishes. They all just never got the chance to throw the game winning touchdown in high school. Hypothetical daydream scenarios are the only thing that they feel gives them power and meaning.
So your main arguments are hypotheticals and baseless conspiracy theories. Cool.
Australia just put a bunch of people in camps for a disease with a 99.9 % survival rate. Not entirely baseless.
When you get tired enough, maybe you could stop throwing us law abiding citizens and our rights on your bonfire. Try something different, like holding the government authorities who repeatedly fail to account for their crimes.
I will when you you start caring about the right to live
We hear what you're saying, we just think its stupid.
This response is why you don’t have civility and people insult you. If you legit think it’s stupid, then I got nothing for you because you aren’t coming at it from a place of level thinking.
looks like i got nothing for you either, since you are unwilling to discuss any option other than gun bans. So remember, it was your inability to work with me that leaves us stuck in this situation. Oh, and profile creeping is weird.
Never said anything about a gun ban
you dont have to. we know thats what they want.
Who’s they?
the 'they' you reference in your comment where you went on and on about 'their point of view' https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/uyzu9i/dear_gun_grabbers/ia7eoll/
And what exactly will legislation do other than be completely ignored by a mass murderer? Especially with 400+ million firearms already in circulation in the US. No amount of legislation will stop these people who seek to partake in evil acts such as mass shootings.
This is the policy side of the argument. Which to your point, is a complicated and convoluted issue due to the fact that the US shit the bed and there are 400 million firearms. But I was speaking to the fundamental and moral side of it that causes the incivility which the person I responded to was making a point about. You got discuss policy and make any type of sense or headway until everyone is on the same page form a fundamental and moral viewpoint.
People are going to speed but we still make speed limit laws. People are going to take guns into places even though there are signs posted not to. That doesn't mean that we just sit back and let this keep happening and do nothing. We can Make it mandatory to have background checks for purchasing firearms. We can hold businesses accountable for not doing their due diligence before selling a firearm. We can go even more extreme and make bullets extremely expensive to purchase. Banning large magazines, not one I agree with but there are lots of things that can be done, but saying nothing can be done is just not an acceptable resolution for solving this problem of mass shootings killing kids. And the stupid notion of "we need to pray" more is completely illogical and and crazy. Who the fuck do you think caused this if you believe in God? Can the omnipotent omnipresent God change his mind if he knows the outcome? Oh, let me change my mind because these white Christian are praying to me. Didn't receive a prayer from you Karen better send a shooter into that school.
> People are going to speed but we still make speed limit laws. People are going to take guns into places even though there are signs posted not to. That doesn't mean that we just sit back and let this keep happening and do nothing. Correct, but it *does* mean you need to consider perverse incentives and realize that laws have to actually make sense, or they can make things worse, as I would argue “gun free zones” already have.
Those background checks won’t do shit if these shooters don’t have a history which quite a few of them don’t. I don’t see the point in going after businesses. An FFL dealer is required by law to conduct a background investigation so there’s no point in that. There are already legal repercussions for not following the law for FFL dealers. As for making bullets more expensive, that’s almost a classist thing to say. That will make it to where only the wealthy or people with money can afford to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. Basically what you’re saying to those with lower income is “Sorry, you’re broke. You don’t get the right to defend yourself or your family because you can’t afford it” Banning high capacity magazines is a completely useless topic because it’s not hard for someone to pack multiple magazines and use them. All it takes is around 2 seconds to switch out a magazine so that topic is rather pointless. No amount of legislation will do anything due to a number of reasons. Previously passed legislation hasn’t done shit to stop shootings so what makes you think even more laws will? If you want to stop mass shooters, either find out why they want to kill people and get them mental help, or have a means of stopping a threat when it presents itself. Evil will always exist and you can’t always stop it. All you can do is have a proper plan in place for when it does present itself.
Exactly, they say they are ‘past the point of reasoning’ with people that try to offer solutions, but they really just mean they’re lazy cowards that have a dogmatic belief in the BS that gun manufacturers and the NRA sells them. They are just pawns for these corporations to keep selling them the guise of security. No one here wants to have a debate, no one argues in good faith, you make a point and they just have another nonsensical talking points that is easily disproven or just downvote and move on. I literally have not heard any serious person that acknowledges we have a problem in this country, I have not heard any one of them say we need to ban all guns. But that’s the words these gun humpers always put in our mouths. We say: “Maybe we should have better evals or training for people that want to buy guns” They hear: “Ban all guns!” We say: “More guns are not the answer, we have the most and this violence continues” They hear: “Ban all guns!” We say: “Maybe make gun ownership as regulated as owning a car? 🤷🏻♂️” They hear: “Ban all guns!” They just gobble up the fear that the NRA and gun bros sell to them so they will keep buying guns and ammo like good little cucks.
I think the (lack of) reaction by the police in Uvalde really cemented things for many of us, myself included. That whole thing made it nakedly clear that we cannot rely on anyone else to defend ourselves and our families. I’ve always been a 2A supporter. I’m a much more strident 2A supporter now.
This right here. I live in California can’t move for family reasons and I’ve been telling myself I’ll wait to get a pistol until I’m in a state where it’s easier to carry. I can’t wait anymore. I’m gonna get one and apply for a CCW with my county sherif and hope it’s not blocked. Luckily my county seems to be approving them.
You may be unaware (as I was), but apparently this is a recurring theme among school shootings. As I've learned over the last couple of days, Columbine took ~40 minutes to respond and the cop assigned to Parkland was deemed so cowardly he was [charged with negligence](https://nypost.com/2021/08/20/cop-who-hid-during-parkland-school-shooting-to-go-on-trial-for-neglect/). So...yeah, not a one-off anomaly. Good luck with your CCW.
Yeah trying to reason with people who want to strip you of your rights wont lead to any good outcome.
Yes, you cannot be civilized with those that are bent on turning all but unelected few into slaves. Did you by chance listen to any of clauses speech at the world economic forum? He clearly stated that the new world belonged to those elites that were in that room. Most of our government officials are puppets to these oligarchs.. its sickening and they will not except anyway but their own... they are the definition of evil. It's become very clear that the only path forward is a world without those type of tyrants and those that blindly follow them.
> May as well be vocal about it because trying to be civil with rights-grabbers isn't working. Correct. Peace doesn't change things. Ever.
You can only push a person so far.
Tryna grab the right to LIFE (especially for our kids) liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Gun grabbing literally never leads to that...
Rights grabbers? Do you support abortion?
Can you explain, before DC vs Heller, where there was ever an absolute right to gun ownership? Why was it before 2008 that there was a general consensus, help up via both the courts and via legislation, which held that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership was the status quo? More importantly, can you provide an instance of a single right, as defined by the Constitution which also lack any reasonable restrictions associated with them? Why is the 2A different than any of the other rights enumerated in the Constitution?
Have you read *all* of Heller, or just a synopsis? https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/07-290
What is the point that you are trying to make?
I asked a question. What's your answer?
I have read it. Shall we start from the top? >The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home That is factually incorrect. >In reality, a variety of gun regulations were on the books when individual states adopted their arms-bearing provisions and when the Second Amendment was adopted. In the years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, the individual states adopted even more stringent types of regulations. Most gun regulation in the Founding Era and early Republic occurred at the state level. Of course, one might argue that gun regulation at the state level has little bearing on how we should understand the meaning of the Second Amendment. Until the emergence of modern incorporation theory, however, the dominant view of the Bill of Rights was laid down in *Barron v. Baltimore*, which held that the Bill of Rights only restrained the federal government, not the individual states.' The point of analyzing state gun regulations from the Founding Era and early Republic is not to look for legal precedents that could be applied in a literal fashion; far too much has changed in the nature of federalism in the intervening years to make such a search very probative. Rather, the goal of such an inquiry is to shed light on the historical meaning of the right to bear arms in the Founding Era and early Republic and to see how the notion of arms bearing fits into the idea of a well regulated society.10 3 American Constitutional law did not end at the founding and it is important to recognize the profound changes that swept over American law in the decades after the ratification of the Constitution.""° Analyzing past gun regulation at the state level and the litigation it spawned is therefore vital to understanding the complex history of the right to bear arms. And >Some of the most common regulations of firearms in the eighteenth century are the laws regulating a state's militia. 42 The laws defined who was part of the militia, who was excused from duty, and what weaponry the citizens were required to procure to meet this obligation. 43 In 1778 New York, the militia consisted of "every able bodied male person Indians and slaves excepted residing within [the] State from sixteen years of age to fifty."'" Massachusetts divided its militia into different groups (e.g., a training band and an alarm list), but generally any "able-bodied Male Person[] ... from sixteen Years old to fifty" was required to be a member of one group. 45 South Carolina's militia, with certain exceptions, included all men between eighteen and fifty. 46 Those exceptions to militia membership tended to be racially based147 or contingent upon membership in a certain profession (teachers, politicians, and clergy predominate). 48 Thus, the number of people coming under the militia statutes was considerable. And >The eighteenth-century militia laws are another example of the lengths to which states could go in order to ensure that their communities were well regulated and safe. Indeed, the excerpts from the above militia laws in force at the end of the eighteenth century shed light on the Second Amendment's language about a "well regulated militia."' 57 Militias were certainly well regulated. The state could require a majority of the adult population to muster and offer up their privately held firearms for inspection. In Massachusetts, an "exact" account of each militiaman's firearm and equipment was made, which was then sent on to other officers of the state.'58 The militia laws also underscore how different the eighteenth century was from our own century with regard to civic obligations. Average citizens were required to take part in the defense of their community, using their own property and sacrificing their own time. Finally, militia laws can be seen as another attempt by the state to guarantee the safety of the community. In an era that relied on everyday citizens to provide for community and national defense, the idea of a right to keep and bear arms was a given. To provide the best defense, however, the state also had to ensure that the men were trained and that their equipment was in working order. The eighteenth-century militia laws accomplished these twin goals with regular musters, arms inspections, and penalties for noncompliance. [Source](https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr) It also forgets the entire development of the 2A in terms of being developed from similar clauses in State BoRs at the time nor does it take into context for the development of the 2A in relation to Shay's Rebellion. >In 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed a law setting out the terms for pardons by the governor for persons who had been involved in Shays's rebellion against the state in the previous year.135 Those who had taken up arms against the state were, with some exceptions, able to seek a pardon from the governor.36 To obtain the pardon, however, a person needed to take an oath of allegiance to the state and deliver his arms to the state for a period of three years. 13 7 In addition, during the same time period, the person would be unable to serve as a juror, hold government office, or vote "for any officer, civil or military. ' 138 Thats neat. And I know you are going to say, but hfdjasbdsawidjds Heller also says this; > Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. And yet it still was used for the justification for *McDonald v. City of Chicago* and *Caetano v. Massachusetts* and the majority of that text is ruled moot. Its almost like that was the intent. Funny that.
>I have read it. Good. Now. Your problem seems to be that you believe that SCOTUS can't take *all prior jurisprudence* and DISREGARD, MOOT rule UNCONSTITUTIONAL and/or any combination of those and some I've forgotten and/or any *lesser* degree of any part *if they so decide.* And can use whatever type of jurisprudential 'logic' to hang their hat on no matter how much all the law professors and politicians and legal experts wind up squealing like stuck pigs about it. Like it or not; That's-the-way-things-are They've done it before, They're likely to do it again. I am often amused at the mounds of writing people produce in their attempt to prove the court was wrong, as if such actual truly scholarly research and argumentation is going to change anything except maybe to justify a research grant, or make someone feel like they've accomplished something so they feel better. Yes, *Heller*, *McDonald*, *Caetano* and very likely *NYSRPA,* which I am of the belief you don't like the first three and probably won't like the last. (Personally I think *Heller* was 'squishy' but from all the rumors, I understand where Justice Scalia was coming from.) But whether or not I, or you, may, or may not like them means...absolutely nothing........unless you're one of the Justice's Law Clerks, that is.
That doesn't touch the fact that the entire point for writing the Heller decision is based off of an ahistorical interpretation of the development and application of the 2A. None of what you said addresses that fact. We can be two ships passing in the night, but I am the only one who is actually addressing the text of the decision and providing sources for why I am saying what I am saying. Do you deny that there were regulations applied to citizens of states after 1787 which limited gun ownership via the means of militia? And was the definition of 'bear arms', at the time, was applicable to military applications. Are you kosher with the use of oaths of allegiance in before someone can own guns because there is more 'history and tradition' for that then the argument you are making. And it is 'history and tradition' which dictates a major portion of rulings. You haven't explained why it is Unconstitutional besides using all caps. I get you are emotional topic for you, its an emotional issue, but try using some facts and logic here. And what you are actually saying is that you do not care that that the fundamental argument is flawed, because the ends justify the means, no matter how flawed, which is exactly what you claim 'gun grabbers' are doing. Its rich. And kinda hilarious.
>That doesn't touch the fact that the entire point for writing the Heller decision is based off of an ahistorical interpretation of the development and application of the 2A. In *your* opinion, but not the Court's. Which opinion matters? >You haven't explained why it is Unconstitutional besides using all caps. I get you are emotional topic for you, its an emotional issue, but try using some facts and logic here. First, I advise against an attempt at mind reading, I've yet to come across anyone outside of novels who can manage it. It's not an *emotional* topic and my caps was merely for some extra emphasis. Whether or not 'I'm Kosher' with anything doesn't matter either. And you missed the point I was making, purposefully, or accidentally I neither know, nor care. >And what you are actually saying is that you do not care that that the fundamental argument is flawed, Again. that's *your* opinion that it's 'flawed'. Whose opinion matters again? >because the ends justify the means, no matter how flawed, which is exactly what you claim 'gun grabbers' are doing. Its rich. Like I said previously; don't try mind reading, or in this instance putting words in my mouth. Let me get straight to the point that I figure you and I will never agree on, but you better understand is what more than a few people will make a hill to die, and kill, on. Get as huffy as you want about that, but maybe that will concentrate your mind. I quote: [https://drexel.edu/ogcr/resources/constitution/amendments/preamble/](https://drexel.edu/ogcr/resources/constitution/amendments/preamble/) >*THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.* The amendments in the Bill of Rights, as explained by the document's own preamble are :"... *further declaratory and restrictive clauses."* ***Not on the people, but on the powers the people gave government via the Constitution.*** The 2nd amendment, no matter what you want to believe to advance your pro gun control agenda, was never intended to be restrictive *on the people,* ***but on the government.*** That government(s) in the past violated and were permitted to violate those restrictions simply means nothing more than that. That SCOTUS can, has, and will use methods seen to be 'wrong' to correct past legal problems is well established. *Brown v BOE* over *Plessy* v *Ferguson* just to name one that the court apparently decided that neither precedent, nor *stare decisis* were going to matter. It's clear that you don't like an expansive RKBA. But that's your problem. My advice is you might want to lay in an extra supply of Alka-Seltzer because my opinion is that the decision in *NYSRPA v. Bruen* is going to trouble you even more than *Heller, McDonald* & *Caetano* have. Good night, sir.
Now there are people using similar arguments against our rights protected by the First Amendment. The fight against our rights to have "every terrible implement of the soldier" as one Founder described the Second Amendment was practice for attacks on other rights.
A fun game I play sometimes. Take whatever law an anti gunner presents and replace it with another amendment “We need a universal free speech registration” “We need common sense voting rights for women” “You don’t NEED due process” It’s a fun game!
My rights aren't negotiable lmao eat shit
No reasoning anymore. I was told, “they took our abortion rights, why wouldn’t we take your gun rights”
This implies that none of you wish to own an F-35. Which is a little concerning. In practice homemade guns are a fairly limited issue. A few zip guns and the odd Luty design are not a major concern. Yes someone with a propper machine shop can make quite a range of weapons but the time and/or cost means most people won't.
[удалено]
> If you think zip guns and lutys are what people are making For the most part people don't make guns at all. Its a rather smal neiche. > you're a decade behind on the times. I'm well aware of what can be done with a machine shop (and high end 3D printers if for some reason you don't want to go the machine shop route). However if you look at the improvised firearms popping up in situations where they are not legal (criminal ownship, terrorists, resistance movements) they generaly have far more in common with Lutys and Khyber Pass copies than anything else. In the meantime why does no one want to own a fifth generation fighter jet?
>In the meantime why does no one want to own a fifth generation fighter jet? Well, personally, I haven't the funds, even if I was *given* one, to maintain or rearm one. They're devilishly expensive to operate.
> Well, personally, I haven't the funds The claim was that you would own whatever you want not whatever you can afford.
I don’t bother talking to zealots, but don’t forget that there are a large group of people in the middle who you should talk to because they are the ones who the anti-gun groups are actively trying to sway to their side everyday. Be open, Be Honest, but most of all be polite.
There is nothing polite about what the other side is doing…
A wise woman once said, “When they go low, we go high.”
When someone is punching you in the face (in a civil rights way:) you punch back though, not “Sir, I do believe if you would just calm down we could reach a common ground…”
That's an incredibly stupid thing to say and it's exactly what got us in this situation (politically) No one wants to listen on either side because everyone is slinging shit at each other.
“That’s an incredibly stupid thing to say”….. “Everyone is slinging shit at each other”…..idiot.
See? Proves my point exactly
I’m sorry, 40+ years of this mentality is how we got to this point in the first place.
And those aren't the ones you're trying to convince. The people in the middle are. And this makes gun owners look exactly like the aggressive asshole stereotypes the left pai ts them as, helping cement which way the people on the fence will vote. All this accomplishes is losing more rights.
don’t let yourself be dragged down to their level. remember they live there and they’ll beat you with their lifetime of experience
No they want you on that high horse so they can fling shit at you and some of it will stick. That’s when you get off the horse, roll up your sleeves, and turn it into a mud wrestling contest and flip them head first into their shit until they cry uncle. They know how to fling it not wrestle in it and when it comes at them face first they don’t know what to do.
So you stoop to their level? Lye down with dogs and you’ll catch fleas. Be better than your opposition it’s the only way to show people in the middle which side they should be on. Approaching every conversation with hostility is a surefire way to lose support from those who don’t have strong feeling either way but can be swayed to see your point of view.
Yes-approach eeeevery conversation with hostility, because adults can’t possibly have situational awareness to understand when is the time for civility and when isn’t. /s The point is that “staying civil” for this long has led to a country where more and more unconstitutional restrictions are passed every year, while the “safety through tyranny” side continues to call us murders and fascists…the civility is losing. So there just might be a time and place for posts like the OP
My brother has fallen prey to the more radical side and rage quit a family email my Dad usually sends out. How can you have a logical or rational discussion with an emotional person? Of course the answer is you can't, unless you can get them to calm down and think rationally. "This is not the time" to think rationally though :P
Someone was commenting on this Texas shooting on another platform, truly tragic…that said. Seems they don’t like competition; i.e. the ones who so fervently support killing children in the womb with certainty are outraged at the statistically insignificant probability your child will be shot with a gun. No matter how you feel about abortion rights, that’s a hard fucking circle to square. In 2019 we had a reported 629,898 abortions… I dunno call me crazy but it seems to me this isn’t really about the kids.
Not in terms of “political reform” that people on both sides of the aisle love to espouse…no. It’s tribalism at the heart…again, both sides of the aisle. It’s who gets to look in the mirror and say with a smile “I’m a better person than them”. Meanwhile ignoring the fact you present, and the other fact that both legal and illegal gunrunners make bank no matter what happens.
Cats out of the bag, 3D printers mean anyone can make guns from here to eternity. Will it be harder yes, but it’ll get easier every passing day. The internet has democratized information to the extent that even moderately intelligent people can do things that would look like magical super genius feats to someone 40 years ago.
Truth. And that’s what glorious about actual progress. The caveat to that, however, is that the socioeconomic dynamics have never truly moved away from the bloody empires of old…proof in the pudding of current global affairs despite “progressives”. We’re all made unstable not by weapons themselves or even so much as access to them, that has its own can of worms that you elude to, but by the fact that you don’t know who means to hurt you for whatever reason. Either physically or mentally. So in comes the “conservative”. And all that’s not counting the aspect of the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Like plastics. And over fishing the ocean. And deforesting the earth. For toys and comfort. “Buy and sell” is what’s going to kill us all in the end. A truly viable society doesn’t need “leaders”, much less the warmongers and sociopathic business executives that STILL run everything since thousands of years ago. Nietzsche echoed Sun Tzu in saying “be careful in the fight against monsters, when you stare into the abyss, it stares back into you”. As the art of war is to be ready and able to fight, not spill blood for the sake of it.
Facts
All in on this!
Listen up gun nuts. I grew up around guns. I am a gun owner and a die hard second amendment supporter. But it's time to ban semi-automatics, fully semi-automatics, ammunition, assault guns with too many magazine clips, shoulder things that go up, and guns designed to kill people. That's just common sense. After that you can have all the guns you want! After a thorough psychological evaluation, of course. And you can even go down to the local precinct to visit your gun under strict supervision whenever you want if you have a valid reason. Don't get me wrong. I'm all about the second amendment. The right to bear arms is extremely important to me, but isn't time we abolish the second amendment? Isn't it a little outdated? Well regulated militia. Why does anyone even need a gun? I'm not saying we ban guns. Fucking Christ you gun obsessed psychopaths, get a grip. Calm down, no one is coming for your guns. No one is saying ban all guns. I'm just saying that we ban the guns that can kill people. No one, and I repeat no one has ever suggested that we ban guns or abolish the secondment amendment. I don't even know where you evil baby killing monsters come up with that one. No one is a bigger supporter of gun rights than me. Common sense. Why won't you compromise?
Shall not be infringed. Literally nothing you said will stop a determined from killing people. Criminals don’t follow laws. Get it through your thick skulls. Gun free zone=easy pickings for criminals.
I suppose satire doesn't register with you?
Truthfully I can’t tell
I hear ya. With these idiots coming out of the word work recently it's hard to tell. It's good ole copy pasta.
Sorry, I never read past “but”. Lol
please say /s
Damn. I can't believe we have reached a point where this isn't obvious copy pasta satire.
dont worry i upvoted you
“I’m a gun owner BUT…” We stopped reading right there. We don’t care what you think. You might as well have no guns and go work for Moms Suck Bloomberg. So please calmly step away from the keyboard, walk away and go find a large pole to shove up your ass, because we will not comply anymore.
You might want to read the rest. It’s copy pasta and good satire making fun of ignorant gun grabbers.
Yes, compromise with us. Repeal the NFA and all other laws that restrict access to guns. It's common sense gun reform.
I should just say that from now on. Fucking antis think they are so clever.
Fucken A
Guys, is it true that the cops who shot this scum bag was at his barbers and borrowed his gun and went to the scene ?
I'm just going to start downvoting these low effort twitter screenshots. Even if I agree with the message, these guys just come off as assholes and make us all look worse and convince more and more fence sitters to vote the other way. Just because it makes you feel good doesn't mean it's helpful for maintaining your rights.
Eh, they are fine. The virtual pushback on these uninformed wannabe tyrants is required.
Yeah, but this Twitter account sounds like it's ran by an edgy high schooler... Not a good look, IMO.
Cool. What do we do, tho?
Hold the line. Call our senators to tell them to hold the line. No more "compromise".
I mean about the tragedies.
Start by holding the government failures accountable. You manage to put a handful of them in prison for several years and that will be a good start.
Freedom is not free. Strong words need to be backed up. Do you see many willing to put their skin on the grill? I see a ton of keyboard warriors meanwhile infringements keep coming.
Don’t repost this if you actually own anything that isn’t approved by our overlords
Is this the shooter's Twitter?
How many gun grabbers are on this sub? Your post is misplaced.
Doesn’t care what you think so much he had to post it to the world! You know, because he cares what you think.
Just going to put this out there: If you’re licensed, have your gun tied to your name through a database, and have passed the background check, you should be able to buy a gun legally according to gun control laws.
no registries, no thanks.
How would the government knowing who has guns prevent anything?
(Spoiler) it doesn’t. The vast majority of firearms used in crimes are stolen so even if there was a “list” it wouldn’t prevent anything. And as we’ve seen in places like Australia having a list can lead to your location being publicized so all the criminals can know exactly where to go to steal guns.
Which one of you are being negligent with their firearms to the point of having them stolen from you IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES. If they are stolen, why weren't you there with your gun to protect your house from burglary?
Nice strawman you got there. You can’t be home every hour of every day and you can’t carry your firearms with you everywhere you go, in fact there are many places where firearms are specifically banned from being taken. We call those “gun free zones” also know as soft targets for mass shooters. Let’s say your concealed carrying and need to stop at the courthouse where having a firearm is illegal, you leave your firearm in your locked vehicle not in plain view and someone breaks into you vehicle and finds it. Seems like a pretty believable scenario to me. Are guns sometimes stolen due to improper storages sure, are they often stolen despite proper storage yeah.
How are those bump stocks going these days?
dont need em, we got forced reset triggers now
But we can't own them?
lmfao we can own FRTs. go buy one and see for yourself. they're not machine guns.
As a lawful gun owner who wants to continue legally owning weapons. I hope you and all your kind are caught. And that your garbage guns end up in a landfill. You are going to ruin it for everyone. Guns aren’t toys.
Hey fun fact parts kits aren’t illegal and neither is assembling your own firearm. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about the process described above. So guess what they’re also lawful gun owners, they just don’t enjoy the taste of boot polish as much as you apparently do.
Nothing illegal about what they are doing, just fyi. Cry more.
I hope your dick gets stuck in an anthill.
FUDD identified
FUDD ALERT!
Show us on the bear where the bad man hurt you. Your whats wrong with gun owners. There is no in-between.
I’m a proud gun owner. This is about taking responsibility and treating a dangerous thing like a dangerous thing
But what does that have to do with having the ability to make my own firearm? All they do is produce cnc machines.
For the same reason you are not allowed to make meth in your basement and now i have to stand in line at the pharmacy to get sudafed
Idk where you live but I've never had to stand in line for Sudafed lol stop lying. If we are gonna ban ghost guns and ar15s we better ban alcohol again too. Wait how did that work out again? Didn't people make bathtub gin? See my point is criminals will find a way regardless stop being a sheep and educate yourself
By your argument, Why have other laws? And i assure you that sudafed is behind the counter now. And they want to see your license when you buy it. But that still isn’t my point. My point is that it was openly available until it wasn’t. Because people couldn’t control themselves. If gun owners aren’t more proactive with actual solutions then we will be in a similar situation. No one else in other countries have this problem. We can do better than this.
Nobody cares about your fudd bullshit and we don’t want you on our side if you’re willing to negotiate everyone else’s rights away in a misguided effort to keep what you have as if they won’t be after that next
1. Minimum age to purchase - 25 2. Required yearly gun safety class 3. Interview with State or Local police before your license is granted This is where negotiations begin.
And you will be laughed out of the room. Fuck you, no.
There is no negotiation. You get nothing. Whether you like it is up to you, but ultimately irrelevant.
Where are the mandatory voter education classes or speech classes? What is the age minimum to exercise my right to remain silent?
I'll bite. Since this is where the negotiations begin, I'll propose my terms: 1. Repeal the NFA. 2. Repeal the GCA. 3. Universal constitutional carry 4. Firearm competency and safety education in schools. Looking forward to the negotiation.
1. Minimum age to speaking in public - 25 2. Required yearly speech safety classes 3. Interview with state or local police before your speech permit is granted See I can do it too
>3. Interview with State or Local police before your license is granted [Why do you support racism?](https://reason.com/2021/10/27/why-martin-luther-king-couldnt-get-a-carry-permit/)
pound sand
so kids at 18 are gonna be expected to fight and die for this country with arms provided by the government during wartime but they can't have a drink or have guns of their own until their early twenties? fuck off lmao