I get angry enough that a cop pulling me over for speeding carries a gun, or that every emergency call needs to be responded to by jackbooted, militarized thugs when less than 15% ever involve violence. I can’t imagine living in a country where every scared little baby had easy access to firearms.
What astounds me is it’s clearly a losing battle. Our statistics are terrible. The proliferation of firearms makes us no safer and in fact leads to a plethora of terrible side-effects that yield a net-negative upon society. Even the Wild West was no safer, hence why both Dodge City and Tombstone both implemented gun control laws.
It only makes sense. Easy access to firearms benefits the deranged and criminal since they’re the ones with the willingness to abuse them and we don’t live in Minority Report where the defender can easily shoot first.
I see you used the word “statistics” and I have bad news for you:
Most of those idiots don’t know what that word means.
But damn if they can’t name every component of a gun. Not spell any of them. But they sure can hold a conversation.
But boy oh boy don’t you confuse clip from magazine!
It may be in the constitution, but I doubt the founding fathers envisaged that you’d all be such fuckwits.
It isn’t in there. What is in there is a legal provision allowing states to quickly raise an army to deal with a crisis.
I’m not American, so I could be wrong, but wasn’t it something about a well-regulated militia?
It was, those three words aren’t there by mistake.
Standing domestic armies were controversial at the time. They needed a way if a state was a facing a crisis it could grab a bunch of armed citizens, declare it a militia, and deal with the issue. Most of the signers were lawyers and they knew that there had to be a legally established procedure for this.
This is me being nice to them btw the issue was slavery and the fear of slave revolts.
And a few decades ago it got reimagined as a civil liberty. Which is clear from the text that it is not and is clear from the debates around the amendment at the time.
Regulation had a different interpretation back then. It had to do with training and equipment. It’s why professional soldiers were called “Regulars.” They wanted civilian militias to be equipped and have the ability to train on their weapons.
In order for civilian militias to exist, be effective, and be able to respond instantly the citizens need to have weapons.
Somebody who doesn’t have a gun and has never used one isn’t going to be effective in civil defense.
Yet there is little to no training before people are allowed to own guns. Seems to me like it doesn’t follow either the modern definition or the supposed definition of old.
Why can’t you people just admit you don’t like guns so you’re trying to desperately to pretend the 2nd amendment doesn’t mean what it has literally always meant?
You’re just like republicans with how disingenuous you are in your rhetoric.
And you know it.
EXACTLY! Well Regulated meant TRAINED IN ARMS back in the day which means we should NOT train ANYONE today! And ALSO, ARMS means the EXACT weapons we have today and has NOTHING to do with the Arms they had back in the day!
Yeah, but dumbasses think that part is optional (not joking)
WELL REGULATED back in the day meant something DIFFERENT then it does today! But ARMS back in the day refers to the EXACT ARMS we have Today!
The ONLY ONLY ONLY way to Prevent this is to make sure TEENAGE DELIVERY DRIVERS shoot at every home they pull up in before getting out!
Holy shit you guys need some serious help.
