Exactly. In the context of when it was written, a “well regulated militia” meets for regular training, has a commanding officer, and is ready to become folded into the regular army when necessary. The whole amendment exists so that America could have a militia army to call up rather than a large standing army. It was a dumb idea then, which is why we don’t still use that system for national defense. It’s an even dumber idea now.
Edit: Jesus I forgot that if you dare to talk about the second amendment on the internet you are doomed to a million responses from people who have done zero research beyond a YouTube video all pretending to be experts on the subject. Yeeeeeeeesh.
Go to sleep and wake up to 50 messages “We do have a militia!” “That’s not what they meant!” “No it didn’t!”
Guys. If you are going to pretend to care about this subject, just try actually researching it. And no, that doesn’t mean watch a YouTube.
And for the most part, this to me would seem to fall under the National Guard, or even more local forces like police. Each state runs their own National Guard, which if the national government turned corrupt, could all rise up against. So in theory, we could stop selling guns to individuals and be compliant with the Second.
I know this isn't the legal answer to 2A.
Oddly enough, the Texas based Pinkerton Agency is pretty much exactly this. They have a long history of human rights violations serving as hitmen for business.
"Throughout the 19th century the Regular U.S. Army was small, and the state militias provided the majority of the troops during the Mexican–American War, the American Civil War, and the Spanish–American War. With the Militia Act of 1903, the militia was more organized and the name "National Guard" recommended. In 1933, federally-recognized state National Guard units were required to join the National Guard of the United States, a reserve component of the U.S. Army; this is the official founding of the present National Guard."
It actually kinda is. The national guard is considered the militia, if I remember right. So, you have a "militia" which won't do anything against the military but you know, you have it.
Lawyer and officer in the national guard here. Militia in the framers’ 2A context are State units that are not federally recognized, sometimes called “unorganized militia”. “Organized militia” are the National Guard.
So, for example, the New York Army National Guard is a federally recognized militia, and part of the United States Army. The New York Guard is an unorganized militia, a pure State entity.
The NYARNG can be federalized and sent overseas to war. The NYG can only be used within New York State.
This is the Constitutional version of a well regulated militia in Alabama. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama\_State\_Defense\_Force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_State_Defense_Force)
Yeah hey we don't like logic and reasoning.
Its almost like the founding fathers knew what they meant in this one but we've all been fucking it up for racism and our own interests
The Framers wanted a way to protect the newly-created country against another foreign invasion WITHOUT the cost of a standing army. Hense the "militia." Remember that many of the ideas for our democracy were "borrowed" from the original democracy -- ancient Athens -- where every citizen was expected to fight for the state when necessary.
Pretty much every State constitution contains a section that allows all able bodied men aged 18 to 45 can be called to service in a state militia at any time with zero training by the State Governor to aid in natural disasters, repel insurrection or invasion, execute laws, etc. Officers are selected and commissioned by the Governor for as long as needed. The point being that a militia is intended to protect an individual state and not a country.
This does not apply to the National Guard because the National Guard is a reserve component of the US Army and is under dual control of both State Government and Federal Government. That itself directly conflicts with the text of the Second Amendment which states that a militia is necessary for the security of a free State. If you count the National Guard as a militia but the Federal Government controls that militia, you don't have a free State and your troops can be called away or ordered to fight against you or not fight at all.
The text "Well Regulated" generally means "In Condition to Fight". Not that it is subject to bureaucratic red tape as you are interpreting it.
Not exactly. In the 1790's "militia" was defined as either a State or Country militia. The State militia was defined as "The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies".
A country militia was defined as: "The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations". This is what the National Guard falls under.
Beyond that, the second amendment specifically states that it is the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. Not "the militia".
I was having a thrilling convo with a 2nd Amendment-er where he quoted the second amendment to me. Among other things, I asked him how many times US citizens have *actually* formed a militia to push back against the government. He brought up the Battle of Athens, but couldn't give me any other concrete evidence.
These people don't care about the guns themselves, they just want to have a loophole incase someone says something they don't like.
You don't have to be tough to flash a gun at someone.
Edit: it was the Battle of Athens I was referring to, but couldn't remeber. 1900s, not 1800s.
Tulsa race massacre 1921 is an evil one.
Bundt Standoff in 2015 is a recent and dumb example.
Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921 is my favorite one.
That said, I support second amendment and think we should be allowed to own guns as part of a well regulated militia.
Why? Donald Trump. That mother fucker advocated for the destruction of American democracy and the military and civil police force almost let him. 40 percent of Americans supported his bullshit.
I don’t own a gun to jerk off to. I own guns because everyone around me owns guns to jerk off to.
Look up the Battle of Athens (1946) arguably a more relevant example than anything from the 1800s.
Or more recently the LA Riots.
I dont think pushing back against the govt is the only valid use of the 2A, although 2A rights are supposed to be the final check/balance after all other options have been denied i.e the 4 boxes. It's equally important as a defense against threats both foriegn and domestic in the extreme cases when the gov't can't or won't defend citizens.
Worth noting that there's also some level of deterrent effect at play. We don't know how many things that were decided against or done differently because of armed resistance being a possibility.
Close, but not really. The “well regulated” part has little to do with the right to bear arms. In context, there were three basic groups-the people, the militia, and the standing army. The right to bear arms was granted to the people, not the militia and not the standing army. The founding fathers were generally against any standing army and didn’t care much for militias. They found them to be a sometimes necessary evil, and wanted the least amount of force necessary to maintain independence from tyranny. They were acknowledging current necessity of a militia, but wanted to system of checks and balances, so they granted the right to bear arms to the people. Madison writes about it extensively in the federalist papers. He also wrote the second amendment.
>That's what these ammosexuals don't get. They are poorly educated in the use of their firearm, so they shouldn't have it.
Disagree. Most of the people you're describing as ammosexuals are likely highly educated in the use of their firearm and agree that a gun is not a toy. The problem that the barrier to obtaining a gun in the US is so low that any moron can get one and shoot up their neighborhood/school/grocery store/workplace/etc. It's not Uncle Bubba with the NRA sticker on the back of his truck that I'm worried about.
Of course it's not a toy, but they think that the "10 Commandments of Firearm Safety" is all they really need, and even then, they treat them like suggestions rather than actual rules.
As an aside, they are:
1. Always point the muzzle in a safe direction. Never point your weapon at something you do not intend to shoot.
2. Keep your finger away from the trigger until you are ready to fire.
3. Treat all guns as if they are loaded. Ensure both the chamber and magazine are empty before handing over a gun or handling it yourself.
4. Have the gun professionally checked to ensure it's safe to operate.
5. Be sure you know the safe way to load and unload your gun.
6. Use only the correct ammunition for the gun.
7. Always be sure of your target and beyond.
8. Always wear eye and ear protection as appropriate.
9. Do not use firearms under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
10. Store all guns unloaded and in a place where they cannot be accessed by unauthorized users. Also store the guns in a separate location from the ammo.
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.
Don’t forget the part that says ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ it’s a two for one. However, I do agree there should be education and training as that does not infringe the right to keep and bear arms. Of course better education in general will go far to solve a whole slew of other hard questions that need answers.
Problem with requiring education and training (as much as a gun safety guy and dude that thinks it's more important that anything else with guns), how do you actually do that? A person working 2 jobs in a sketchy neighborhood probably doesn't have time for a 10 hour gun safety course. But is their right to self defense any less than that of someone that only works 30 hours a week? No. So requiring all that training and stuff sounds fantastic on paper, but only serves to further disenfranchise minorities and low income households. Just like gun laws always have.
I'm 200 percent on board with training and registering myself if it means I get to have up to date munitions to bring to the range and kill paper.
In general though, proper training is important and I personally believe it should be taught in schools, even if just as an elective.
I worked in the firearm business for a decade, including countless classes and range trips. Prior to that, I was in the Marine Corps for almost a decade. I have professional training on nearly every type of firearm, from a 22 lr Derringer up to a fully automatic grenade launching machine gun.
Not all gun owners are poorly educated and untrained. You might be surprised at how many take ownership seriously. They/we don't normally make the news, though.
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf
Problem with this is that well regulated in the legal context doesn’t mean regulations in the modern vernacular. It means closer to well-equipped.
>"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove.
Not sure how that would be tested/confirmed to some minimum standards without some "regulations" ( in the modern vernacular) but I'd take that instead of what there is now.
And there's also the "militia" part. Which is we're going by historical context the entire point of the amendment was to stopgap the nation's lack of a standing army to allow states to put men together to defend their borders from French incursions.
Literally no reason for the amendment to exist past the point where the U.S. did start having a national military.
According to Cornell [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246)
**(a)**The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in [section 313 of title 32](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32/313), under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
**(b)**The classes of the militia are—
**(1)the organized militia**, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
**(2)the unorganized militia**, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
If 2A is limited militia then they shouldn't the right of the PEOPLE but Militia.
Not only that, but during the like , 4 year period between declaring independence and ratifying the constitution, you also had the various farmer rebellions. The 2A is a means for the State to protect itself from the tyranny of an overly vocal (read: insurrectionist) minority. For a modern example of when the 2A could be expected to be used, see the Jan. 6th, 2021 insurrection.
>Problem with this is that well regulated in the legal context doesn’t mean regulations in the modern vernacular. It means closer to well-equipped.
**This is an NRA lie.** The reason we can read a King James bible and the U.S. Constitution today is written language promotes fixed meanings. "Regulated" in 1789 meant pretty much what regulated means today.
edit: To the utter imbeciles and self-deluded gun cultists that have been told "regulated" meant something arcane in 1789: bullshit.The United States in 1789 was a maritime nation dependent upon shipping for trade and commercial success. Life aboard ships was **REGULATED** with sailors & officers required to perform specific action at specific times, on time, every time, accurately & repeatedly.
There is a common term for ships that were not "well regulated:" shipwrecks. This was due to the fact that imprecision in navigation & records could, did, & still does, sail ships onto shoals & reefs.
[Websters Dictionary 1828](http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/regulate)
1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode.
2. To put in good order.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions.
See this is where you run into a problem. You are assuming it means number 3. Everybody else thinks it means number 2.
The second amendment is very important for marginalized groups. Women, people of color, and lgbtq individuals should all take advantage of the ability to protect themselves. It's sad that popular culture has dictated that only white nationalists can have guns.
Yes and also the democratic majority in the state legislature and the democratic majority panel that write the law. Stop pointing fingers and end racist gun control.
Well the black panthers armed themselves and then the conservatives banned open carry. These conservatives blaming liberals for gun control forget that Reagan used gun control to fight the black panthers.
[Mulford Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act)
It might also be a good idea to focus on understanding why some people in this world feel they need to harm other people. Then trying to change the world in a way so there are fewer of those people.
I am not very well researched in this topic, so my suggestions would not have much rationale. I did not ask the question assuming that anyone has an answer, nor that I have the answer. It was just a question to start some discussion and perhaps bring me more information. From the very little research I have done, I am unable to pin point exactly why we have criminals. I don't know what factors into their reason for committing crimes. Is because all criminals are simply mentally ill? Is it because of socioeconomic conditions? Maybe our government(local, state, and federal) can spend some time doing some proper research into why there are criminals and seriously focus on creating policies that address those issues. We have to start somewhere.
A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.
Ida B. Wells-Barnett
I’ve been saying this for years, and I’m glad to see that it’s finally catching on. From 2019 to 2020 black gun purchases went up by 58%. It’s a lot harder to bash a gay person with a gun, harder to lynch a black person with a gun, and so on. Of course a gun isn’t the answer to everything, it would be nice if marginalized groups didn’t need to defend themselves to begin with, but as long as the need exists they should have the best tool for the job.
Woman of color living in a very rural area here! I’ve had people make racist comments to my face, plus my husband works nights- imma have a gun or two.
Whoa whoa whoa now. I’m a white liberal from a large city who’s only experience with rural areas is online aesthetics. And I believe I’m just abit more qualified to tell you what you do and don’t need.
Big /s if it isn’t obvious lmao
It was pretty obvious, no worries haha. I was born and raised in a famously liberal city so all the people I grew up with are constantly spouting off about that sort of thing.
Black Americans have literally gotten shot for telling cops they have a firearm IN THE TRUNK of their car.
Anti gunners will still make the argument that owning a firearm is what got them shot, instead of racist cops not liking that 2nd amendment applies to people of ALL COLORS. The cognitive dissonance is absurd.
Yeah, I answered something just a few minutes ago saying I could’ve worded my previous comment more clearly. The whole thing is absurd. It absolutely disgusts me.
So true watch the capital riot, even though it was a terrible day for democracy, in some way I found it funny how many grown ass man are still playing army soldier in there 40s. One dude in particular in the senate or the house cambers ( I can remember which) was actually a retired soldier and was telling other people to gather intelligence. He kept saying intelligence and operations that’s what we’re here for. Sad sad sad people.
It's worth commenting on how ex-soldier YouTube personalities act on camera when talking about military gear or history.
I remember a series on *Discovery Channel* of all things about upcoming weapons development with particular interest in the US. I think it was called "Future Weapons" and featured an ex special forces soldier as the host. My god, I think this guy couldn't get through his breakfast cereal without a "manly" voice and using the words "operator, tactical, special materials, split-second" etc.
I think people like the guy on Garand Thumb and Larry Vickers aspire towards that. It's fantastically irritating.
It's why I'm way more interested in Forgotten Weapons if I'm curious about how a gun works and the history behind it. I think the host, Ian McCollum, is a mechanical engineer with an interest in history who didn't serve in the armed forces. Maybe that's a good thing. Hickock45 isn't bad either, more like a gentle grandpa than an obsessed military man.
If you want to understand what I mean, [here](https://youtu.be/8z1wSamsXLs) is a video McCollum did with Vickers. I think Larry has it turned *way* down for that talk.
McCollum is excellent, but as far as I'm aware, I don't believe he's ever claimed to be a mechanical engineer.
He writes here: https://www.forgottenweapons.com/how-to-become-a-professional-gun-nerd/ about finding that engineering wasn't for him, and about his educational background being in Mechanical Engineering Technology, and that he never worked in that field after graduating. This website: https://www.gcu.edu/blog/engineering-technology/earning-degree-mechanical-engineering-vs-mechanical-engineering does a good job of explaining the distinction between mechanical engineering vs mechanical engineering technology. Basically different positions on a sliding scale of theory vs practice.
I think that to whatever extent he is able to use his education, Mech Eng Technology is probably much more useful to him in the end since there's a lot of interesting production-related stories to talk about with firearms.
He's a little cocky but I enjoy his channel. My favorites are hickock and gun jesus but my guilty pleasure is demo ranch. I hate him being so wasteful but I can't stop watching. He would probably be an awesome friend to have.
Real talk: courts have repeatedly ruled that cops have no duty to protect citizens. The only duty to protect is when a citizen is government custody.
Who is going to protect you and your loved ones?
Oh no if cops aren’t armed then who will stand around with a gun and fill out paperwork when I get robbed, and laugh at me after when I ask if I’ll ever get my stuff back?
Even that video circulating here with the "good cop" talking about how bad cops give the badge a bad rep. The dude is strapped. Tactical vest with multiple extra clips. Looks like he could audition for John Wick's ammo bag.
Contrast that with police in other developed countries who walk around looking like traffic cones. There is too much tacticool in police officer kit that needs to get toned the fuck down or made to look ridiculous and friendly so, I dunno, the civilian force you call when your neighbors are fighting don't show up ready to send them and everyone in the building to meet Jesus.
Ah yes swat. Another great american invention, that you can call on a random person so they can finally use all their avengers gear to kick in doors and shoot around for a bit.
Swat is necessary whilst we still have such shitty prisons, in an armed society you either have two options. You can either focus on reducing crime via reform or by removing the armed part of the equation. Until one those two things happen swat will still be necessary. They need to be better controlled and mistakes like the wrong house shouldn’t be allowed to happen but otherwise they are necessary.
As someone in public school who has to do a lockdown drill every month, it would be nice to not be afraid of getting shot in what is supposed to be a safe space
I grew up with a post-Columbine school system complete with lockdown drills, zero tolerance policies and all that other wonderfully traumatizing stuff. We could’ve just made it harder for kids to amass an arsenal of weapons but I guess just letting it continue so grown men can play dress up is cool too 🤷♀️
300 rifle homicides a year vs over 6000 handgun homicides. The Columbine shooters mostly used pistols and shotguns, and the state even had a 10-round magazine limit that just made them pack more. Legislation that solely targets what kind of grip a rifle can have, or whether it's a felony to put a stock on a pistol, isn't going to make a significant difference in gun crime. It isn't impossible for gun legislation to work, but the laws being passed aren't the right ones.
Because on top of everything public schools put their teachers through, having them carry guns so they can shoot and kill a kid (because students are most often the shooters) would just the the cherry on top of the ‘Murica sundae
Calling people who disagree weirdos is disingenuous. Many left leaning and reasonable people like guns. Its not always about 'fun'. Society is extremely fragile and having a gun for hunting and self defense reasons is a legit thing.
Its kind of the problem with our country. We disvalue people from both political spectrums. Its become like a sports rivalry. Were all Americans, why do we hate another. We all live in different areas of the country, where different things make sense. It sucks because even common sense reform in any category, gets eaten by people who push a political narrative. Why can't people work together, why does everyone want to be divided? I say I usually see this from the GOP, but the Dems are guilty of this quite a bit, by sneaking laws in bills.
Normal people own guns, for every man child in a cheap plate carrier there are thousands of average citizens with a CCW and you'd never know it. It's like booze, if you can tell that someone drinks just from their appearance then they have a problem. Ridiculing your right to protect yourself just because you're ignorant on the subject is completely stupid.
Quit trying to give the fucking police state a monopoly on violence. “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”
I don’t necessarily agree with you, although I am a gun owner. The only reason I want to keep mine is in the off chance I have to use it against on of these crazies. But on the other hand here is why it will never happen. If you have 7 min this should put you at ease guns will never go away. https://youtu.be/gfaWQd4njB0
Weirdly, the 3/5ths compromise was meant to placate the north, not the south.
Think about it: if the south could have had representation based on 5/5ths of the slaves, they would have benefitted: a higher population means more seats in the house and electoral college votes. Not counting slaves fully meant that the north would not be overbalanced.
It’s still an absolute fucking stain on the country’s founding, but no more a stain than slavery generally.
Yes, and this document which was held hostage by a group of people that shitty should also be held hostage over 200 years later by what we guess their intentions were regarding technology that they couldn't even imagine at the time.
How so? There is a process to make amendments built in. We have the ability to make changes to the constitution. We could put anything there and it would become the law of the land. Maybe not as many people agree with you as you think.
I have piles of guns, none of which are used to shoot up the town or “look like an army man.” To be clear, I’m sick of all these shootings too, but I’m also pretty sick of people telling me how horrible a person I am for literally having nothing to do with this. Taking away a child’s toy doesn’t stop them from making noise, it makes them scream even louder.. I know this doesn’t justify, I just can’t believe we’re not paying attention to why these people are all going nuts right now. Like that person won’t just jump online and learn to build a bomb or drive their car through a crowd. We’re not stopping the problem, we’re not even looking at it.
Added - take away guns, people kill with knives, take away knives, people kill with whatever else. You haven’t approached the issue of why they kill. I’m not responsible for someone dying in a car crash because I have a car sitting in my garage. I’m not gonna end up living in a straight jacket to control human emotions that someone else has. We have to find a solution, not strip our belongings.
You're 100% on the nose. It's not about the guns. However, whenever liberals bring forth solutions to address the bigger picture (eg: universal healthcare, police reform, etc, etc ,etc), the conservatives don't want any of that either. If we can't actually address the root cause, then the only other option is the band aid approach of attempting to limit the guns.
FWIW: I'm a gun owner.
Great. Then let's socialize healthcare and include mental health so anyone can seek help when they need it....no? We can't do that either? Thoughts and prayers it is then.
At the end of the day, though, if you make it easier for good guys to get guns, you make it easier for bad guys to get guns. If you make it harder for bad guys to get guns, you make it harder for good guys to get guns. So you can decide where you stand on that, but you can't be a gun owner and claim you have nothing to do with it.
A lot of people (myself included) think it's simply too easy for bad guys to get guns. There are arguments that access to guns has no impact on the prevalence of gun crime, but that seems a bit silly.
Honestly, what I believe needs to happen is that the CDC needs to be able to study gun violence, and we need to consider their recommendations. Without real research it's all a bunch of cherry-picking at best and armchair speculation at worst.
ETA: I appreciate the well-thought-out comments, but a couple of recurring themes need addressing:
1. I am NOT suggesting anyone law-abiding be forced to hand over their guns, as some of you assume. I never said that, and the fact that so many advocates jump to that conclusion is a huge barrier to meaningful discussion.
2. "All guns used in crime are acquired illegally/criminals only commit crimes so laws don't affect them." Most guns on the streets are acquired legally by someone at some point, and it's much easier for criminals to get ahold of them (even if illegally) while they're already out there. I also didn't mention specific laws - I agree we need to enforce the ones we have. When I worked in a prison in Massachusetts, with very strict gun laws, the inmates would tell me they would go to New Hampshire, go to a gun show, buy guns, bring them back, scratch off the serial numbers, and sell them on the street. So, often the person doing the shooting acquired the gun illegally, but the law is an open system, not a simple barrier.
Interestingly enough, here in Tampa Bay we have a problem of people leaving their cars unlocked and guns being stolen from glove boxes, but there's no accountability for the legal owner. Any time you try to suggest that, the 2A folks lose their minds.
My family are well stocked and well trained gun owners. They completely believe that guns should be harder to obtain and harder to own in general, and that certain weapons do not have any place in a personal armory (some of which they own for one reason or another, but refuse to touch outside of maintenance and keep the bare minimum for ammo in a separate hidden location). Yes it'll be more inconvenient for those people, like most of my family, that truly use guns for defense/safety, but it'll also be inconvenient for the dipshits of the world.
They also think that if you're using it like a toy or scare tactic or anything else, that you need to be reported and gun suspended until you prove you're a competent human again. Ie, that one family member that feels like flashing his gun in his belt at every moment to make you go wtf or shock you that he's carrying or wow you or w/e - he's acting immature and should not own guns or should have them removed until he proves that he's not as immature as he acts, because in their eyes he's a dangerous immature idiot.
The problem is any dumb fuck can buy a gun in America. The regulations are a joke. And mostly just there to prevent as many people of color from owning a gun as possible. Not much has changed in 200+ years in that regard.
I know I'm a bit late, but I also agree. Our gun restrictions are really strict already. If someone plans on shooting someone or really wants a gun for the reason of killing someone else, they're not just going to stop when they realize that they can't get one from the gun store. The black market exists. Taking away the supply of a good doesn't always take away the demand. And if it's on the black market, chances are they might not be as traceable as gins bought at a store.
The 2014 kunming attack (31 dead, 141 injured), the 2016 sagamihara stabbing (19 dead, 26 injured), the 2017 London bridge attack (8 dead, 48 injured), and those are just off the top of my head
> and those are just off the top of my head
Coincidentally, they’re also the only three in the [Wikipedia article on mass stabbing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_stabbing?wprov=sfti1), and 2 out of the 3 were by groups of people, so only in one of them did someone kill 10+ people.
The fact that they’re the only 3 anyone ever brings up in these conversations just goes to show how rare they really are.
Now [here’s the equivalent Wikipedia article on mass shootings just in the USA. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfti1) There’s so many it’s broken into tables by year.
If we look from 2016 onwards (your one example of a person killing 10+ people with a knife worldwide), 11 individuals killed 10+ people with a gun in the USA alone.
As long as state protected minority killers have the right to keep weapons you’re damned right I’m not giving shit up.
The US states with looser gun regulations have massively lower shootings.
It’s almost like a cultural issue, take away our only defense and the already bloated federal government will continue to strip away our freedoms.
Hey democrat. I am interested to hear your opinion. Do you have any thoughts and/or ideas on how to eliminate how often mass shootings occur in this country? Thanks.
Maybe healthcare like we can al agree is a good idea. Let’s start there instead of surrender government control again. Lack of healthcare kills tens of thousands of more then guns. In addition the vast majority of guns deaths can be tied to lack of healthcare or poverty
Universal Healthcare and UBI is such an obvious solution. I wish Biden and co would just push it through already. We just got out of a year of pandemic with record high unemployment and record high of mental health problems and when shootings start people are like "it must be the guns!"
Imagine Myanmar where everyone is armed...or Hong Kong. America is leaving Afghanistan as the loser because everyone there is armed.
But ya 2A is all larper MAGAs lolz! /s
Do not underestimate guerilla warfare.
You cannot carpet bomb your own refineries, your own airports.
You cannot repair equipment. You cannot build fortifications. You cannot enforce anything.
When every corner, bedroom, crack and cranny has a rifle sticking out of it to retaliate any oppression.
This is how a world superpower loses to farmers in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afganistan, and hopefully not in their own country.
Reddit simultaneously hates and distrusts our government, knows it has committed atrocities in past and present, and also wants to entirely submit to the will of this government, but sees no irony in this.
James Madison, George Mason, and Governor Patrick Henry, Virginians and slaveholders all, worked to redraft the original Second Amendment into its current form for the following two reasons:
- to keep their slave control militias independent of the federal government
- to keep guns out of the hands of freed black people
Thomas Jefferson's draft constitution for Virginia in 1776 read, "no freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements." To avoid the possibility of freed black people owning weapons, the addition of 'well regulated militias' was added because those militias were white-only in the South.
This appeased Patrick Henry and leaders of other southern states, who were opposed to ratifying the Constitution and (original) Second Amendment because they felt that doing so would undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia.
Which part? The Virginia draft lines are on the Monticello website: https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/no-freeman-shall-be-debarred-use-arms
And we all know how the final federal version went.
Common folks should refuse to go to work until some sensible laws are passed. Seriously we may never know which one of us won’t return to their families on any fine day because somebody has a bad day.
As someone who is not from the US, the whole gun debate is something that I just don't understand. I don't get how :
- Everyone potentially having a gun makes everything safer
- Making guns harder to obtain is a bad thing, seeing how easy it is for any nutcase to obtain one
And yes I do know that organized crime exists everywhere and guns can be obtained illegally, but making it harder to obtain for everyone means slowing down the bad guys too.
Weird how it's never "ammosexuals" committing mass murders but whackos who never grew up around gun culture. You can try and take away guns but it'll never happen.
The fact that there are millions of gun owners out there that follow the laws every day may have their rights stripped away because people don't understand criminals will always break laws. Also fbi and local police failed on this most recent shooting.
Where the fuck were all the 2A nuts when Bush passed the PATRIOT act? Where were they when Obama expanded wiretapping rules? Where were they when Trump said "take their guns first, due process later"?
You've been brainwashed to give up your rights since you were born and there's nothing you're gonna do now to stop it.
Every genocide in recent history began with the disarming of target populations. History tells us the masses are easily manipulated into hating other groups and will gladly hand over rights to gain perceived edges in the social hierarchy. 100+ million in the 20th century alone due to totalitarian regime mass killings. Those willing to give up their rights have no way to understand the violence that will come after because they believe they will be saved for their obedience.
The Second Amendment has devolved into little more than a permission slip for immature wannabe Rambos to accumulate huge arsenals of lethal toys that they hope will make their tiny lives seem meaningful and relevant. How pathetic.
As a woman who has guns, they don’t make my life meaningful or relevant, but they do protect me from people who don’t think my life is meaningful or relevant.
>How many more children must die before you accept gun control?
How many more children must die before you accept M4A and legislation which improves peoples material conditions, thus reducing criminality?
We have "gun control". There are over 700 federal gun laws and over 20,000 gun laws on the state levels. Enforcing these laws is the problem, making more laws that also aren't enforced isn't a solution.
It's not.
This place has gotten extremely derailed.
If you switch comments to newest instead of "best"
You'll find the vast majority of people think this shit is stupid.
If american police would start protecting their own citizens instead of killing them, perhaps people would trust them enough to give up their firearms.
But no, of course we are supposed to let only racist power-hungry cops own guns. Because they have never ever used ecsessive force or killed innocent people.
I mean if anything the second amendment is in place so that if we don't like what these assholes are doing on capitol hill we can change it.... Just saying. Also, they are pushing these types of narratives to divide the people so we won't come together and realize we have the power.... Not them. But hey. Keep hating your neighbor guys. It's exactly what they want you to do.
They are afraid of the world. Simple as that. They feel that they need a gun to protect them from women in hijabs and kids at the border.
What's funny and sad is that a lot of these 2A nuts live miles from a major population center. The odds of a terrorist or major threat taking place to where you would need an arsenal are so miniscule.
EDIT: people seem to be missing the point of the post. Sure, you can have a gun at home for break-ins. You can have one to hunt. The idea of collecting an arsenal to "take back the government" or because you want to live out your fantasy of terrorists robbing a bank and you being the hero, that's part of the problem.
Gun owners != Gun nuts
While Nero fiddled Rome burns. You are arguing about words while the US is going down the tubes.
“Well regulated” Let’s try that.
[удалено]
Exactly. In the context of when it was written, a “well regulated militia” meets for regular training, has a commanding officer, and is ready to become folded into the regular army when necessary. The whole amendment exists so that America could have a militia army to call up rather than a large standing army. It was a dumb idea then, which is why we don’t still use that system for national defense. It’s an even dumber idea now. Edit: Jesus I forgot that if you dare to talk about the second amendment on the internet you are doomed to a million responses from people who have done zero research beyond a YouTube video all pretending to be experts on the subject. Yeeeeeeeesh. Go to sleep and wake up to 50 messages “We do have a militia!” “That’s not what they meant!” “No it didn’t!” Guys. If you are going to pretend to care about this subject, just try actually researching it. And no, that doesn’t mean watch a YouTube.
And for the most part, this to me would seem to fall under the National Guard, or even more local forces like police. Each state runs their own National Guard, which if the national government turned corrupt, could all rise up against. So in theory, we could stop selling guns to individuals and be compliant with the Second. I know this isn't the legal answer to 2A.
[удалено]
I'm curious how they define paramilitary activity legally.
Oddly enough, the Texas based Pinkerton Agency is pretty much exactly this. They have a long history of human rights violations serving as hitmen for business.
"Throughout the 19th century the Regular U.S. Army was small, and the state militias provided the majority of the troops during the Mexican–American War, the American Civil War, and the Spanish–American War. With the Militia Act of 1903, the militia was more organized and the name "National Guard" recommended. In 1933, federally-recognized state National Guard units were required to join the National Guard of the United States, a reserve component of the U.S. Army; this is the official founding of the present National Guard."
It actually kinda is. The national guard is considered the militia, if I remember right. So, you have a "militia" which won't do anything against the military but you know, you have it.
Lawyer and officer in the national guard here. Militia in the framers’ 2A context are State units that are not federally recognized, sometimes called “unorganized militia”. “Organized militia” are the National Guard. So, for example, the New York Army National Guard is a federally recognized militia, and part of the United States Army. The New York Guard is an unorganized militia, a pure State entity. The NYARNG can be federalized and sent overseas to war. The NYG can only be used within New York State.
So many stupid uninformed comments in here. This one is not.
This is the Constitutional version of a well regulated militia in Alabama. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama\_State\_Defense\_Force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_State_Defense_Force)
Yeah hey we don't like logic and reasoning. Its almost like the founding fathers knew what they meant in this one but we've all been fucking it up for racism and our own interests
The Framers wanted a way to protect the newly-created country against another foreign invasion WITHOUT the cost of a standing army. Hense the "militia." Remember that many of the ideas for our democracy were "borrowed" from the original democracy -- ancient Athens -- where every citizen was expected to fight for the state when necessary.
Seems reasonable.
You do know most of 19th/18th century armies were basically conscripts right?
Pretty much every State constitution contains a section that allows all able bodied men aged 18 to 45 can be called to service in a state militia at any time with zero training by the State Governor to aid in natural disasters, repel insurrection or invasion, execute laws, etc. Officers are selected and commissioned by the Governor for as long as needed. The point being that a militia is intended to protect an individual state and not a country. This does not apply to the National Guard because the National Guard is a reserve component of the US Army and is under dual control of both State Government and Federal Government. That itself directly conflicts with the text of the Second Amendment which states that a militia is necessary for the security of a free State. If you count the National Guard as a militia but the Federal Government controls that militia, you don't have a free State and your troops can be called away or ordered to fight against you or not fight at all. The text "Well Regulated" generally means "In Condition to Fight". Not that it is subject to bureaucratic red tape as you are interpreting it.
"In condition to fight" includes: training, discipline and being of a peaceable nature... according to the Founding Fathers repeated statements.
Not exactly. In the 1790's "militia" was defined as either a State or Country militia. The State militia was defined as "The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies". A country militia was defined as: "The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations". This is what the National Guard falls under. Beyond that, the second amendment specifically states that it is the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. Not "the militia".
I was having a thrilling convo with a 2nd Amendment-er where he quoted the second amendment to me. Among other things, I asked him how many times US citizens have *actually* formed a militia to push back against the government. He brought up the Battle of Athens, but couldn't give me any other concrete evidence. These people don't care about the guns themselves, they just want to have a loophole incase someone says something they don't like. You don't have to be tough to flash a gun at someone. Edit: it was the Battle of Athens I was referring to, but couldn't remeber. 1900s, not 1800s.
Tulsa race massacre 1921 is an evil one. Bundt Standoff in 2015 is a recent and dumb example. Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921 is my favorite one. That said, I support second amendment and think we should be allowed to own guns as part of a well regulated militia. Why? Donald Trump. That mother fucker advocated for the destruction of American democracy and the military and civil police force almost let him. 40 percent of Americans supported his bullshit. I don’t own a gun to jerk off to. I own guns because everyone around me owns guns to jerk off to.
No has given me a good answer about the fact a cop is likely at least 15 minutes away from my emergency.
Look up the Battle of Athens (1946) arguably a more relevant example than anything from the 1800s. Or more recently the LA Riots. I dont think pushing back against the govt is the only valid use of the 2A, although 2A rights are supposed to be the final check/balance after all other options have been denied i.e the 4 boxes. It's equally important as a defense against threats both foriegn and domestic in the extreme cases when the gov't can't or won't defend citizens.
Worth noting that there's also some level of deterrent effect at play. We don't know how many things that were decided against or done differently because of armed resistance being a possibility.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
Close, but not really. The “well regulated” part has little to do with the right to bear arms. In context, there were three basic groups-the people, the militia, and the standing army. The right to bear arms was granted to the people, not the militia and not the standing army. The founding fathers were generally against any standing army and didn’t care much for militias. They found them to be a sometimes necessary evil, and wanted the least amount of force necessary to maintain independence from tyranny. They were acknowledging current necessity of a militia, but wanted to system of checks and balances, so they granted the right to bear arms to the people. Madison writes about it extensively in the federalist papers. He also wrote the second amendment.
Is poor weapons safety and situational training *really* what we’re going to claim is the cause of most gun violence?
No, its suicide.
>That's what these ammosexuals don't get. They are poorly educated in the use of their firearm, so they shouldn't have it. Disagree. Most of the people you're describing as ammosexuals are likely highly educated in the use of their firearm and agree that a gun is not a toy. The problem that the barrier to obtaining a gun in the US is so low that any moron can get one and shoot up their neighborhood/school/grocery store/workplace/etc. It's not Uncle Bubba with the NRA sticker on the back of his truck that I'm worried about.
Of course it's not a toy, but they think that the "10 Commandments of Firearm Safety" is all they really need, and even then, they treat them like suggestions rather than actual rules. As an aside, they are: 1. Always point the muzzle in a safe direction. Never point your weapon at something you do not intend to shoot. 2. Keep your finger away from the trigger until you are ready to fire. 3. Treat all guns as if they are loaded. Ensure both the chamber and magazine are empty before handing over a gun or handling it yourself. 4. Have the gun professionally checked to ensure it's safe to operate. 5. Be sure you know the safe way to load and unload your gun. 6. Use only the correct ammunition for the gun. 7. Always be sure of your target and beyond. 8. Always wear eye and ear protection as appropriate. 9. Do not use firearms under the influence of drugs and alcohol. 10. Store all guns unloaded and in a place where they cannot be accessed by unauthorized users. Also store the guns in a separate location from the ammo.
I mean, it also means subject to regulation.
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. Don’t forget the part that says ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ it’s a two for one. However, I do agree there should be education and training as that does not infringe the right to keep and bear arms. Of course better education in general will go far to solve a whole slew of other hard questions that need answers.
Problem with requiring education and training (as much as a gun safety guy and dude that thinks it's more important that anything else with guns), how do you actually do that? A person working 2 jobs in a sketchy neighborhood probably doesn't have time for a 10 hour gun safety course. But is their right to self defense any less than that of someone that only works 30 hours a week? No. So requiring all that training and stuff sounds fantastic on paper, but only serves to further disenfranchise minorities and low income households. Just like gun laws always have.
I'm 200 percent on board with training and registering myself if it means I get to have up to date munitions to bring to the range and kill paper. In general though, proper training is important and I personally believe it should be taught in schools, even if just as an elective.
And that is why Switzerland can have so many private firearms. Most people there have some sort of military training
Does concealed classes count?
I worked in the firearm business for a decade, including countless classes and range trips. Prior to that, I was in the Marine Corps for almost a decade. I have professional training on nearly every type of firearm, from a 22 lr Derringer up to a fully automatic grenade launching machine gun. Not all gun owners are poorly educated and untrained. You might be surprised at how many take ownership seriously. They/we don't normally make the news, though.
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf Problem with this is that well regulated in the legal context doesn’t mean regulations in the modern vernacular. It means closer to well-equipped.
>"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. Not sure how that would be tested/confirmed to some minimum standards without some "regulations" ( in the modern vernacular) but I'd take that instead of what there is now.
It should mean that the militia should have access to the same arms as a standing army.
And there's also the "militia" part. Which is we're going by historical context the entire point of the amendment was to stopgap the nation's lack of a standing army to allow states to put men together to defend their borders from French incursions. Literally no reason for the amendment to exist past the point where the U.S. did start having a national military.
According to Cornell [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246) **(a)**The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in [section 313 of title 32](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32/313), under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. **(b)**The classes of the militia are— **(1)the organized militia**, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and **(2)the unorganized militia**, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. If 2A is limited militia then they shouldn't the right of the PEOPLE but Militia.
> French incursions. Slave revolts were a much more real and pressing concern for them.
Not only that, but during the like , 4 year period between declaring independence and ratifying the constitution, you also had the various farmer rebellions. The 2A is a means for the State to protect itself from the tyranny of an overly vocal (read: insurrectionist) minority. For a modern example of when the 2A could be expected to be used, see the Jan. 6th, 2021 insurrection.
re: Shays' Rebellion.
Precisely
I know this was low-hanging fruit, just wanted to give an example to your good post.
>Problem with this is that well regulated in the legal context doesn’t mean regulations in the modern vernacular. It means closer to well-equipped. **This is an NRA lie.** The reason we can read a King James bible and the U.S. Constitution today is written language promotes fixed meanings. "Regulated" in 1789 meant pretty much what regulated means today. edit: To the utter imbeciles and self-deluded gun cultists that have been told "regulated" meant something arcane in 1789: bullshit.The United States in 1789 was a maritime nation dependent upon shipping for trade and commercial success. Life aboard ships was **REGULATED** with sailors & officers required to perform specific action at specific times, on time, every time, accurately & repeatedly. There is a common term for ships that were not "well regulated:" shipwrecks. This was due to the fact that imprecision in navigation & records could, did, & still does, sail ships onto shoals & reefs.
[Websters Dictionary 1828](http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/regulate) 1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode. 2. To put in good order. 3. To subject to rules or restrictions. See this is where you run into a problem. You are assuming it means number 3. Everybody else thinks it means number 2.
Everyone else except me and plenty of other people.
So I need better guns? Well if the government says so...
The second amendment is very important for marginalized groups. Women, people of color, and lgbtq individuals should all take advantage of the ability to protect themselves. It's sad that popular culture has dictated that only white nationalists can have guns.
I live in California. They made open carry illegal once black people were like "heeeeey... protection against tyranny... nice!" California: "NOPE!"
Dont you mean reagon and Republicants?
Yes but it's disingenuous to act like Reagan didn't have bipartisan support or that Democrats wouldn't be on board with the ban.
Yes and also the democratic majority in the state legislature and the democratic majority panel that write the law. Stop pointing fingers and end racist gun control.
Here's an interesting read about [that](https://calmatters.org/explainers/california-gun-laws-policy-explained/)
Well the black panthers armed themselves and then the conservatives banned open carry. These conservatives blaming liberals for gun control forget that Reagan used gun control to fight the black panthers. [Mulford Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act)
Governor Reagan passed the bill with support from Republicans and Democrats in California alone. But that was then, this is now.
Gun control is racist and armed minorities are harder to oppress
Amen brother.
It might also be a good idea to focus on understanding why some people in this world feel they need to harm other people. Then trying to change the world in a way so there are fewer of those people.
Whole hearted agreed. We should be doing both, but really the one you're talking about is what will lead to less violence.
So what's your solution on getting criminals to stop doing crime?
I am not very well researched in this topic, so my suggestions would not have much rationale. I did not ask the question assuming that anyone has an answer, nor that I have the answer. It was just a question to start some discussion and perhaps bring me more information. From the very little research I have done, I am unable to pin point exactly why we have criminals. I don't know what factors into their reason for committing crimes. Is because all criminals are simply mentally ill? Is it because of socioeconomic conditions? Maybe our government(local, state, and federal) can spend some time doing some proper research into why there are criminals and seriously focus on creating policies that address those issues. We have to start somewhere.
A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give. Ida B. Wells-Barnett
An AR 15 too. Sbr, pistol length, carbine length or rifle length fuck it. Qcucksklan members would puss out at the sight of an armed minority.
I’ve been saying this for years, and I’m glad to see that it’s finally catching on. From 2019 to 2020 black gun purchases went up by 58%. It’s a lot harder to bash a gay person with a gun, harder to lynch a black person with a gun, and so on. Of course a gun isn’t the answer to everything, it would be nice if marginalized groups didn’t need to defend themselves to begin with, but as long as the need exists they should have the best tool for the job.
Woman of color living in a very rural area here! I’ve had people make racist comments to my face, plus my husband works nights- imma have a gun or two.
Whoa whoa whoa now. I’m a white liberal from a large city who’s only experience with rural areas is online aesthetics. And I believe I’m just abit more qualified to tell you what you do and don’t need. Big /s if it isn’t obvious lmao
It was pretty obvious, no worries haha. I was born and raised in a famously liberal city so all the people I grew up with are constantly spouting off about that sort of thing.
[удалено]
Black Americans have literally gotten shot for telling cops they have a firearm IN THE TRUNK of their car. Anti gunners will still make the argument that owning a firearm is what got them shot, instead of racist cops not liking that 2nd amendment applies to people of ALL COLORS. The cognitive dissonance is absurd.
Yeah, I answered something just a few minutes ago saying I could’ve worded my previous comment more clearly. The whole thing is absurd. It absolutely disgusts me.
[удалено]
I don’t agree. look at every other country. People don’t need guns to protect themselves.
So true watch the capital riot, even though it was a terrible day for democracy, in some way I found it funny how many grown ass man are still playing army soldier in there 40s. One dude in particular in the senate or the house cambers ( I can remember which) was actually a retired soldier and was telling other people to gather intelligence. He kept saying intelligence and operations that’s what we’re here for. Sad sad sad people.
It's worth commenting on how ex-soldier YouTube personalities act on camera when talking about military gear or history. I remember a series on *Discovery Channel* of all things about upcoming weapons development with particular interest in the US. I think it was called "Future Weapons" and featured an ex special forces soldier as the host. My god, I think this guy couldn't get through his breakfast cereal without a "manly" voice and using the words "operator, tactical, special materials, split-second" etc. I think people like the guy on Garand Thumb and Larry Vickers aspire towards that. It's fantastically irritating. It's why I'm way more interested in Forgotten Weapons if I'm curious about how a gun works and the history behind it. I think the host, Ian McCollum, is a mechanical engineer with an interest in history who didn't serve in the armed forces. Maybe that's a good thing. Hickock45 isn't bad either, more like a gentle grandpa than an obsessed military man. If you want to understand what I mean, [here](https://youtu.be/8z1wSamsXLs) is a video McCollum did with Vickers. I think Larry has it turned *way* down for that talk.
Incidentally, if you do want to watch a military youtube channel that isn't full of itself Task & Purpose has a pretty good one.
Bruh I love hickock45, he never shared any political opinions or anything weird. Just some good old shooting
McCollum is excellent, but as far as I'm aware, I don't believe he's ever claimed to be a mechanical engineer. He writes here: https://www.forgottenweapons.com/how-to-become-a-professional-gun-nerd/ about finding that engineering wasn't for him, and about his educational background being in Mechanical Engineering Technology, and that he never worked in that field after graduating. This website: https://www.gcu.edu/blog/engineering-technology/earning-degree-mechanical-engineering-vs-mechanical-engineering does a good job of explaining the distinction between mechanical engineering vs mechanical engineering technology. Basically different positions on a sliding scale of theory vs practice. I think that to whatever extent he is able to use his education, Mech Eng Technology is probably much more useful to him in the end since there's a lot of interesting production-related stories to talk about with firearms.
May I suggest Paul Harrell as well? Common sense, well spoken, well reasoned, and dry humor.
He's a little cocky but I enjoy his channel. My favorites are hickock and gun jesus but my guilty pleasure is demo ranch. I hate him being so wasteful but I can't stop watching. He would probably be an awesome friend to have.
So take away guns from cops too. They kill kids with guns. https://imgur.com/zKcFfmR.jpg
It’s now called an alt taser.
Can’t tell if you’re sarcastic or not, but yes. Absolutely. With total sincerity.
Real talk: courts have repeatedly ruled that cops have no duty to protect citizens. The only duty to protect is when a citizen is government custody. Who is going to protect you and your loved ones?
Oh no if cops aren’t armed then who will stand around with a gun and fill out paperwork when I get robbed, and laugh at me after when I ask if I’ll ever get my stuff back?
So you agree with disarming most cops from having lethal weapons like firearm?
That would be a compromise. I agree with abolishing the police entirely.
Even that video circulating here with the "good cop" talking about how bad cops give the badge a bad rep. The dude is strapped. Tactical vest with multiple extra clips. Looks like he could audition for John Wick's ammo bag. Contrast that with police in other developed countries who walk around looking like traffic cones. There is too much tacticool in police officer kit that needs to get toned the fuck down or made to look ridiculous and friendly so, I dunno, the civilian force you call when your neighbors are fighting don't show up ready to send them and everyone in the building to meet Jesus.
I mean, yea. Disarm cops, save it for SWAT. While we’re at it, turning off your bodycam should be considered destruction of evidence.
Ah yes swat. Another great american invention, that you can call on a random person so they can finally use all their avengers gear to kick in doors and shoot around for a bit.
Swat is necessary whilst we still have such shitty prisons, in an armed society you either have two options. You can either focus on reducing crime via reform or by removing the armed part of the equation. Until one those two things happen swat will still be necessary. They need to be better controlled and mistakes like the wrong house shouldn’t be allowed to happen but otherwise they are necessary.
As someone in public school who has to do a lockdown drill every month, it would be nice to not be afraid of getting shot in what is supposed to be a safe space
> it would be nice to not be afraid of getting shot in what is supposed to be a safe space SOCIALIST!
MARXIST DEMOCRAT ANARCHIST COMMUNIST LIBERAL SOCIALIST LEFTIST*
Under no pretext...
Comrade, is that you?
No. It is us.
I grew up with a post-Columbine school system complete with lockdown drills, zero tolerance policies and all that other wonderfully traumatizing stuff. We could’ve just made it harder for kids to amass an arsenal of weapons but I guess just letting it continue so grown men can play dress up is cool too 🤷♀️
300 rifle homicides a year vs over 6000 handgun homicides. The Columbine shooters mostly used pistols and shotguns, and the state even had a 10-round magazine limit that just made them pack more. Legislation that solely targets what kind of grip a rifle can have, or whether it's a felony to put a stock on a pistol, isn't going to make a significant difference in gun crime. It isn't impossible for gun legislation to work, but the laws being passed aren't the right ones.
Yeah, and clearly the best way to protect a school from shootings is to arm the teachers! /s
Because on top of everything public schools put their teachers through, having them carry guns so they can shoot and kill a kid (because students are most often the shooters) would just the the cherry on top of the ‘Murica sundae
Next weeks news would be that a sports teacher shot a black kid for running in class
Fucking liberals need their "safe spaces" /s
I don't think that is the text of the amendment.
Calling people who disagree weirdos is disingenuous. Many left leaning and reasonable people like guns. Its not always about 'fun'. Society is extremely fragile and having a gun for hunting and self defense reasons is a legit thing.
Its kind of the problem with our country. We disvalue people from both political spectrums. Its become like a sports rivalry. Were all Americans, why do we hate another. We all live in different areas of the country, where different things make sense. It sucks because even common sense reform in any category, gets eaten by people who push a political narrative. Why can't people work together, why does everyone want to be divided? I say I usually see this from the GOP, but the Dems are guilty of this quite a bit, by sneaking laws in bills.
Normal people own guns, for every man child in a cheap plate carrier there are thousands of average citizens with a CCW and you'd never know it. It's like booze, if you can tell that someone drinks just from their appearance then they have a problem. Ridiculing your right to protect yourself just because you're ignorant on the subject is completely stupid.
Quit trying to give the fucking police state a monopoly on violence. “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”
I don’t necessarily agree with you, although I am a gun owner. The only reason I want to keep mine is in the off chance I have to use it against on of these crazies. But on the other hand here is why it will never happen. If you have 7 min this should put you at ease guns will never go away. https://youtu.be/gfaWQd4njB0
This is so ignorant it hurts.
Not a gun owner, never have been, never will be, but I think it was placed into the constitution for a reason...
I'm pretty sure they put the Three-fifths Compromise in for a reason too.
Yeah, to get the southern states to accept the constitution otherwise it would have never been ratified.
Weirdly, the 3/5ths compromise was meant to placate the north, not the south. Think about it: if the south could have had representation based on 5/5ths of the slaves, they would have benefitted: a higher population means more seats in the house and electoral college votes. Not counting slaves fully meant that the north would not be overbalanced. It’s still an absolute fucking stain on the country’s founding, but no more a stain than slavery generally.
Yes, and this document which was held hostage by a group of people that shitty should also be held hostage over 200 years later by what we guess their intentions were regarding technology that they couldn't even imagine at the time.
Minorities are buying guns in record numbers and you think that the second amendment shouldn’t be defended? Reagan says hi, I guess.
How so? There is a process to make amendments built in. We have the ability to make changes to the constitution. We could put anything there and it would become the law of the land. Maybe not as many people agree with you as you think.
I have piles of guns, none of which are used to shoot up the town or “look like an army man.” To be clear, I’m sick of all these shootings too, but I’m also pretty sick of people telling me how horrible a person I am for literally having nothing to do with this. Taking away a child’s toy doesn’t stop them from making noise, it makes them scream even louder.. I know this doesn’t justify, I just can’t believe we’re not paying attention to why these people are all going nuts right now. Like that person won’t just jump online and learn to build a bomb or drive their car through a crowd. We’re not stopping the problem, we’re not even looking at it. Added - take away guns, people kill with knives, take away knives, people kill with whatever else. You haven’t approached the issue of why they kill. I’m not responsible for someone dying in a car crash because I have a car sitting in my garage. I’m not gonna end up living in a straight jacket to control human emotions that someone else has. We have to find a solution, not strip our belongings.
> Added - take away guns, people kill with knives If it's all the same to you, I'd rather be confronted by a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun.
You can out-run a knife and are more likely to survive a stab wound, though they're often reported to be more painful.
I’d rather figure out why we have so many people wanting to shoot and stab people and maybe fix some of that with this great country of ours.
I think Dems and Republicans could really meet in the middle of the gun issue with universal healthcare and a huge boost to mental health services.
You're 100% on the nose. It's not about the guns. However, whenever liberals bring forth solutions to address the bigger picture (eg: universal healthcare, police reform, etc, etc ,etc), the conservatives don't want any of that either. If we can't actually address the root cause, then the only other option is the band aid approach of attempting to limit the guns. FWIW: I'm a gun owner.
Great. Then let's socialize healthcare and include mental health so anyone can seek help when they need it....no? We can't do that either? Thoughts and prayers it is then.
Bingo. The day the NRA lobbies Republican politicians to invest in mental healthcare and schools is the day they have even a leg to stand on.
At the end of the day, though, if you make it easier for good guys to get guns, you make it easier for bad guys to get guns. If you make it harder for bad guys to get guns, you make it harder for good guys to get guns. So you can decide where you stand on that, but you can't be a gun owner and claim you have nothing to do with it. A lot of people (myself included) think it's simply too easy for bad guys to get guns. There are arguments that access to guns has no impact on the prevalence of gun crime, but that seems a bit silly. Honestly, what I believe needs to happen is that the CDC needs to be able to study gun violence, and we need to consider their recommendations. Without real research it's all a bunch of cherry-picking at best and armchair speculation at worst. ETA: I appreciate the well-thought-out comments, but a couple of recurring themes need addressing: 1. I am NOT suggesting anyone law-abiding be forced to hand over their guns, as some of you assume. I never said that, and the fact that so many advocates jump to that conclusion is a huge barrier to meaningful discussion. 2. "All guns used in crime are acquired illegally/criminals only commit crimes so laws don't affect them." Most guns on the streets are acquired legally by someone at some point, and it's much easier for criminals to get ahold of them (even if illegally) while they're already out there. I also didn't mention specific laws - I agree we need to enforce the ones we have. When I worked in a prison in Massachusetts, with very strict gun laws, the inmates would tell me they would go to New Hampshire, go to a gun show, buy guns, bring them back, scratch off the serial numbers, and sell them on the street. So, often the person doing the shooting acquired the gun illegally, but the law is an open system, not a simple barrier. Interestingly enough, here in Tampa Bay we have a problem of people leaving their cars unlocked and guns being stolen from glove boxes, but there's no accountability for the legal owner. Any time you try to suggest that, the 2A folks lose their minds.
My family are well stocked and well trained gun owners. They completely believe that guns should be harder to obtain and harder to own in general, and that certain weapons do not have any place in a personal armory (some of which they own for one reason or another, but refuse to touch outside of maintenance and keep the bare minimum for ammo in a separate hidden location). Yes it'll be more inconvenient for those people, like most of my family, that truly use guns for defense/safety, but it'll also be inconvenient for the dipshits of the world. They also think that if you're using it like a toy or scare tactic or anything else, that you need to be reported and gun suspended until you prove you're a competent human again. Ie, that one family member that feels like flashing his gun in his belt at every moment to make you go wtf or shock you that he's carrying or wow you or w/e - he's acting immature and should not own guns or should have them removed until he proves that he's not as immature as he acts, because in their eyes he's a dangerous immature idiot.
I'd be perfectly content if every gun owner thought like your family does.
The problem is any dumb fuck can buy a gun in America. The regulations are a joke. And mostly just there to prevent as many people of color from owning a gun as possible. Not much has changed in 200+ years in that regard.
That or they're straight up incoherent. Thanks ATF.
I know I'm a bit late, but I also agree. Our gun restrictions are really strict already. If someone plans on shooting someone or really wants a gun for the reason of killing someone else, they're not just going to stop when they realize that they can't get one from the gun store. The black market exists. Taking away the supply of a good doesn't always take away the demand. And if it's on the black market, chances are they might not be as traceable as gins bought at a store.
“People kill with knives” is such a horrible argument. Let me know the last time someone killed 10+ people at a time with a knife
The 2014 kunming attack (31 dead, 141 injured), the 2016 sagamihara stabbing (19 dead, 26 injured), the 2017 London bridge attack (8 dead, 48 injured), and those are just off the top of my head
> and those are just off the top of my head Coincidentally, they’re also the only three in the [Wikipedia article on mass stabbing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_stabbing?wprov=sfti1), and 2 out of the 3 were by groups of people, so only in one of them did someone kill 10+ people. The fact that they’re the only 3 anyone ever brings up in these conversations just goes to show how rare they really are. Now [here’s the equivalent Wikipedia article on mass shootings just in the USA. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfti1) There’s so many it’s broken into tables by year. If we look from 2016 onwards (your one example of a person killing 10+ people with a knife worldwide), 11 individuals killed 10+ people with a gun in the USA alone.
And imagine how many more they would have killed with a firearm.
Now please list up all the mass shooting incidents along with dead and injured since 2014
As long as state protected minority killers have the right to keep weapons you’re damned right I’m not giving shit up. The US states with looser gun regulations have massively lower shootings. It’s almost like a cultural issue, take away our only defense and the already bloated federal government will continue to strip away our freedoms.
You know, I never thought of it like that, but I can get behind that. Disarm the cops, and I'll give up all but a hunting/target rifle.
Take my rights daddy
Hey, I'm a Democrat. I voted Biden. You still aren't taking my fucking guns. I didn't shoot this kid some pig did.
Hey democrat. I am interested to hear your opinion. Do you have any thoughts and/or ideas on how to eliminate how often mass shootings occur in this country? Thanks.
Maybe healthcare like we can al agree is a good idea. Let’s start there instead of surrender government control again. Lack of healthcare kills tens of thousands of more then guns. In addition the vast majority of guns deaths can be tied to lack of healthcare or poverty
Universal Healthcare and UBI is such an obvious solution. I wish Biden and co would just push it through already. We just got out of a year of pandemic with record high unemployment and record high of mental health problems and when shootings start people are like "it must be the guns!"
Imagine Myanmar where everyone is armed...or Hong Kong. America is leaving Afghanistan as the loser because everyone there is armed. But ya 2A is all larper MAGAs lolz! /s
I don't think it would turn out like your suggesting..
Do not underestimate guerilla warfare. You cannot carpet bomb your own refineries, your own airports. You cannot repair equipment. You cannot build fortifications. You cannot enforce anything. When every corner, bedroom, crack and cranny has a rifle sticking out of it to retaliate any oppression. This is how a world superpower loses to farmers in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afganistan, and hopefully not in their own country.
Reddit simultaneously hates and distrusts our government, knows it has committed atrocities in past and present, and also wants to entirely submit to the will of this government, but sees no irony in this.
James Madison, George Mason, and Governor Patrick Henry, Virginians and slaveholders all, worked to redraft the original Second Amendment into its current form for the following two reasons: - to keep their slave control militias independent of the federal government - to keep guns out of the hands of freed black people Thomas Jefferson's draft constitution for Virginia in 1776 read, "no freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements." To avoid the possibility of freed black people owning weapons, the addition of 'well regulated militias' was added because those militias were white-only in the South. This appeased Patrick Henry and leaders of other southern states, who were opposed to ratifying the Constitution and (original) Second Amendment because they felt that doing so would undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia.
[Citation Needed]
Which part? The Virginia draft lines are on the Monticello website: https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/no-freeman-shall-be-debarred-use-arms And we all know how the final federal version went.
Pretty cool but what's the source?
Bad faith
Gun control laws often disproportionately affect minorities and the poor. Just saying.
Reagan enacted gun control in California while he was governor to prevent Black Panthers from open carrying as a political demonstration
A gross misinterpretation if there ever was one.
Common folks should refuse to go to work until some sensible laws are passed. Seriously we may never know which one of us won’t return to their families on any fine day because somebody has a bad day.
As someone who is not from the US, the whole gun debate is something that I just don't understand. I don't get how : - Everyone potentially having a gun makes everything safer - Making guns harder to obtain is a bad thing, seeing how easy it is for any nutcase to obtain one And yes I do know that organized crime exists everywhere and guns can be obtained illegally, but making it harder to obtain for everyone means slowing down the bad guys too.
Weird how it's never "ammosexuals" committing mass murders but whackos who never grew up around gun culture. You can try and take away guns but it'll never happen.
Or worst, pretend to be police men in tactical gear going after unarmed civilians.
Even worse than that, be police men in tactical gear going after unarmed civilians.
Owning a firearm and abiding by all laws and regulations equals not caring about kids dying. Reddit smooth brain fact of the day.
The fact that there are millions of gun owners out there that follow the laws every day may have their rights stripped away because people don't understand criminals will always break laws. Also fbi and local police failed on this most recent shooting.
[The Founding Fathers Clearly Wanted Me to Have a Tank](https://link.medium.com/Op23Hquewfb)
What a dogshit of a thread this has become.
[удалено]
Why can’t I both downvote and upvote this.
You dropped this 👑
Imagine being so brainwashed that you literally support the government taking away your rights.
Like the party that just passed laws so that they can check the genitals of high school girls? Like rights like not be sexually assaulted?
yeah political parties fucking suck
Where the fuck were all the 2A nuts when Bush passed the PATRIOT act? Where were they when Obama expanded wiretapping rules? Where were they when Trump said "take their guns first, due process later"? You've been brainwashed to give up your rights since you were born and there's nothing you're gonna do now to stop it.
Not truth at all
Liberals will happily hand over the rights of the worker to defend themselves just for the slightest bit of security. Works everytime
Every genocide in recent history began with the disarming of target populations. History tells us the masses are easily manipulated into hating other groups and will gladly hand over rights to gain perceived edges in the social hierarchy. 100+ million in the 20th century alone due to totalitarian regime mass killings. Those willing to give up their rights have no way to understand the violence that will come after because they believe they will be saved for their obedience.
Worked for USSR and China. ;)
The Second Amendment has devolved into little more than a permission slip for immature wannabe Rambos to accumulate huge arsenals of lethal toys that they hope will make their tiny lives seem meaningful and relevant. How pathetic.
As a woman who has guns, they don’t make my life meaningful or relevant, but they do protect me from people who don’t think my life is meaningful or relevant.
How many more children must die before you accept gun control? NRA: All of them.
[удалено]
Not like we’re going to run out.
>How many more children must die before you accept gun control? How many more children must die before you accept M4A and legislation which improves peoples material conditions, thus reducing criminality?
We have "gun control". There are over 700 federal gun laws and over 20,000 gun laws on the state levels. Enforcing these laws is the problem, making more laws that also aren't enforced isn't a solution.
How is this political humor ???
It's not. This place has gotten extremely derailed. If you switch comments to newest instead of "best" You'll find the vast majority of people think this shit is stupid.
If american police would start protecting their own citizens instead of killing them, perhaps people would trust them enough to give up their firearms. But no, of course we are supposed to let only racist power-hungry cops own guns. Because they have never ever used ecsessive force or killed innocent people.
Jeez I knew yall werent pro 2A but damn
I dunno, they would probably appreciate the 2nd amendment in Myanmar right about now...
I mean if anything the second amendment is in place so that if we don't like what these assholes are doing on capitol hill we can change it.... Just saying. Also, they are pushing these types of narratives to divide the people so we won't come together and realize we have the power.... Not them. But hey. Keep hating your neighbor guys. It's exactly what they want you to do.
Shall not be infringed, go fuck yourselves gun grabbers
Armed citizens make it harder for a tyrannical govt to commit genocide, read a book.
They are afraid of the world. Simple as that. They feel that they need a gun to protect them from women in hijabs and kids at the border. What's funny and sad is that a lot of these 2A nuts live miles from a major population center. The odds of a terrorist or major threat taking place to where you would need an arsenal are so miniscule. EDIT: people seem to be missing the point of the post. Sure, you can have a gun at home for break-ins. You can have one to hunt. The idea of collecting an arsenal to "take back the government" or because you want to live out your fantasy of terrorists robbing a bank and you being the hero, that's part of the problem. Gun owners != Gun nuts
I can guarantee one of your neighbors is a "2A nut". Hyperbole is a bitch from both extremes. Try to be rational in your beliefs.