๐ณ๐ฑ
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.
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...
@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.
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.
@pj @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha
Surr thry do, thry explicitly state the right shall not be infringed. Pretty clear that means all people.
I believe the definition of "people" at that time, as @lmrocha pointed out, might have been very narrow.
@thatguyoverthere@shitposter.club
@thatguyoverthere
No. Are you?
@mike805 @freemo @lmrocha
@thatguyoverthere @freemo @lmrocha @pj this thread shows a common problem.
People with incompatible worldviews usually cannot have productive debates about an issue that impacts their worldviews.
People on the gun rights side see this as a matter of NATURAL RIGHTS - rights that existed before civilization. Numbers and harms don't move them.
People on the anti-gun side see it as a matter of SAFETY - they want to reduce harms. At least the honest ones do. A few are would-be tyrants.
@thatguyoverthere @freemo @lmrocha @pj From the gun-rights side, we used to have a civilization where people could have deadly weapons for protection and sport, without frequent massacres taking place.
We need to fix our culture so that is possible again. That's where the statistics come in - figure out what are the factors causing people to go rage monster.
If the culture isn't fixable, then what comes next will not be pretty, and guns will certainly be in demand in that environment.
https://english.jagran.com/world/shinzo-abes-killer-wielded-homemade-gun-had-considered-a-bomb-attack-say-police-10045759
QOTO is a place for **respectful** debate... lets not do that please.
