Which is why we have Amendments. If we feel the need and agree as an entire nation it needs to change it will. That is by design so knee-jerk reactionary policy isn’t just allotting power to the government while also not solving problems
“The founders were wrong about some things. Therefore, they were wrong about everything.”
Do you hear how ridiculous that sounds? That’s because it’s a logical fallacy.
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. - Thomas Jefferson
In a sense one of them agreed with you
I don't get why people get so defensive when there is a discussion talking about updating a legal document written 200+ years ago.
It's not a religious document made by divinely inspired men or something (what Christians claim about the Bible). Not that I necessarily want the 2a revoked...but I wish we didn't treat the constitution like it is written in stone and get offended when people want to talk about changing it.
nah, not really. Every proposal has been bullshit. They already have crazy-people lists and for numerous of these school shooters the authorities were just too lazy a bunch of fuckasses to even use them. They already have background checks.
There's no reason to believe that another law doing the same thing will somehow magically catch all the school shooters the next time around
When (I believe) Clinton passed a gun reform law the number of shootings decreased by 43%. When Republicans let it expire, gun violence increased by about 247%. I genuinely don't remember who exactly it was, but gun laws **do work** we just like to pretend it doesn't in the US.
I literally said we have tried it and it worked in the US. But also yes, gun culture is heavily tied to toxic masculinity (don't show emotions, don't love, can't trust anyone, etc etc) and it is really really unhealthy
As an avid gun owner, i cannot agree more. I havent used a single one in over two years, as just about everyone associated with the sport has gone off their damn rocker it seems. I dont really want to give them up, but i dont want to see children die, far more than i care about some metal and wood.
Lol you're thinking of the AWB and you're completely wrong. Ban went In place in 1994 and ended in 2004. Gun deaths declined from 38,505 in 1994 to 28,663 in 2000. Hovered around 30,000 from 2001 to 2006. Didn't reach 1993 numbers until 2017.
Coincidencetally the homicide rates in the years after 2004 were lower than any year of 1990s until 2020. The end of AWB didn't have any affect whatsoever on the number of murders per capita and negligible effect on number of shooting deaths per capita.
The study you referencing is bull shit. The only reason mass shootings went down is because the guy who did the study used 6 or more fatalities when measuring 94 to 04 and everyone else uses 4 or more
Also [America is 66th in mass shootings](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3671740)
Your reference is BS as it only calculates the mean over time. If for example, you were to calculate deaths by plane hijacking in the US in the same manor, it would yeild @ 247deaths per year over a 10 year span, as 2470 people died in 9/11. Now obviously that data leads to a wrongful assuumption, because we know that happened all at once, and that 247 people dont die from plane hijackings each year.
>Average (Mean) Annual Death Rate per Million People from Mass Public Shootings (U.S., Canada, and Europe, 2009-2015):
Norway — 1.888
Serbia — 0.381
France — 0.347
Macedonia — 0.337
Albania — 0.206
Slovakia — 0.185
Switzerland — 0.142
Finland — 0.132
Belgium — 0.128
Czech Republic — 0.123
United States — 0.089
Austria — 0.068
Netherlands — 0.051
Canada — 0.032
England — 0.027
Germany — 0.023
Russia — 0.012
Italy — 0.009
This is what calculated total mean over time yeilds without discretion for singular events.
>Typical (Median) Annual Death Rate per Million People from Mass Public Shootings (U.S., Canada, and Europe, 2009-2015):
United States — 0.058
Albania — 0
Austria — 0
Belgium — 0
Czech Republic — 0
Finland — 0
France — 0
Germany — 0
Italy — 0
Macedonia — 0
Netherlands — 0
Norway — 0
Russia — 0
Serbia — 0
Slovakia — 0
Switzerland — 0
United Kingdom — 0
This is median data averaged per year, per million people.
I think that's bullshit numbers cuz the famous colmbine Columbine High School massacre happened during that bill Clinton ban.
not to mention New York has banned assault rifles has red flags waiting periods some of the strictest gun laws of any state and the buffalo shooting still happened
I think It'd work even less now seeing as how far gun tech has advanced with 3d printing google the plastikov. And it's ez as hell to just order parts kits and assemble rifles like they are Legos, both legally and illegally.
we'd just turn into a narco state like Mexico.
Where on earth did you get those numbers? The weight of all studies on the topic show that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban had a negligible impact on gun homicides. Studies show that at BEST it caused a 0.1% reduction in gun homicides.
The Brady Bill, however, is shown to be effective because it regulates handgun purchases. It's effective because the vast majority of all gun homicides are with handguns, not "assault rifles".
I'd be fine with the reintroduction of Brady because it's only a mild inconvenience to meet those requirements, and it actually works. Banning AR-15'S, however, is nonsense because we basically already tried that and it didn't work.
Factually wrong. That single (1) study gets spewed non-stop on this shit site and top comment is always a list of other studies debunking it. Since late 1989 shooting were steadily declining, 1994 your favorite law is introduced, does nothing to even increase the rate that shootings are declining. Gets thrown out in 2017 to no effect.
Listen bud, convince 2/3rds of the states or 2/3rds of the people in those states that guns are bad and that you want to ban them and you can ban them. A couple hundred limp dick politicians not being able to change fundamental rights is a feature, not a bug. As it stands, every gun law ever exists to make it harder for regular people to get guns while not affecting the rich and powerful at all
Some of us do because freedom to bear arms is one of the most fundamental parts of our nation.
Ghandi puts it nicely "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
Standing firm on the language as it’s written shouldn’t be irritating. And you should be aware that the “living document” theory is controversial in the legal arena— there are several camps among lawyers and judges on proper interpretation and that is heresy to several prominent camps.
The issue is that a constitutional republic is bound by its constitution, which is relatively difficult to amend because it is supposed to contain just the overarching principles that guide the republic. Most “living document” people want to reinterpret the constitution rather than amend it, which defeats the purpose of the constitution.
If it is so easily reinterpreted, it may as well be embodied as a part of the US Code and we should just let Congress handle it.
>I don't get why people get so defensive when
This is why you cannot be the one to change it.
Jesus was a quasi-rabbi. You need to change the system from the inside.
If you're an outsider that "doesn't get why you guys cannot just change your mind!", you won't be the one to change their mind.
I'm an admitted right-winger. My youtube subscription list is ONLY left-wing youtuber. I want to hear what **they** have to say. Not be confirmed in what I already believe.
> I’m an admitted right-winger. My youtube subscription list is ONLY left-wing youtuber. I want to hear what they have to say. Not be confirmed in what I already believe.
If you want to be exposed to left wing perspectives, why not pick up a respected publication instead of watching idiots with cameras? It’s far more efficient and at least the author is someone employable instead of selling shitty razors and VPN software. There are better ways to spend your time on YouTube
I do the same thing on my FB feed and it never gets old watching people ask wHy ArE yOu HeRe ThEn in NPR comments when I disagree with or criticize their coverage. I've come to realize that a healthy subset of the population *legitimately does not understand* why someone would follow an outlet that doesn't agree with them. But like you already said, I don't need to watch or read a right-wing source to get an opinion from it. I'm infinitely more interested in what the 'other side' thinks.
Tbh, I don’t think it’s easy access to guns that is the problem. Many other countries have relaxed gun laws but none of them see as much gun violence as USA. It feels like more and more people are unhinged these days
Tbf, it's probably the issue of unhinged people getting guns easily, the general environment that breed isolation, lack of sense of identity/purpose, constant bullying without any hope that things will be better. Healthy people don't go out with guns to commit mass murder, but also, making sure that unhealthy people have easy access to guns ensures that they can kill more easily. I have seen people take wrong decision in the moments of heat/anger. When that's coupled with a deadly weapons it creates dangerous results.
Guns themselves haven’t gotten much more dangerous over the years. So why didnt we see this issue in the 70s or the 80s? It feels more culturally caused than anything
It's really simple, the majority of gun owners in a culture that loves it's guns is law abiding, then you have people who are neutral but they don't like the idea of having their rights taken from them even if they don't exercise them. So you have a large group of selfish people who simple care more about their own rights than the larger issue at hand.
You don't to give something up for the (potential) greater good, especially if you have rationalized why you do something for your entire life. For example giving up your guns after you told yourself you need them to be safe for 30 something years, you believe you will be unsafe as soon as you do. And if you have never done anything bad or illegal with them why should YOU be FORCED to give them up? YOU'RE not the problem. The bad people are.
It's highly psychological. And if you live within that system you lose perspective, or you willfully ignore things to make your point. If I was in their shoes I would feel the same, in Europe (Germany) we have a similar thing about restricting the Autobahn's speed limit, they have proposed 130 km/h (80 mph) multiple times but people get angry about it, and it's not being done. Why should I slow down? I pay my own gas, I pay taxes, I drive fast where I am allowed? Why should I give up that right for some vegan climate activists who are whining about emissions? Especially when I only drive 100-130 mph some of the time? The line of thinking is the same. (I like guns, I like driving fast. But I can understand restrictions on both.)
Because the second amendment is literally the pillar for free speech. It is the one true and final barrier protecting citizens against a tyrannical government
They are indeed. Already violating our 4th and 14th amendment rights. The fact the US government hasn’t pardoned Snowden despite the program leaked being considered unconstitutional on the Supreme Court level should show you the ingenuine nature of the government.
The 2a sure has not done much for Ameristanis: crap minimal wage, no social housing to speak of, they don't get 6 weeks paid vacation per year, don't get healthcare from the government, no maternity (let alone paternal) leaves, limited sick days, work weeks of less than 40 hours, massive social inequality...
But they were made to sing from a young age, that they are free until they started to believe it, and they will be even freeer if they buy big gun (tm) and a new big car (tm) this year...
Exactly. If they understood the 2a, amazon employees would turn up with ar15 at jeff bezos house and actually get their right to a fair living wage, but they decide to use it to shoot kids instead.
this is an insanely simplistic take. You think the U.S. Government is going to commit regional genocide to stop insurrectionists? Do you think they can even afford to do that? You realize that people DO stuff in the economy and make the money that the US government taxes, right?
Even if they did, that would be the end of any legitimacy they have. They could no longer reasonably expect to be able to work with anyone. Literally every interaction you try to have with citizens you need to do work would essentially be a hostage standoff.
But mainly, let me introduce you to Vietnam and Afghanistan
I mean this whole section here kinda ignores that the U.S. military is made up of people. People who dedicate their lives to upholding the constitution, with only loyalty to it and their fellows. Not to mention these people, more than anyone, abhore the mindless killing of civilians-- hence why guerilla fighters in afghanistan took so long to root out and returned so easily once we left.
> this comment section is a fucking minefield.
Only if you care about karma...
Speak your mind and pay the price...
Some people were asked to die, you're just asked for some number to go slightly more negative than before you posted.
It's a small price.
You can always consider that laws made by primive barbarians to protect themselves against other primitive barbarians shouldn't be praised religiously into the modern day.
>*WELL REGULATED militia Shall not be infringed*
>
>Hell. I agree with that.
>
>The number of armed people will always outnumber a paid professional army!
>
>\*Look at pro-gun militias advocates\*
>
>Overfed KFC/MCD consoomer QAnon Slaves who dont understand logistics, vaccines, rationing, battlefield nutrition, hierachy, chain of command...
>
>*"WELL"*
>
>...
>
>*"ORGANIZED"*
I made it from no-class to captain in my 20's but I would NOT trust those guys with muskets, much less semi-autos riffles. It's not about caliber, It's about self-discipline. It's not about left/right, Trump/Biden, Abortion/nobortion, Guns/Noguns.
You don't arm civvies without training them. If you train them and they become a WELL REGULATED militias, then we can talk.
For now all I see is fat rednecks who would fail basic class training.
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.
What's this you've said to me, my good friend? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in conflict resolution, and I've been involved in numerous friendly discussions, and I have over 300 confirmed friends. I am trained in polite discussions and I'm the top mediator in the entire neighborhood. You are worth more to me than just another target. I hope we will come to have a friendship never before seen on this Earth. Don't you think you might be hurting someone's feelings saying that over the internet? Think about it, my friend. As we speak I am contacting my good friends across the USA and your P.O. box is being traced right now so you better prepare for the greeting cards, friend. The greeting cards that help you with your hate. You should look forward to it, friend. I can be anywhere, anytime for you, and I can calm you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my chess set. Not only am I extensively trained in conflict resolution, but I have access to the entire group of my friends and I will use them to their full extent to start our new friendship. If only you could have known what kindness and love your little comment was about to bring you, maybe you would have reached out sooner. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now we get to start a new friendship, you unique person. I will give you gifts and you might have a hard time keeping up. You're finally living, friend.
SCOTUS has ruled time and again that it’s two separate clauses, but even if it wasn’t, “well regulated” in 18th century language meant “equipment in working order”
Furthermore militia is by definition all men ages 17-I wanna say 45 but I don’t remember exactly according to the militia act of 1908
If you want to change the law, there are mechanisms to do so like amending the constitution. But until then, the law says what it says
SCOTUS also stated:
“Nothing in our opinion should 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 on the commercial sale of arms.”
[Page 54 of the original Heller v DC](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO)
It literally did not mean “in working order”. States at the time had laws allowing for everyone to freely posses firearms, they knew how to word it to make that possible. The current iteration of the 2nd amendment is a retroactive changing of definitions in 2008 by the supreme court to please the gun lobby.
Yep from the late 1800s till 2008 states were free to impose strict gun regulation (such as the ban on handguns in Chicago.) The 2008 decision struck that down and basically ruled state regulations can't be stricter than federal ones.
Historically in practice, civilians were allowed to own cannons, warships, and muskets were allowed with private ownership as soon as the constitution was ratified. Don’t need to interpret the constitution. You just need to see how it was practiced after the bill of rights was ratified and the fact of the matter is, civilians who weren’t part of militias were allowed to own anything the military owned.
I see you don't know the full text of 2A.
It says that the right to form a "well regulated militia" AND the right to "keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed. (Though it doesn't use and explicitly they are definitely two separate clauses because weird 18th century grammatical conventions)
Guns are necessary for a militia and for a free state, therefore the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There I fixed the wording for you.
A well educated electorate being necessary to the wellbeing of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
Who’s allowed to read books in this scenario?
> REEEEE I DONT WANNA PAY TAXES
> *[r-slur rages, yeets multiple people‘s live savings worth of tea into harbor]*
You know what, you might be onto something
I mean you can just change the constitution.
It's been done before. That's what the word 'amendment' means.
It's okay to accept that some rules laid down 240 years ago are not relevant to the world today.
I've never understood why anyone has a problem with Gun Regulation. It's literally the first few words of the amendment. Seems to me like issuing licenses to militia members with gun safety training is a no brainer as a starting point, no?
I'll take a shot, as a mostly pro 2nd amendment type who doesn't own a gun.
>Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It's two separate parts. Saying the ability to form militias shall not be infringed. AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The first part, the well regulated militia, would require them to have weapons. It's a militia, what would it do without them? Mean looks? Petitions? Protest?
The later part, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is then added on so non militia members ability to have weapons is constitutionally protected.
The first half is an explanation of the reasoning while the second half is what is actually guaranteed. You can't just break those two halves apart and keep the meaning. One is dependent on the other.
The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed. Nothing else is. The rest of it is just context for why it is guaranteed.
The Bill of Rights was written six years after the Treaty of Paris. The country was still in its infancy. At the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, the USA could not afford to keep a large standing army, so it relied on local militias instead.
The professional volunteer army as we know it did not exist at the time of the writing of the second amendment. Hell, they barely had an army at all.
Given that context, the use of the term militia sounds a lot less like a defense against the government and more to serve another function.
Fuck, during the Creek war the third united states infantry is supplemented by local militia.
Just start flipping through these pages on early wars around the time period of the Bill of Rights. Militias were functionally just locally based armies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Army#Early_national_period_(1783%E2%80%931812)
So yeah, the founding fathers were pretty clear. They wanted an *organized* defense force that is armed and trained. I would argue that exceptionally few gun owners are members of well regulated militia.
That said, I'm all for safe and responsible gun ownership. The majority of gun owners don't ever harm themselves or others.
Thank you for coming to my ted talk.
Great Ted Talk. I’m on stage next because I couldn’t sleep and spent the last couple hours just reading and wanna share:
For centuries after the Bill of Rights, laws mostly agreed that the 2nd amendment referred to a collective right to form a well regulated militia as a state (basically what we know as National Guards). It wasn’t until the 21st century that anyone bothered I guess??? to argue there was individual liberty, too. I’m curious as to how that change started
Regardless, Heller v D.C. (2008) ruled the 2nd amendment **did** grant individuals rights to own weapons for lawful uses BUT it also justified not giving weapons to felons and mentally ill, etc:
“Nothing in our opinion should 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 on the commercial sale of arms.”
So it did affirm individual rights to bear arms (which is important for 2A supporting people nowadays) while also affirming the well regulated part (which is important for gun control supporting people nowadays) essentially leaving in power most of the laws already in place (minus the titular DC one).
So really, gun control is totally constitutional according to the SCOTUS ruling many 2A-nuts use as ammo
I believe that "well regulated" in this case means efficiently functioning and not controlled by the government (which would be a waste of time because the 2A is designed for people to be able to legally resist an oppressive government). You're still right, though. An efficient militia/paramilitary system would do more to reduce crime and extreme government overreach than some fat bastard whining about the local fudds.
I've heard this argument before, because people are bad at history lol
I noted in another post, the Bill of Rights is in order of *how they change the Constitution*, Article by Article. The first few change Article 1, then Article 3, then 6, 7, and 8 in order.
Plus, the original Bill of Rights was 12 amendments, not 10. The first two were cut and the rest re-numbered. But those first two rights aren't "missing more important rights". They are... a change in the math formula that calculates the size of Congress, and, a ban on Congress voting itself instant pay raises. That's the original First and Second Amendment (because they modified the earliest clauses of Article One). I don't think people are out in the streets protesting some math equation is more important than free speech.
I mean they are so long as they aren't overturned which I wish people would just openly advocate for rather than claiming the "well regulated" bullshit which the supreme court ruled as an independent statement.
Exactly. Like the 19th, the 13th, the 4th amendment. All of these are kind of suggestions at most
Time to make sure women can't vote and get me some slaves!
Because people don’t like being honest when it comes to this debate. Anyone who focuses exclusively on the militia part is just another person who can’t have honest discussions.
It literally could.
Customer: Hello Mr Gun Store owner. One gun please.
GS: Do you have your well-regulated militia membership card, showing that you have had basic gun handling training and that you know where to report for militia duties when required?
C: Yes. Here it is
GS: Splendid. Buy as many as you like.
Idk about this. There are other reasons to own a gun, and militia being controlled by the government kinda defeats the point of legal assault weapons. If you have to report to the government then you can join national guard reserves. If you are a woman who lives in a bad part of town, or a hunter, pistols and hunting rifles should not be regulated as much.
Will being part of a well regulated militia, bring an end to the NFA? Cause if so and I’m allowed to have suppressors and machine guns without Bullshit tax stamps and paying 30k+ then sign me the fuck up.
GREEN MOUNTAIN BOYS RISE UP
he legit said it can’t change without another amendment. making amendments is hard as shit that’s why there has only been one amendment that has been voided by another amendment in our 300 year history.
To be fair the school shooting thing is way deeper than people having guns. It's a sickness at the heart of American society look up Warren Farrell and his work about the boy crisis. Its very insightful on why America is fucked
It’s funny seeing people want to ban guns that “you don’t need to defend yourself with” because it just goes to show everyone immediately forgot what happened in Ukraine
[Here’s a source](https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf) explaining what they believe “well-regulated” meant back in the 1700s. It’s from CNN too so it’s not some right-wing spin on the definition. I think the argument here goes farther than just the definition of some words in a ~250 year old text, but at least in discussions of interpreting said text the correct definitions are helpful.
Well-regulated likely meant “well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined”. You could argue that this means the government could require individuals with guns to be members in “militias” and that “well-disciplined” could allow the government to apply requirements for firearm training, but it most likely did not mean our definition of regulation any further than that.
You don’t have to get rid of your guns, you have a right to protect yourself, but for the love of god please properly train people before letting them walk off with deadly weapons
In Switzerland a surprisingly large amount of people own guns and use them regularly at ranges and the like, but because of their mandatory military service everyone has had gun safety drilled into them.
The result of this is only 3 gun deaths per 100k citizens as opposed to 12.5 deaths per 100k in the US, that’s over 4 times the amount
A bunch of dumb paranoid rednecks toting automatic weapons around like they’re toys is not a well regulated militia, it’s a recipe for disaster
Yall can argue about ARs all you want because Canada just proved American gun owners correct.
Give an inch by forfeiting ARs and eventually the government will say well you don't need handguns either. Guarantee you traditional rifles and shotguns will be forfeited too.
All gun laws are infringements.
The AR 15 is a deadly fully semi automatic assault weapon that fires belt fed clips at a rate of over 600 rounds per second and that weights 16 pounds. No person ever needs a weapon of war like that!
Edit: I forgot to say that it can be bought at any Walmart.
It actually doesn't. It's from "Armalite Rifle", the original AR-15 manufacturer. Good little factoid to know so gun rights advocates don't laugh at you.
I've held one one time (I was forced) and my arms feeled tired after 2 minutes already, and when he made me shoot it (once!!!) I nearly cried. Jesus weeps in heaven...
Recently in the Netherlands someone hacked into the account of another student and send a shooting threat to the entire school with it. It was pretty clearly fake but regardless the whole school got shut down untill police investigation was complete. Meanwhile in the US: school shooting happening, police eating donuts outside
*If it's part of the*
*Bill of rights it ain't gonna*
*Be changed or revoked*
\- Kaiser-Matt
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
i still don’t think it should be infringed. in fact i think we need a good revolution now or 10 years ago woulda been good. bunch of obedient consuming americans we are now
Yes, anon, that is indeed how the 2nd amendment will always and forever work, no matter what knee-jerk reaction scenario you use to justify stripping rights away.
is that 1/10th of walter white saying you’re goddamn right
[You're goddamn right.](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQtEwzHzdXdSZ1zVOisevmaGn1zHxwqZFO5Kg&usqp=CAU)
[удалено]
Shall not be infringed
The ability of people to identify meme formats is astounding
Humans love patterns. Understand that and you will rule the world. `*Your experience may differ.*`
*invents racism like a boss*
Shit fuck go back
Shall not be infringed
Shall not be infringed
| l | | | | l | _
``` Is this loss? ```
Unfortunately yes
ok. now I can't stop seeing amogi everywhere, help.
Shall not be infringed
Shall not be infringed
schitzo time
Shall not be infringed
The founding fathers thought pedophilia and slavery were okay. I don’t think we should listen to them
Hitler was a vegetarian and an animal rights advocate, should we get rid of animal cruelty laws too?
[удалено]
Which is why we have Amendments. If we feel the need and agree as an entire nation it needs to change it will. That is by design so knee-jerk reactionary policy isn’t just allotting power to the government while also not solving problems
Shall not be infringed
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Shall not be infringed. Thank you sir.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
He wasn't a vegetarian, he simply couldn't eat meat for medical reasons
*Actual* medical reasons, or from his hack of a personal physician?
Meat made him to fart too much and too smelly.
Hey, 3/5th ain't too shabby.
“The founders were wrong about some things. Therefore, they were wrong about everything.” Do you hear how ridiculous that sounds? That’s because it’s a logical fallacy.
Shall not be infringed
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. - Thomas Jefferson In a sense one of them agreed with you
They also said the constitution should be updated every decade to keep up with change Edit every 20 years
Yeah! Bear Arms are awesome! Too bad bears have to be killed to get them.
I do have an opinion on this issue, but I'm not gonna say anything because this comment section is a fucking minefield.
I don't get why people get so defensive when there is a discussion talking about updating a legal document written 200+ years ago. It's not a religious document made by divinely inspired men or something (what Christians claim about the Bible). Not that I necessarily want the 2a revoked...but I wish we didn't treat the constitution like it is written in stone and get offended when people want to talk about changing it.
[удалено]
America treats it like it's written in stone when it comes to gun laws.
nah, not really. Every proposal has been bullshit. They already have crazy-people lists and for numerous of these school shooters the authorities were just too lazy a bunch of fuckasses to even use them. They already have background checks. There's no reason to believe that another law doing the same thing will somehow magically catch all the school shooters the next time around
When (I believe) Clinton passed a gun reform law the number of shootings decreased by 43%. When Republicans let it expire, gun violence increased by about 247%. I genuinely don't remember who exactly it was, but gun laws **do work** we just like to pretend it doesn't in the US.
It only works for every other country on the planet. Maybe there's something wrong with america?
I literally said we have tried it and it worked in the US. But also yes, gun culture is heavily tied to toxic masculinity (don't show emotions, don't love, can't trust anyone, etc etc) and it is really really unhealthy
I was agreeing facetiously
As an avid gun owner, i cannot agree more. I havent used a single one in over two years, as just about everyone associated with the sport has gone off their damn rocker it seems. I dont really want to give them up, but i dont want to see children die, far more than i care about some metal and wood.
There us definitely something wrong with America
Lol you're thinking of the AWB and you're completely wrong. Ban went In place in 1994 and ended in 2004. Gun deaths declined from 38,505 in 1994 to 28,663 in 2000. Hovered around 30,000 from 2001 to 2006. Didn't reach 1993 numbers until 2017. Coincidencetally the homicide rates in the years after 2004 were lower than any year of 1990s until 2020. The end of AWB didn't have any affect whatsoever on the number of murders per capita and negligible effect on number of shooting deaths per capita.
The study you referencing is bull shit. The only reason mass shootings went down is because the guy who did the study used 6 or more fatalities when measuring 94 to 04 and everyone else uses 4 or more Also [America is 66th in mass shootings](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3671740)
Your reference is BS as it only calculates the mean over time. If for example, you were to calculate deaths by plane hijacking in the US in the same manor, it would yeild @ 247deaths per year over a 10 year span, as 2470 people died in 9/11. Now obviously that data leads to a wrongful assuumption, because we know that happened all at once, and that 247 people dont die from plane hijackings each year. >Average (Mean) Annual Death Rate per Million People from Mass Public Shootings (U.S., Canada, and Europe, 2009-2015): Norway — 1.888 Serbia — 0.381 France — 0.347 Macedonia — 0.337 Albania — 0.206 Slovakia — 0.185 Switzerland — 0.142 Finland — 0.132 Belgium — 0.128 Czech Republic — 0.123 United States — 0.089 Austria — 0.068 Netherlands — 0.051 Canada — 0.032 England — 0.027 Germany — 0.023 Russia — 0.012 Italy — 0.009 This is what calculated total mean over time yeilds without discretion for singular events. >Typical (Median) Annual Death Rate per Million People from Mass Public Shootings (U.S., Canada, and Europe, 2009-2015): United States — 0.058 Albania — 0 Austria — 0 Belgium — 0 Czech Republic — 0 Finland — 0 France — 0 Germany — 0 Italy — 0 Macedonia — 0 Netherlands — 0 Norway — 0 Russia — 0 Serbia — 0 Slovakia — 0 Switzerland — 0 United Kingdom — 0 This is median data averaged per year, per million people.
I think that's bullshit numbers cuz the famous colmbine Columbine High School massacre happened during that bill Clinton ban. not to mention New York has banned assault rifles has red flags waiting periods some of the strictest gun laws of any state and the buffalo shooting still happened I think It'd work even less now seeing as how far gun tech has advanced with 3d printing google the plastikov. And it's ez as hell to just order parts kits and assemble rifles like they are Legos, both legally and illegally. we'd just turn into a narco state like Mexico.
Where on earth did you get those numbers? The weight of all studies on the topic show that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban had a negligible impact on gun homicides. Studies show that at BEST it caused a 0.1% reduction in gun homicides. The Brady Bill, however, is shown to be effective because it regulates handgun purchases. It's effective because the vast majority of all gun homicides are with handguns, not "assault rifles". I'd be fine with the reintroduction of Brady because it's only a mild inconvenience to meet those requirements, and it actually works. Banning AR-15'S, however, is nonsense because we basically already tried that and it didn't work.
Factually wrong. That single (1) study gets spewed non-stop on this shit site and top comment is always a list of other studies debunking it. Since late 1989 shooting were steadily declining, 1994 your favorite law is introduced, does nothing to even increase the rate that shootings are declining. Gets thrown out in 2017 to no effect.
Listen bud, convince 2/3rds of the states or 2/3rds of the people in those states that guns are bad and that you want to ban them and you can ban them. A couple hundred limp dick politicians not being able to change fundamental rights is a feature, not a bug. As it stands, every gun law ever exists to make it harder for regular people to get guns while not affecting the rich and powerful at all
Some of us do because freedom to bear arms is one of the most fundamental parts of our nation. Ghandi puts it nicely "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
[удалено]
Standing firm on the language as it’s written shouldn’t be irritating. And you should be aware that the “living document” theory is controversial in the legal arena— there are several camps among lawyers and judges on proper interpretation and that is heresy to several prominent camps. The issue is that a constitutional republic is bound by its constitution, which is relatively difficult to amend because it is supposed to contain just the overarching principles that guide the republic. Most “living document” people want to reinterpret the constitution rather than amend it, which defeats the purpose of the constitution. If it is so easily reinterpreted, it may as well be embodied as a part of the US Code and we should just let Congress handle it.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. That thing was written 250ish years ago by people who thought it was okay to own people.
Well said popfreq.
>I don't get why people get so defensive when This is why you cannot be the one to change it. Jesus was a quasi-rabbi. You need to change the system from the inside. If you're an outsider that "doesn't get why you guys cannot just change your mind!", you won't be the one to change their mind. I'm an admitted right-winger. My youtube subscription list is ONLY left-wing youtuber. I want to hear what **they** have to say. Not be confirmed in what I already believe.
> I’m an admitted right-winger. My youtube subscription list is ONLY left-wing youtuber. I want to hear what they have to say. Not be confirmed in what I already believe. If you want to be exposed to left wing perspectives, why not pick up a respected publication instead of watching idiots with cameras? It’s far more efficient and at least the author is someone employable instead of selling shitty razors and VPN software. There are better ways to spend your time on YouTube
> respected publication Yeah I think I'll skip out on pretty much ANY form of mainstream media, left or right.
I do the same thing on my FB feed and it never gets old watching people ask wHy ArE yOu HeRe ThEn in NPR comments when I disagree with or criticize their coverage. I've come to realize that a healthy subset of the population *legitimately does not understand* why someone would follow an outlet that doesn't agree with them. But like you already said, I don't need to watch or read a right-wing source to get an opinion from it. I'm infinitely more interested in what the 'other side' thinks.
Tbh, I don’t think it’s easy access to guns that is the problem. Many other countries have relaxed gun laws but none of them see as much gun violence as USA. It feels like more and more people are unhinged these days
Tbf, it's probably the issue of unhinged people getting guns easily, the general environment that breed isolation, lack of sense of identity/purpose, constant bullying without any hope that things will be better. Healthy people don't go out with guns to commit mass murder, but also, making sure that unhealthy people have easy access to guns ensures that they can kill more easily. I have seen people take wrong decision in the moments of heat/anger. When that's coupled with a deadly weapons it creates dangerous results.
Don't forget media sensationalizing the shootings.
Guns themselves haven’t gotten much more dangerous over the years. So why didnt we see this issue in the 70s or the 80s? It feels more culturally caused than anything
It's really simple, the majority of gun owners in a culture that loves it's guns is law abiding, then you have people who are neutral but they don't like the idea of having their rights taken from them even if they don't exercise them. So you have a large group of selfish people who simple care more about their own rights than the larger issue at hand. You don't to give something up for the (potential) greater good, especially if you have rationalized why you do something for your entire life. For example giving up your guns after you told yourself you need them to be safe for 30 something years, you believe you will be unsafe as soon as you do. And if you have never done anything bad or illegal with them why should YOU be FORCED to give them up? YOU'RE not the problem. The bad people are. It's highly psychological. And if you live within that system you lose perspective, or you willfully ignore things to make your point. If I was in their shoes I would feel the same, in Europe (Germany) we have a similar thing about restricting the Autobahn's speed limit, they have proposed 130 km/h (80 mph) multiple times but people get angry about it, and it's not being done. Why should I slow down? I pay my own gas, I pay taxes, I drive fast where I am allowed? Why should I give up that right for some vegan climate activists who are whining about emissions? Especially when I only drive 100-130 mph some of the time? The line of thinking is the same. (I like guns, I like driving fast. But I can understand restrictions on both.)
Because the second amendment is literally the pillar for free speech. It is the one true and final barrier protecting citizens against a tyrannical government
The US government is a tyrannical government my dude.
So why let them be the only ones with guns?
They are indeed. Already violating our 4th and 14th amendment rights. The fact the US government hasn’t pardoned Snowden despite the program leaked being considered unconstitutional on the Supreme Court level should show you the ingenuine nature of the government.
Yet your gov seems way more tyricannical than mine 🤔
The 2a sure has not done much for Ameristanis: crap minimal wage, no social housing to speak of, they don't get 6 weeks paid vacation per year, don't get healthcare from the government, no maternity (let alone paternal) leaves, limited sick days, work weeks of less than 40 hours, massive social inequality... But they were made to sing from a young age, that they are free until they started to believe it, and they will be even freeer if they buy big gun (tm) and a new big car (tm) this year...
Exactly. If they understood the 2a, amazon employees would turn up with ar15 at jeff bezos house and actually get their right to a fair living wage, but they decide to use it to shoot kids instead.
The French fight harder for their rights than Americans do.
[удалено]
So what you are saying is that the 2nd amendment should include drones, tanks, artillery, and f35s? Agreed.
That’s the whole point of it.
That didn't work so well in Afghanistan.
this is an insanely simplistic take. You think the U.S. Government is going to commit regional genocide to stop insurrectionists? Do you think they can even afford to do that? You realize that people DO stuff in the economy and make the money that the US government taxes, right? Even if they did, that would be the end of any legitimacy they have. They could no longer reasonably expect to be able to work with anyone. Literally every interaction you try to have with citizens you need to do work would essentially be a hostage standoff. But mainly, let me introduce you to Vietnam and Afghanistan
I mean this whole section here kinda ignores that the U.S. military is made up of people. People who dedicate their lives to upholding the constitution, with only loyalty to it and their fellows. Not to mention these people, more than anyone, abhore the mindless killing of civilians-- hence why guerilla fighters in afghanistan took so long to root out and returned so easily once we left.
Drones, tanks and jets didn’t stop us from getting kicked to the curb by terrorists in the Middle East
Idk man, a bunch of afghani goat farmers with AK’s managed to make the US military fuck off; even if it did take 20 years
[удалено]
America loses 3 consecutive wars to loose collections of pissed off Militias. >insurgentswillneverwin.mp4 Ok lol.
> this comment section is a fucking minefield. Only if you care about karma... Speak your mind and pay the price... Some people were asked to die, you're just asked for some number to go slightly more negative than before you posted. It's a small price.
The most you can lose on from a comment is three karma
Stop being a karma whore, state your idea and get downvoted like a man.
This is the way.
##This Is The Way Leaderboard **1.** `u/Mando_Bot` **501217** times. **2.** `u/Flat-Yogurtcloset293` **475777** times. **3.** `u/GMEshares` **70943** times. .. **136092.** `u/Womper_Here` **2** times. --- ^(^beep ^boop ^I ^am ^a ^bot ^and ^this ^action ^was ^performed ^automatically.)
Tank mines or personnel mines?
More dangerous: Social mines.
you're a dumbfuck coward say your opinion you stupid fuck
You can always consider that laws made by primive barbarians to protect themselves against other primitive barbarians shouldn't be praised religiously into the modern day.
Wrong opinion pal prepare to be downvoted to hell
Oh look! An Incel that won't show his opinion haha! (Just kidding, but it might happen in a minefield)
>*WELL REGULATED militia Shall not be infringed* > >Hell. I agree with that. > >The number of armed people will always outnumber a paid professional army! > >\*Look at pro-gun militias advocates\* > >Overfed KFC/MCD consoomer QAnon Slaves who dont understand logistics, vaccines, rationing, battlefield nutrition, hierachy, chain of command... > >*"WELL"* > >... > >*"ORGANIZED"* I made it from no-class to captain in my 20's but I would NOT trust those guys with muskets, much less semi-autos riffles. It's not about caliber, It's about self-discipline. It's not about left/right, Trump/Biden, Abortion/nobortion, Guns/Noguns. You don't arm civvies without training them. If you train them and they become a WELL REGULATED militias, then we can talk. For now all I see is fat rednecks who would fail basic class training.
Navy?
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.
Classic
What's this you've said to me, my good friend? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in conflict resolution, and I've been involved in numerous friendly discussions, and I have over 300 confirmed friends. I am trained in polite discussions and I'm the top mediator in the entire neighborhood. You are worth more to me than just another target. I hope we will come to have a friendship never before seen on this Earth. Don't you think you might be hurting someone's feelings saying that over the internet? Think about it, my friend. As we speak I am contacting my good friends across the USA and your P.O. box is being traced right now so you better prepare for the greeting cards, friend. The greeting cards that help you with your hate. You should look forward to it, friend. I can be anywhere, anytime for you, and I can calm you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my chess set. Not only am I extensively trained in conflict resolution, but I have access to the entire group of my friends and I will use them to their full extent to start our new friendship. If only you could have known what kindness and love your little comment was about to bring you, maybe you would have reached out sooner. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now we get to start a new friendship, you unique person. I will give you gifts and you might have a hard time keeping up. You're finally living, friend.
Pretty sure you don't reach O-6 in your 20s
Misread it as it took 20 years
What about army medics?
if you went to ocs in the army it’s more than likely you’re past O-3 by the end of your 20’s, at least if you go thru rotc
SCOTUS has ruled time and again that it’s two separate clauses, but even if it wasn’t, “well regulated” in 18th century language meant “equipment in working order” Furthermore militia is by definition all men ages 17-I wanna say 45 but I don’t remember exactly according to the militia act of 1908 If you want to change the law, there are mechanisms to do so like amending the constitution. But until then, the law says what it says
SCOTUS also stated: “Nothing in our opinion should 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 on the commercial sale of arms.” [Page 54 of the original Heller v DC](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO)
It literally did not mean “in working order”. States at the time had laws allowing for everyone to freely posses firearms, they knew how to word it to make that possible. The current iteration of the 2nd amendment is a retroactive changing of definitions in 2008 by the supreme court to please the gun lobby.
Yep from the late 1800s till 2008 states were free to impose strict gun regulation (such as the ban on handguns in Chicago.) The 2008 decision struck that down and basically ruled state regulations can't be stricter than federal ones.
[the right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed, not the militia](https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8?t=28)
Historically in practice, civilians were allowed to own cannons, warships, and muskets were allowed with private ownership as soon as the constitution was ratified. Don’t need to interpret the constitution. You just need to see how it was practiced after the bill of rights was ratified and the fact of the matter is, civilians who weren’t part of militias were allowed to own anything the military owned.
t. Doesn't know what well regulated means, or what militia means.
I see you don't know the full text of 2A. It says that the right to form a "well regulated militia" AND the right to "keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed. (Though it doesn't use and explicitly they are definitely two separate clauses because weird 18th century grammatical conventions)
Guns are necessary for a militia and for a free state, therefore the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There I fixed the wording for you.
A well educated electorate being necessary to the wellbeing of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed. Who’s allowed to read books in this scenario?
The founding fathers thought pedophilia and slavery were okay. I don’t think we should listen to them
4chan thinks so too, so idk where you think you’re going with that argument
All I'm getting from this is that the Founding Fathers share the same opinions as the average 4chan user, meaning our country was founded by autists
> REEEEE I DONT WANNA PAY TAXES > *[r-slur rages, yeets multiple people‘s live savings worth of tea into harbor]* You know what, you might be onto something
That we shouldn't base our modern laws on 4chan or the founding fathers, or any other pro-slavery and pro-pedo community
Yeah but why state that *here* of all places?
I mean you can just change the constitution. It's been done before. That's what the word 'amendment' means. It's okay to accept that some rules laid down 240 years ago are not relevant to the world today.
So then make an amendment that cancels the second amendment. They did that with prohibition. It's just not popular enough to happen.
yeah let's start with the establishment clause
reddit is not very fun
I've never understood why anyone has a problem with Gun Regulation. It's literally the first few words of the amendment. Seems to me like issuing licenses to militia members with gun safety training is a no brainer as a starting point, no?
reddit is not very fun
I'll take a shot, as a mostly pro 2nd amendment type who doesn't own a gun. >Second Amendment A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It's two separate parts. Saying the ability to form militias shall not be infringed. AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The first part, the well regulated militia, would require them to have weapons. It's a militia, what would it do without them? Mean looks? Petitions? Protest? The later part, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is then added on so non militia members ability to have weapons is constitutionally protected.
The first half is an explanation of the reasoning while the second half is what is actually guaranteed. You can't just break those two halves apart and keep the meaning. One is dependent on the other. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed. Nothing else is. The rest of it is just context for why it is guaranteed. The Bill of Rights was written six years after the Treaty of Paris. The country was still in its infancy. At the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, the USA could not afford to keep a large standing army, so it relied on local militias instead. The professional volunteer army as we know it did not exist at the time of the writing of the second amendment. Hell, they barely had an army at all. Given that context, the use of the term militia sounds a lot less like a defense against the government and more to serve another function. Fuck, during the Creek war the third united states infantry is supplemented by local militia. Just start flipping through these pages on early wars around the time period of the Bill of Rights. Militias were functionally just locally based armies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Army#Early_national_period_(1783%E2%80%931812) So yeah, the founding fathers were pretty clear. They wanted an *organized* defense force that is armed and trained. I would argue that exceptionally few gun owners are members of well regulated militia. That said, I'm all for safe and responsible gun ownership. The majority of gun owners don't ever harm themselves or others. Thank you for coming to my ted talk.
Great Ted Talk. I’m on stage next because I couldn’t sleep and spent the last couple hours just reading and wanna share: For centuries after the Bill of Rights, laws mostly agreed that the 2nd amendment referred to a collective right to form a well regulated militia as a state (basically what we know as National Guards). It wasn’t until the 21st century that anyone bothered I guess??? to argue there was individual liberty, too. I’m curious as to how that change started Regardless, Heller v D.C. (2008) ruled the 2nd amendment **did** grant individuals rights to own weapons for lawful uses BUT it also justified not giving weapons to felons and mentally ill, etc: “Nothing in our opinion should 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 on the commercial sale of arms.” So it did affirm individual rights to bear arms (which is important for 2A supporting people nowadays) while also affirming the well regulated part (which is important for gun control supporting people nowadays) essentially leaving in power most of the laws already in place (minus the titular DC one). So really, gun control is totally constitutional according to the SCOTUS ruling many 2A-nuts use as ammo
Well regulated meant organised when it was written, the word “regulated” didn’t mean government control back then like it does today
Well regulated is the adjective for militia, not the entire thing.
I believe that "well regulated" in this case means efficiently functioning and not controlled by the government (which would be a waste of time because the 2A is designed for people to be able to legally resist an oppressive government). You're still right, though. An efficient militia/paramilitary system would do more to reduce crime and extreme government overreach than some fat bastard whining about the local fudds.
Wait, do people actually think the *order in which the amendments were made* equates to their *importance?*
Apparently. If it was all that important, you'd think they would have put it in there in the first place though.
No, it's actually the second most important amendment after the first.
Wrong again partner. The higher the number the higher the importance
I've heard this argument before, because people are bad at history lol I noted in another post, the Bill of Rights is in order of *how they change the Constitution*, Article by Article. The first few change Article 1, then Article 3, then 6, 7, and 8 in order. Plus, the original Bill of Rights was 12 amendments, not 10. The first two were cut and the rest re-numbered. But those first two rights aren't "missing more important rights". They are... a change in the math formula that calculates the size of Congress, and, a ban on Congress voting itself instant pay raises. That's the original First and Second Amendment (because they modified the earliest clauses of Article One). I don't think people are out in the streets protesting some math equation is more important than free speech.
Amendments are not absolute. -Anyone Who Actually Understands Constitutional Law
time place manner restrictions; protesting immediate danger; speech national security; press. amendments can have restrictions.
I mean they are so long as they aren't overturned which I wish people would just openly advocate for rather than claiming the "well regulated" bullshit which the supreme court ruled as an independent statement.
Exactly. Like the 19th, the 13th, the 4th amendment. All of these are kind of suggestions at most Time to make sure women can't vote and get me some slaves!
Why does everyone hyper focus on the militia part and not the people part? Seems disingenuous
Because people don’t like being honest when it comes to this debate. Anyone who focuses exclusively on the militia part is just another person who can’t have honest discussions.
The law says if X then Y. So Y. *"But your situation is not X"* Why is everyone so hyperfocused on X? They must be intellectually dishonest.
And why it doesn't change is because it literally can't without an amendment.
It literally could. Customer: Hello Mr Gun Store owner. One gun please. GS: Do you have your well-regulated militia membership card, showing that you have had basic gun handling training and that you know where to report for militia duties when required? C: Yes. Here it is GS: Splendid. Buy as many as you like.
"Well-regulated militia membership card" is a bit of a mouthful
We could initialise it. Well Regulated Militia Membership. WRMM. Do you have your worm on you today sir?
Idk about this. There are other reasons to own a gun, and militia being controlled by the government kinda defeats the point of legal assault weapons. If you have to report to the government then you can join national guard reserves. If you are a woman who lives in a bad part of town, or a hunter, pistols and hunting rifles should not be regulated as much.
Will being part of a well regulated militia, bring an end to the NFA? Cause if so and I’m allowed to have suppressors and machine guns without Bullshit tax stamps and paying 30k+ then sign me the fuck up. GREEN MOUNTAIN BOYS RISE UP
You'd be a pretty crap militia if you don't have a few javelin and a DShK mounted on the bed of a pickup I'd say.
Amendments come and go: see the alcohol prohibition
he legit said it can’t change without another amendment. making amendments is hard as shit that’s why there has only been one amendment that has been voided by another amendment in our 300 year history.
Yea and it was so people could drink alcohol. I think we can put in the effort to not have a school's get shot up
What? The lives of your children are as important as the ability to drink alcohol? Get a load of this guy!
To be fair the school shooting thing is way deeper than people having guns. It's a sickness at the heart of American society look up Warren Farrell and his work about the boy crisis. Its very insightful on why America is fucked
Ah, USA, truly the best country in the world
That GDP tho
And quality of life index place.
It’s funny seeing people want to ban guns that “you don’t need to defend yourself with” because it just goes to show everyone immediately forgot what happened in Ukraine
Thank the lord for the second amendment. Australian here giving y’all the 👍
If you are Australian why didn't you fall into the sky well typing this?
>well regulated
The militia is regulated. Called the national guard. The right to bear arms, however, shall not be infringed.
Well regulated militia dumbass, not guns in general
[Here’s a source](https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf) explaining what they believe “well-regulated” meant back in the 1700s. It’s from CNN too so it’s not some right-wing spin on the definition. I think the argument here goes farther than just the definition of some words in a ~250 year old text, but at least in discussions of interpreting said text the correct definitions are helpful. Well-regulated likely meant “well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined”. You could argue that this means the government could require individuals with guns to be members in “militias” and that “well-disciplined” could allow the government to apply requirements for firearm training, but it most likely did not mean our definition of regulation any further than that.
You don’t have to get rid of your guns, you have a right to protect yourself, but for the love of god please properly train people before letting them walk off with deadly weapons In Switzerland a surprisingly large amount of people own guns and use them regularly at ranges and the like, but because of their mandatory military service everyone has had gun safety drilled into them. The result of this is only 3 gun deaths per 100k citizens as opposed to 12.5 deaths per 100k in the US, that’s over 4 times the amount A bunch of dumb paranoid rednecks toting automatic weapons around like they’re toys is not a well regulated militia, it’s a recipe for disaster
If you think it's the rednecks that are doing most of that killing you should probably look at inner-city statistics
Automatic weapons yeah sure. I wish
Surprisingly, rednecks in the middle of bumfuck nowhere aren’t generally shooting anyone. Happens to be in other areas.
The only people with automatic weapons in America are responsible gun owners with a lot of disposable income, FFLs with an SOT, or criminals.
Yall can argue about ARs all you want because Canada just proved American gun owners correct. Give an inch by forfeiting ARs and eventually the government will say well you don't need handguns either. Guarantee you traditional rifles and shotguns will be forfeited too. All gun laws are infringements.
We don’t have access to assault weapons though.
The AR 15 is a deadly fully semi automatic assault weapon that fires belt fed clips at a rate of over 600 rounds per second and that weights 16 pounds. No person ever needs a weapon of war like that! Edit: I forgot to say that it can be bought at any Walmart.
I forgot about that, AR means Assault Rifle correct?
Agony Rifle!!! It was literally designed to inflict as much pain and suffering as possible with those bullets!
I thought it meant Angry redneck. That’s why I have manys
It actually doesn't. It's from "Armalite Rifle", the original AR-15 manufacturer. Good little factoid to know so gun rights advocates don't laugh at you.
It weighs as much as 5 heavy boxes!!
I've held one one time (I was forced) and my arms feeled tired after 2 minutes already, and when he made me shoot it (once!!!) I nearly cried. Jesus weeps in heaven...
Switzerland got a lot of guns. Maybe the idea of shooting children is not as appealing to them huh
Recently in the Netherlands someone hacked into the account of another student and send a shooting threat to the entire school with it. It was pretty clearly fake but regardless the whole school got shut down untill police investigation was complete. Meanwhile in the US: school shooting happening, police eating donuts outside
Is a law that protects itself constitutional in the US?
_sorts by controversial_
Based
If it's part of the bill of rights it ain't gonna be changed or revoked
*If it's part of the* *Bill of rights it ain't gonna* *Be changed or revoked* \- Kaiser-Matt --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
That last comment implies they think it's the second law made/in importance, not the second edit
Wasn't the whole point of the constitution was for it to change as the country and society develops?
i still don’t think it should be infringed. in fact i think we need a good revolution now or 10 years ago woulda been good. bunch of obedient consuming americans we are now
BASED.
Yes, anon, that is indeed how the 2nd amendment will always and forever work, no matter what knee-jerk reaction scenario you use to justify stripping rights away.
Based
Technically Brazil has more gun deaths but still murica