🇳🇱
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 so why do you need driver's licenses and insurance to operate a vehicle?
I woukd argue licenses and insurance shouldnt be allowed in their current form either... but arguing one thing is valid simply because some other thing exists is pretty weak argument IMO
@freemo @thatguyoverthere @mike805 no it's not. Comparison is essential for making laws and argue about them.
great then lets do that:
Since guns dont require licenses, we shouldnt require licenses to drive cars either... Through the use of comparison you made a strong argument to abolish car licenses :)
Yea I dunno that sounds like a bad way to argue.
@freemo @lmrocha @thatguyoverthere actually.... owning a car doesn't require a license. It is entirely possible to have a car registered in your name and not have a drivers' license. If you have a big piece of land you can even drive it around your own land. Many farm boys drove around the farm long before turning 16. Those kids could also carry a rifle around on the farm, and did.
Using a potentially deadly object IN PUBLIC requires you to demonstrate basic competence in most states.
I'd argue poisons are the easist way to do mass killings... its been done, a bag of poison someone makes, takes it on a train, opens the bag, everyone dies... easy to make, kills en masse at a level comparable or exceeding guns.. no reasonable way to protect against it directly so only real option is to convince people to stop wanting to murder.
@freemo @lmrocha @thatguyoverthere technically true but requires some brainpower.
An idiot can commit mass murder with a truck or a gun or with fire. And most of the mass murderers are idiots, fortunately. If really smart people went homicidal, we'd have body counts in the tens of thousands.
You can literally mix 2 chemicals froma super market and kill a train load of people... probably takes more brain power to learn to drive to be honest.
@mike805 @freemo @thatguyoverthere vehicles ARE massively regulated! That is the point.
@freemo @lmrocha @thatguyoverthere the vehicle versus gun comparison ought to be used more often in these debates.
Some of the terrorist truck rampages have run up body counts comparable to the mass shootings. And if guns were banned, large vehicles would be the next easiest way to go on a killing spree.
Cars are also the other big killer of young people besides guns and drugs. So "how would you regulate vehicles then?" is a good question to ask.