🇳🇱
Seems pretty clear to me, want to place limits on it, get support for a new amendment.
@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.
@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.
> 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
Impossible demand. There is no way to know the mind of another. You can make inferences based on what you know about that person, but even that's largely dependent on what they let you know about them. A better solution would be to make sure that places where vulnerable people are likely to be concentrated should be hardened to both dissuade the behavior and reduce the impact if it occurs.
> white men with wigs yes, founding mothers and people with slightly dark complexion no
Don't people get tired of picking on dead people's bigotry? I mean come on. It's worth noting that the 2nd Amendment does not have any such stipulations. The cultural norms of who would have had their rights protected in the 1700s/1800s has little to do with which rights we should be protecting and to what extent.
Ad 1: So you are OK to inconvenience a lot of innocent people by having to protect themselves and the places they work or study rather than have someone who wants to own a deadly weapon jump through a few hoops before they can get one? Nice.
AD 2: I wasn't talking about the morals of your founding father figures, I was merely pointing out that they also had some (unwritten) criteria of who can and cannot have guns, that you think we don't need today.
> inconvenience a lot of innocent people by having to protect themselves
You have to do that anyway. Do you not have a lock on the door[s] to your home? do you leave your wallet on the dash of your car and the windows down?
> merely pointing out that they also had some (unwritten) criteria of who can and cannot have guns
You are conflating separate issues to try and make your point seem more valid. It's not the same thing. We also don't let prisoners have guns in prison. I do think after a person has served their time they should have their rights restored, but that's not the case for felons. It's still a separate issue from the general debate on gun control.