If you can argue that it’s never a concern that the government will illegally exceed its constitutional authority and threaten the country’s status as a free state, maybe. Good luck with that.
If you want MAGAs in government and law enforcement to be the only ones with guns then that’s your decision. The 2nd amendment makes sure everyone else doesn’t have to do that.
It literally says it’s for a militia. And that militia was replaced by the US Army.
The second amendment is about the state being able to raise an armed posse to defend the state.
So passing gun control because the black panthers were arming themselves for protection against fascists is a success story for you?
You lead a rich inner life.
I am the one pointing out, gun-nut culture doesn’t give a fuck about stopping fascism. Gun-nut culture doesn’t even care about a right to guns, if it’s the targets of fascism who have the guns. Since before I was born, American gun culture has been nigh-inseparable from the fascists you think it’ll stop.
It literally does not say anything about requiring membership in a militia. Otherwise it would say the right of a militia to keep and bear arms, not the people.
You lead a rich inner life.
So just totally ignorant of the history of gun control then?
I am the one pointing out, gun-nut culture doesn’t give a fuck about stopping fascism.
Good thing those aren’t the only people who are allowed to own guns then right?
There is no “membership.” Any man could be called up. It’s a posse, but bigger. And it was BYOG.
That is literally the only reason the second amendment gives. ‘We need farmers to bring guns when we first-act-of-Mulan them, so don’t go limiting that.’
They weren’t so you could fight the army.
They were so you could fight in the army.
So just totally ignorant of the history of gun control then?
If you have to pretend ‘fascists abusing the Black Panthers despite their guns does not help your nonsense argument’ means I am denying that fascists abused the Black Panthers, you do not speak English.
Who is allowed to own guns is a game of what-if. Who does own guns is reality.
That is literally the only reason the second amendment gives. ‘We need farmers to bring guns when we first-act-of-Mulan them, so don’t go limiting that.’
They weren’t so you could fight the army.
So are you just unaware of how the country was founded? That the citizens did exactly that in order to be free from england? Did the framers just forget about that?
Who is allowed to own guns is a game of what-if. Who does own guns is reality.
It’s really not a game of what ifs. It’s a matter of not repeating history, not making things worse and concentrating the power even more in the hands of the fascists
Idiot troll pretends an army fighting another army is a contradiction.
Fuck off, old child.
You have been proven wrong on every single point you’ve tried to make, and not a goddamn word of it gets through your skull, because your worldview depends on not understanding it.
You have been proven wrong on every single point you’ve tried to make
Lol what?
and not a goddamn word of it gets through your skull
Yes, because I can read. Like, the original source, the 2nd amendment, heller decision, contemporaneous writings by the founding fathers, other states constitutions with even more explicit verbiage. So I’m the one who doesn’t get it as you beg the fascist government to disarm you. Lol ok
You don’t know what a militia is and you think the British were fought by, I dunno, some guys.
You’ve read things and absorbed only what feels like it validates your worldview. You have no idea why anyone would do anything else. You do not care what words mean.
No. Obviously not. But you demonstrably do not give a shit about the first half of the sentence, despite all this bickering. You treat the conversation as some pitched battle of tone instead of a mutual effort to find fact.
Defining a militia only matters if you’re going to muster them, which we don’t do anymore. We might as well talk about who’s eligible to get deputized to catch fugitive slaves.
But you demonstrably do not give a shit about the first half of the sentence
We’ve already been through this. The first part does not limit the second part. It’s incredibly clear from the direct text, as well as contemporaneous writing of the founders who wrote it
We might as well talk about who’s eligible to get deputized to catch fugitive slaves.
Motherfucker it is the first subject of the one sentence we are arguing about. A sentence which goes ‘X being needed for Y, let’s do Z.’ The first part is the only stated reason for the second part. And your stuck ass can’t figure out why it keeps coming up.
Oh, no, sorry, this is your goal-oriented reading comprehension: ‘we might as well talk about it’ in the sense that we don’t fucking do that anymore, which is kind of important when it is the only stated reason for the thing we’re fucking talking about.
For anybody who doesn't understand the argument, it's specifically a rebuttal to the idea that "The second amendment only applies to muzzle loaded muskets because nothing more advanced existed at the time"
"Free speech only applies to newspapers and soapboxes because nothing more advanced existed at the time"
It’s not a bad counterargument to that claim, we’ve just moved so far past that into the cost-benefit-analysis stage. The cost to keep the 2nd ammendment as it is is pretty fucking high.
Yeah, what needs to happen is changing those laws. The constitution has been changed many times before, and there’s no reason it can’t be changed again.
These conversations always stunlock me. We are months away from living in a dictatorship in the U.S. and ya’ll are talking about what exactly? Revising the 2nd amendment? Can you please explain that to me?
Because you simply must be out of your fucking mind if you think disarming yourself in the face of Ya’ll Queda is the course of action.
Plus the dictator thing isn’t a guarantee, and even if he does win there’s still the possibility of impeachment when he’s prosecuted for inciting an insurrection
Would not be impacted whatsoever with any proposed legislation. The only possible thing that could stop school shooters is going door to door collecting all firearms. If you’re proposing that, see the comment you’re replying to.
True. I’ve held this position long before Trump was openly fascist, though, and I’m not saying right now in particular is the right time. Just preferably before me and my friend’s kids would be growing up and going to school.
But if all goes well in the future, I’ll absolutely be voting to round up the guns. And if it comes to it let the military and cops take the…backlash, to put it softly.
Weird when someone cherrypicks their own comment. Here we go.
If all goes well in the future … to put it softly.
So what you’re essentially saying is that; in order for the problem with guns to be solved we need to be at an indeterminate point in the future where 1) the cops and the military no longer have fascist influences, 2) we use them to corral people who don’t want to give up their guns and kill them.
Then you cherrypick your own comment to appear as if you’re just forward thinking by hedging your bets.
Allow me to put it this way. You, or anyone else, that has lived through the months following Jan 6th 2021 and seriously discusses the topic of taking guns away (especially in the very fascist manner that you’re invoking) is one of three things.
You are either an idiot, a liar, or a bot.
I hope for you’re sake that you’re just an idiot. You can fix that.
Trump losing was what I meant by “all going well,” and that’s the part you decided to quote and respond to. Things are “going well” when Republicans lose influence, and those are the conditions it’d take for me to vote for guns to be outlawed. You’re getting upset over your own lack of understanding lol.
we use them to corral people who don’t want to give up their guns and kill them.
Now you’re just making shit up, I can’t even charitably call that a misinterpretation.
What I’m saying is that if guns were outlawed there would almost certainly be citizen militias fighting against it, and it wasn’t me who signed up for the responsibility of dealing with illegal use of guns. That’s the police and military.
If Trump losing is all you think it takes for us to be in a position to take people’s guns away peacefully you’re actually insane.
And if it comes to it let the military and cops take the…backlash, to put it softly.
Now you’re just making shit up, I can’t even charitably call that a misinterpretation.
What I’m saying is that if guns were outlawed there would almost certainly be citizen militias fighting against it, and it wasn’t me who signed up for the responsibility of dealing with illegal use of guns. That’s the police and military.
Now you’re arguing in bad faith. You know exactly what you meant, you coward.
Edit: the literal definition of backlash - a strong and adverse reaction by a large number of people, especially to a social or political development.
This guy acting as if the backlash won’t be violent, signs are pointing to bot my guys.
You are suggesting that the people who have repeatedly stated “I will shoot you if you try to take my guns” will not, in fact, shoot someone for trying to take their guns. You’re also suggesting that these people will not band together.
So you’ve also demonstrated that you have no idea what a human being actually is. I think I’m right on the money.
Let me get this straight, you think that I should accept that you actually meant this when you very clearly said that?
What I’m saying is that if guns were outlawed there would almost certainly be citizen militias fighting against it, and it wasn’t me who signed up for the responsibility of dealing with illegal use of guns. That’s the police and military.
You do understand this isn’t an explanation that is acceptable right? Conservatives, supporters of Trump, are not the only people who will be fighting back in “militias” as you’re saying. Those are acceptable casualties for the totally not fascists, right?
Forming a militia and killing people is murder regardless of who they voted for.
There truly is no arguing with someone who reads “there’d probably be citizen militias fighting against it” and thinks “this guy thinks they wouldn’t band together and fight against it???”
there would almost certainly be citizen militias fighting against it
You are suggesting that the people who have repeatedly stated “I will shoot you if you try to take my guns” will not, in fact, shoot someone for trying to take their guns. You’re also suggesting that these people will not band together.
And guns are just a way to transfer stored energy into a projectile that moves much faster than a human can do without the help of tools - which has existed since prehistory
Yup. Also, they aren’t saying “if we lose guns everyone should lose the right to free speech as well”
They are saying that, since the right to free speech is clearly and self evidently important in modern mediums, the second amendment clearly extends to modern technology as well.
The problem is taking the amendments as unchangeable and almost divinely commanded. They were things written by people hundreds of years ago, and they can be changed. They’re literally called amendments. It doesn’t matter whether the second amendment protects gun rights, it’s up to us nowadays to decide if we want people to have the right to a gun, decided based on our ethical arguments, not what an old document says.
I say this as a non American, it’s just pretty weird to me that even the anti gun people defend their position by quoting the second amendment (usually), rather than suggesting changing it.
One reason is you can’t change Amendments, only repeal and add them. Second you need 2/3 of all 50 state legislatures or Congress to ah Gree before even start that process, ratification requires 3/4 of the states to agree, it’s a fucking process from hell
It was a huge womens rights movement issue at the time. They weren’t all prudes, they just thought it would be a more effective way to cut back on domestic violence than going at it directly (more enforceable and politically viable), iirc. Then everyone hated it.
It’s been a long time since I’ve taken a civics class, but my understanding is that you cannot change an amendment. You can repeal it. You can create new amendments. But they actually cannot be changed.
Now, that said, it takes a lot of agreement to create a new amendment: 2/3rds of both the senate and house must agree, or 2/3rds of the states must petition congress. Both of those options, especially in today’s political climate, is highly unlikely.
It’s not even just that amendments happen, its that as written laws the US constitution is terribly drafted. It is vague, doesn’t define many of the terms it uses and is full of edge cases that it doesn’t deal with.
It’s more a statement of ideology than actual law, which means you need a whole system of court decisions that lay out the actual practical interpretations that courts are supposed to follow, which of course are decided based on the political needs of the day so they are a total mess.
I’m pointing out that whoever made this meme probably didn’t consider that right wing chudds get away with saying a lot of fucked up shit on social because it’s considered “free speech”. See: Libs of TikTok (fuck them).
While the author of the meme seems to be unfamiliar with the concept of causality, the last part doesn’t seem that wrong if you look at Assange, for example…
They appear to be saying that if they aren’t allowed to own military style automatic weapons for “home defense” then they want all freedoms of speech revoked across all media platforms. I’m not sure what one has to do with the other, but that seems to be the gist of the message.
Love the “military” argument. LOL, like it’s some kinda gotcha.
American’s have always had equivalent, and usually better, rifles than the military. History lesson. Title sucks, and that premise isn’t asked or answered. Also, heard the presenter is a right-winger. Still, nothing he’s saying in untrue or a half-truth.
And what do we think the guys who put that in there would think if someone had said, “Nah. Let 'em have guns, but they gotta be nerfed against the military. We want the cops and military all powerful.” 😆 “Have you not been to any of the previous meetings?!”
Yup. They literally encouraged people to own and operate private warships that could be used for coastal bombardment. The modern equivalent would be a guided missile cruiser.
They would probably have LOVED everyone having AR-15s if it were an option 😂
The first assumed premise is that we all agree that free speech extends across modern mediums, it’s a rhetorical device to show why it’s weird to say the second amendment doesn’t apply to modern technology.
Honestly, as a liberal, I don’t understand why other liberals oppose modern firearms in private hands. The entire purpose of that amendment is to allow the weak in our society to fight against dictatorship and tyranny; the right to own firearms is an eminently liberal value.
In a world where we have this terrible person openly trying to set himself up as dictator, with a nonzero chance of actually achieving his goal, how can you reject the amendment that specifically exists to allow us to resist people like him? It has to extend to effective modern weapons to do us any good.
What you appear to be saying is that both major political ideologies in this country are actively trying to strip our rights and what they disagree on is which should be taken first
What do the mass shooting statistics say? More mass killings with full auto, semi-auto, or non-auto firearms? Or does the type not matter and they’re all pretty much used equally? I always hear about semi-auto, but the media never mentions full auto rifles in school shootings and such. Or whatever fully-semi-automatic means.
Add comment