Seems pretty clear to me, want to place limits on it, get support for a new amendment.

#2A

@freemo right on. And before someone posts the "well regulated militia" argument, the militia at that time was the able-bodied male population. The 2a is definitely about the general public being armed and trained to repel either invasion or tyranny.

If the Federal government wanted to take the 2a seriously, they should be expanding the Civilian Marksmanship Program and offering free rifle lessons in high school.

@mike805 @freemo even if that were the case (it's isn't), you still have them "well-regulated" bit. Also, if the first part is to be taken for sacred, by your interpretation then only white men should have the right to bear arms?

The reification of an old document is a choice. One that is killing our children. Guns are the number one cause of death for children in America! Our life expectancy is way lower than all other advanced countries. Choosing this mortality for an interpretation of an old text is the definition of a death cult. One that is imposed on a majority of Americans who do not want it.

@lmrocha @mike805 @freemo guns literally do nothing without a person. Blaming inanimate objects for the actions of people is low effort

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

Bingo! You've got it!

Nobody wants to ban guns and nobody is coming for your guns. We just want to be sure that they don't end up as easily in the hands of a person that may start shooting indiscriminately in a school or other public place.

Even the founding fathers had some "well-regulated" criteria for who can and who cannot have a gun (white men with wigs yes, founding mothers and people with slightly dark complexion no).

The criteria arguably changed from then but the principle stands.

@pj

People have literally banned entire classes of guns such as handguns and imaginary "assault rifles".. not only arr thry coming for our guns, they are explicit about it...

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

Also no, there was never a well regulated criteria. That was an exemplarly clause as is explicitly stated, not a qulifying clause. Thry have been quotes countless time saying as much.

@freemo

Yes, they don't explicitly state in the constitution who is and who isn't allowed to have guns, but I think it is pretty clear what would have happened if one of their slaves went for a gun.

You can't run a society without qualifying clauses.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

Surr thry do, thry explicitly state the right shall not be infringed. Pretty clear that means all people.

@freemo

I believe the definition of "people" at that time, as @lmrocha pointed out, might have been very narrow.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805

@pj @freemo @lmrocha @mike805 it's not now. move on

@pj @freemo @lmrocha @mike805 the point I'm making is that the definition of a person is not part of the 2nd Amendment. It's not part of the debate in gun control unless you are claiming that people you think are more likely to become violent are somehow not people. Then we need to figure out how we define that and maybe you have a case. Where we stand today all people are people, and natural rights apply to all people.

@thatguyoverthere

We dont need a definition for people, we all know what a person is and the founding fathers made it very clear they intended that word to include all people.

@mike805 @lmrocha @pj