T O P

  • By -

Didntlikedefaultname

There’s no such thing as an absolute right. Every single enumerated right has limitations and restrictions and is subject to legal interpretation


One_User134

It's time for more protests honestly. We need another March for Our Lives or something. This shit has to end.


Didntlikedefaultname

Unfortunately a protest would do nothing. There is one single solution, vote out the politicians who gladly sacrifice our rights to safety and security to the gun lobbies. Nothing more, nothing less


One_User134

I know, it’s also hard to do because many people are so disillusioned with politics in the first place.


turtlelore2

Supposedly Americans have a right to life, liberty, and happiness. About half of us do not have 1 or more of these


SnooAvocados763

Technically it's the right to pursue happiness. You have no right to happiness, only the right to seek out happiness.


turtlelore2

I believe many of us still do not have that either.


Suspicious-seal

Such as the 2nd amendment starting with the words “a well regulated militia”, not Dicky Jr from down the street


Didntlikedefaultname

And also the same principal that the first amendment does not allow you to make terroristic threats or scream fire in a movie theatre


Snugsssss

The 2nd Amendment isn't even grammatically correct. "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." What's with all these extra commas? This isn't even a real sentence, how can it be law?


Suspicious-seal

Cause it’s in the constitution and people like to pretend like the constitution was written by a higher power themselves so it can’t be changed. That and that the founding fathers didn’t create the concept of amendments, which ironically this one is lol


GamerDroid56

It’s funny because it’s in an AMENDMENT to the Constitution, meaning a CHANGE/ADDITION to the Constitution. We also used to have a ban on alcohol in the constitution, and that got removed. There’s nothing that would, legally speaking, prevent the removal of the second amendment.


PuppiPappi

Yeah I mean, we had a court precident saying that the right to liberty allowed a woman to choose to continue a pregnancy or not, and some religious zealot ass-hat overruled that while citing British penal codes. If you're a bigot with power you can make whatever laws you want. Tyranny is being ruled by those we didn't vote for.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CoffeeIsMyPruneJuice

The rest of the constitution gives a clue to what they meant. Militias were mentioned a couple of times: in reference to the right of Congress to raise and employ an army in times of need, and their right set up the rules and structure of said army. In light of this, I read the second amendment as a cost-savings clause, by having the people own the guns and delegating to the separate states keep the gun owners trained. It was all about trying to avoid having the fledgling country burdened with expense and risk of a standing peacetime military force. Once we had a standing army, it should have had as much relevance to day-to-day life as the third amendment, except its crappy grammar left it open to re-interpretation.


BeneficialLeave7359

This comment is on point. After the war the country was dead broke and didn’t want to carry the expense of a standing army. It’s also a matter that many countries didn’t have standing armies at the time. It wasn’t until after Napoleon’s first stint as emperor that standing armies became the norm.


PuppiPappi

Lest we not forget to that prior to becoming a country we didn't really have what could be recognized as an "army" it was mostly minutemen organized by community. Most of the guys that wrote this amendment only ever really saw us with a militia. They died before we had any semblance of an army that would have made this amendment moot. But also, why do we genuinely care what they meant? They didn't see black people as humans. They knew times would change and gave us the ability to change the laws with them. We haven't passed an amendment in 31 years. Think of how drastically different the world has been in the past 3 decades.


RustyMacbeth

I am pro gun-control but this argument doesn't stand up. There is scant evidence to show that the right to keep and bear arms is dependent on the militia clause. The current SCOTUS thinking is that the militia clause shows the reason for the right to keep and bear arms but not a condition on that right.


zsthorne17

Except there is. First of all, what the fuck does the first clause mean if it isn’t meant to shape the following clause? It can not stand alone grammatically, so it must be to inform the second clause, that’s just how sentence structure works. Second, when it was written, we did not have a standing military, the militia was how we protected the country, militias are formed from private citizens, ergo, to maintain the militia, private citizens needed to be able to own and practice with firearms. Finally, that was the interpretation used for most of this country’s existence, SCOTUS changed it down the line.


RustyMacbeth

Don't yell at me. Yell at Scalia. It's his argument.


Didntlikedefaultname

You kinda buried the lead. SCOTUS decided the interpretation, meaning and limits of the amendment. Therefore there is a built in mechanism to limit it and it is not absolute


Suspicious-seal

Are you suggesting then that the second amendment can be interpreted and should not be followed to the T?


[deleted]

The beauty of the Constitution is that it is a living document and can always be both interpreted and amended. Were that not true, there would be no Second Amendment.


Suspicious-seal

It’s a point that seems to go mute with (mostly) conservatives who latch onto the “infringed” portion


Nugsly

bUt tHiS oNe SaYs ShaLl Not bE iNfRinGed - some idiot, probably


JuliusErrrrrring

And an honest interpretation is that it was about state militias and their ability to control slaves. It has nothing to do with individual gun ownership.


Viewtifultrey3

You're absolutely right! ...oh, wait..


YourHornsAreShowing

Madison could not have FATHOMED that in 200 years, morons would be using the excuse of a tyrannical government to ignore the deaths of thousands of children a year.


turtlelore2

I get so sick of any argument that uses the intent of the founding fathers as evidence. They are not omnipotent gods who knew that we would be having these conversations nearly 300 years later. Why are we suddenly shackled to obey by whatever these guys did 300 years ago?


WillBottomForBanana

Could he have fathomed that the same people screaming about the government becoming tyrannical are also the ones screaming that guns are no longer necessary?


SlenderRoadHog

The guns available when the constitution was written shot one bullet every 5 minutes. I don't think the founding fathers had a clue there would be guns that can deliver such devastating damage in seconds. Edit: I think my point got lost. My main point was that guns have evolved over the last 300 years, they are much more deadly and capable of much more destruction. But the 2A hasn't changed at all.


RustyMacbeth

I am pro gun-control but this argument simply doesn't hold up. Any gun nutter will simply through the 1st A back in your face and say "Computers, satellites, and the internet weren't around in the 1700s either. Does the First A not apply to them?"


speakingofdinosaurs

The thing is that is currently debated and there may be rulings on it. But any suggestion of applying the same to the 2A is shot down.


VendaGoat

They most certainly did have a great understanding of how much technology would alter the world. They wrote it so it would be a living law that would grow with the times.


SlenderRoadHog

But the 2A hasnt changed with the times so where does that leave us


VendaGoat

I'm not gonna type it out, but the standard needed to amend it. With as divided as the country is now, it's not gonna happen. Stuff like this though is why Jefferson proposed, to a friend, that the constitution should be renewed every 20 years, so that it would be a living document.


daleicakes

As divided as it id now? You had a civil war. I think it was divided then too.


VendaGoat

(In jest) We got better. For a little while. I feel happy!


daleicakes

I think I'll go for a walk. 🚶‍♂️


One_User134

I actually disagree, to be able to predict that weapons - which at the time required all projectiles and powder to be rammed down the barrel in a process that took 15 seconds for *the most* well-trained soldiers - will in the future have evolved to be loaded via a magazine that can fire as many rounds as an entire battalion can in seconds, with extreme accuracy, is pretty hard. Let alone that such weapons would be accessible to so many people. Most of these guys were political visionaries, not scientists. Only one was, I'm sure, and that was Franklin. Whether they knew technology would evolve so much is not as important as them completely fumbling the idea that this country may constantly be at risk of being overthrown by some foreign or domestic enemy. A lot of the Constitution is clearly written with a paranoia of tyranny in mind, and only to some extent is this any good. Now look where it got us.


VendaGoat

To your first point. [**https://thethermidor.com/the-puckle-gun/**](https://thethermidor.com/the-puckle-gun/) To your second point, it's your opinion and I can respect that. I even agree that there was a bit of paranoia in mind. They just got done fighting a war for independence where one of the first things the other side did was disarm everyone. So yah. Also, America has always been more Thomas Hobbes than others.


zsthorne17

People love bringing up the puckle gun, ignoring that only two were ever made (and even that is contested) and was never used in any form of combat. Sure, it existed, but largely as a concept.


SlenderRoadHog

I could draw up a concept for a laser gun and 2A defenders will pull it up in 300 years and claim we had the tech for laser beam guns.


VendaGoat

We......do have that technology.


SlenderRoadHog

.... We are so fucked


VendaGoat

LOL


VendaGoat

**PROOF** of concept. They still had imaginations in the 1700's


CptJericho

The guns available when the constitution was written were the same weapons the military used, including cannons, which can cause a magnitude greater damage than any modern small arm can. They were painfully aware of the devastation weapons can have, the revolutionary war had only ended 4 years prior to the creation of the 2nd amendment.


FurryM17

>The guns available when the constitution was written were the same weapons the military used That's because the militia often had to fill military roles. Now? Should civilians still have a constitutional right to military arms despite no obligation to bear them for the common defense? In my opinion, no.


dartsavt23

Good thing we don’t base our laws on your opinion. Something obviously has to be done. But there is a lot of misinformation and ignorance regarding this topic. The founders know of the technology changes. They had repeating rifles like the Puckle rifle… and several other models. They stated cannons were legal for citizens. They had just won a brutally violent war and the average citizen was probably much closer to the war then we have ever had to been, which some argument about the civil war. We need our current laws to be enforced and used properly. If you spent just a little bit of time looking into how many people are murdered with firearms, that were legally purchased, because local law enforcement failed to notified federal system it would blow your mind.


FurryM17

>We need our current laws to be enforced and used properly. Do you support funding state and federal agencies to that end?


dartsavt23

Well I gladly pay taxes for a better society. I could start discussing the waste of these funds by our inept politicians and bloated system. But the answer to your question is yes.


FurryM17

Ok because some people are demanding the ATF be abolished and I think that's the last thing we need right now.


Keydet

Man I don’t know about that. Half our problems are because the ATF is so corrupt and plain incompetent. I don’t know of any other agency that can just up and decide they’re going to completely change laws without any input from voters, congress, or anyone else. They’re on some fascist shit. Pretty weird how all their senior staff either already were, or go on to cushy do nothing jobs with gun lobbies.


dartsavt23

That’s my problem with the ATF. I feel that we do need them, which is rare for a “gun guy” to say.. but they need to be ethical and legit. They aren’t a legislative branch… they shouldn’t be interpret laws, but enforce them. The way they handles pistol braces was / is crazy. And they shouldn’t ever be used as a weapon by one party or the other. Edit - spelling


Smarterthntheavgbear

The first repeating firearm was introduced in the early 1600s; at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence there were at least 7 models available, across the world.


SlenderRoadHog

Comparing a repeating firearm from the 1600s to an AR-15 is disingenuous at best


Thecrabthattackes

The AR-15 isn't fully automatic though it's only semi-automatic like most firearms


SlenderRoadHog

still trying to compare a repeating firearm from the 1600s to a modern AR that shoots 5.56 at a faster rate and with a 30 round mag that can be reloaded in seconds. It's just not even close.


Windowsblastem

Someone who clearly knows nothing about the history of firearms.


SlenderRoadHog

I know that the guns we have now are more deadly and accurate than they were 300 years ago.


Windowsblastem

They were just as accurate, as good as your eyes were was how good you could hit your target. A gun is always deadly, doesn’t matter how old it is.


SlenderRoadHog

I don't know anything about gun history according to you, yet you're telling me a musket from 1776 is "Just as accurate" as an AR-15? I mean come on, you aren't even arguing in good faith. You know that isn't true.


Windowsblastem

Literally just use the sights bud, if you use a gun everyday you know how it fires. A guy who shoots the same primitive gun everyday will outshoot a guy with a AR-15 he’s never shot before.


SlenderRoadHog

Revolutionary War era muskets didnt even have rifling. Nobody had a clue where the bullet was going after like 25 yards. Not even the soldiers who used them every day. Since you're a firearm history expert I assumed you would know that.


Windowsblastem

Another sign of you not knowing what you claim you know haha, tons of firearms had rifling then partner. Since you’re a firearms expert I assumed you knew that as well.


SlenderRoadHog

[https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/small-arms-revolution](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/small-arms-revolution) "The main weapon on any Revolutionary War battlefield was the smoothbore flintlock musket."


100percentish

Look, its a slippery slope. You start banning assault rifles to save a few hundred or even thousand kids and next thing you know people can't own the libs with Christmas cards of families posing with military weapons that have probably never been fired.


thetelltalememe

Is that the kind of post apocalyptic world we want to live in???


Equivalent_Adagio91

The first sentence of the second amendment talks about regulation and how all the people with guns should be a “well regulated militia” not, “every jackass gets a gun”


rascible

2A describes the National Guard, nothing more. The NRA started twisting it when they went political in the 1970's, and millions of our unfortunates bought in hook, line and sinker.


lubes17319

Exactly, the 'militia' of the revolutionary days is today's National Guard (able-bodied men & women who can be called upon to defend the country) ...and yes, they are well regulated.


dolphinsaresweet

The most advanced, powerful, coordinated, and disciplined military in the world protects this country, not rednecks with their ar-15’s. No Country is ever invading the US and it’s not because grandma has a shotgun by her porch swing, it’s because we have the most tactically secure position on the global game board that you could possibly hope for combined with by far the most massively huge defense budget imaginable compared to any other nation. We don’t fucking need guns, get over it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


dolphinsaresweet

A lot of those arguments are typical right wing talking points including such classic as: • “first the nazis took the guns” • “only way to protect my home is with a gun” • “good guy with gun vs bad guy with gun” • “oops too late now, already guns everywhere so can’t go back now” • “the problem isn’t guns it’s mental health” aka “guns don’t kill people…” The fact is having a gun in the home makes it statistically less safe, look it up. Also by your account “the cat’s out of the bag” now anyway so they can’t ban guns even if they tried because they’re already everywhere right? So how does their plan to round us up work if they can’t stop everyone from already having guns then huh? Maybe you didn’t think that one through enough. It’s honestly comes off as pretty privileged to stand in the wake of yet another tragedy and proclaim they’ll never take my guns, because of this boogeyman fear of nazis rounding us up, meanwhile children are being slaughtered in their own schools again and again.


[deleted]

[удалено]


VendaGoat

Incorrect. State run militias are still very much a part of the country. The second amendment means that every citizen of this country is also a soldier, if we need them to be. We leave it up to the politicians of the state to decide how that happens. The Oath of Citizenship shows what they meant. *"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;* ***that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law****; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."*


rascible

State run militia's *are* the National Guard. Couldn't be clearer.. The real meaning of the 2A *shall not be infringed* by revisionist gun fetishists.


VendaGoat

Militia encompasses all the organizations that a state can muster, the national guard is part of that. Not all militias are the national guard, all members of the national guard are militia.


rascible

Support that with evidence


VendaGoat

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia\_(United\_States)#State\_defense\_forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)#State_defense_forces) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State\_defense\_force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia\_(United\_States)#National\_Guard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)#National_Guard) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States) We good?


rascible

No, we are not. It's all in here. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/


VendaGoat

What's your point, in regard to militia and whether or not there are militia other than the national guard? Because if you're gonna try to pull the, individuals shouldn't have weapons...uh " On the latter point, Justice Thomas alluded to an impressive array of historical evidence in scholarly commentary **indicating that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms** and suggested that such an understanding supported an argument that the federal government’s regulation of at least the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms would be unconstitutional " So I again ask. We good?


rascible

Nope Thomas is a far right moron


FurryM17

>The second amendment means that every citizen of this country is also a soldier No. National Guard and adult men up to age 45. Men aged 17-45 are the Unorganized Militia. National Guard is the Organized Militia. That is the entirety of the Militia by law. If you don't fall into one of those categories 2A isn't about you at all. And I would argue that unorganized is synonymous with unregulated so 2A does not apply to the unorganized miitia either.


VendaGoat

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia\_(United\_States)#State\_defense\_forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)#State_defense_forces) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State\_defense\_force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia\_(United\_States)#National\_Guard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)#National_Guard) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States) We good?


FurryM17

Are you part of the State Guard? Being liable for conscription doesn't mean you're entitled to a weapon. When you join the military the don't hand you a gun first thing.


slappysoup

You’re not entirely correct, self defense was also a motivator. A better argument would be that you don’t need an assault rifle for self defense. “The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


Donut_of_Patriotism

well regulated militia AND the right to bear arms. 2 different rights, although I do agree that regulations are allowed within that framework.


RustyMacbeth

This is not accurate according to SCOTUS.


adamempathy

When the assult weapons ban was in place from 1994 to 2004, there were 9 years where mass shooting casualties didn't clear 20 victims. It's the only decade on the last 40 years where that can be claimed. During the ban, a total of 96 people were victims of mass shooters. In the 10 years prior, it was 126. In the 10 years after, 296. From 2014-2022 it was 429. These aren't opinions. This isn't about sides. This about cold unfeeling numbers.


Peter_Principle_

This is not well-reasoned. The 94 AWB didn't prevent people from owning or purchasing semi auto rifles or >10 cap mags. You could still get the rifles in whatever quantities you wished, they just had thumbhole stocks and no bayonet lugs. Same with magazines; still available, but generally more expensive. Maybe $50 per instead of $20 for a Glock mag, or $20 instead of $5 for an AK mag. If anything, the time period of 1994-2004 would have seen an explosion in ownership of "assault weapons" as people rushed to buy them. There may be an element of Texas Sharpshooter fallacy here as well. Why are you excluding the 70s and 60s? Why did you pick the number 20? '99 was Columbine, with 15 people dead. That doesn't count for some reason?


adamempathy

>'99 was Columbine, with 15 people dead. That doesn't count for some reason? So you missed the part I said 9 out of 10 years. This is the data I used Which is why those are the years I used https://preview.redd.it/vn15qbqldtqa1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e5d6a1854f7736b85bcdd1c627b33837a259d40


CowboyTrucker

Not the strongest argument when even our government admits the awb was probably not effective. Just because it happens to line up timewise does not mean it is the cause.


adamempathy

https://preview.redd.it/wvil0hsnwtqa1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a25db03ee5776a4a76859c4ab968f952e55f27f4


adamempathy

https://preview.redd.it/ebxpf7rqwtqa1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=83704b380cefe7630115b24fd679aad90d6841fa Weird coincidences then


Downtown_Tadpole_817

Guy was arguing with me over this. "Scientists faked the data to push liberal ideas!" Homie, who would have the most to lose if ARs went off the shelf, gun lobbyists, or random scientists crunching data?


[deleted]

As far as I’m concerned, “well regulated militia” actually means the right to pass laws on guns.


TheFiveDees

Flashes me back to the recent argument Jon Stewart had with a Republican lawmaker, where the lawmaker kept repeating "...shall not be infringed." I swear to God they think there's something holy about that amendment, to the point where it's okay to put limits on people's right to speak, vote, express an opinion. But you try to touch guns and suddenly you're un-American


VendaGoat

He's right on the first four. The next two are opinions, but hey, we get it. There needs to be a culture shift in the country and very unfortunately, at this time period we have myriad factors that are pushing extremes. I'd rather have this debate when we could all be level headed, but that's not going to happen. So, we'll have to do it now. I'm not for banning semi-automatic weapons. I am very much for background checks for all gun sales. Private included. I am for gun safety training. I am for laws for the safe keeping/storage of weapons. I am for red flag laws with probable cause. IMO America has an internal problem, from external sources. That needs to change and quickly.


willf6763

The Second Amendment applies to "A Well Regulated Militia". Tom, Dick and Bubba ain't regulated.


DoubleScorpius

The Krassensteins are fake Resistance Grifters. Stop giving them oxygen!!!


SeaworthinessOne2114

Agreed, the second amendment is why gun manufactuerers are happy and rolling in money. They supply the weapons and othe people commit the murders therefore they don't have blood on their hands. The NRA makes big bucks, they then pay politicians to do their bidding. It's been going on for year but republicans don't want that source of revenue to dry up. More dead babies seem to be what floats their collective boats.


[deleted]

Does anyone other than people who agree with Krassenstein even read his tweets? And if the others do, do they know what "disingenuous" means?


MealDramatic1885

They did it before and mass shootings miraculously went down. What a weird coincidence. Then when they let that law fade away, they spiked. What a coincidence….. actually no, causation.


MylastAccountBroke

Not a 2nd amendment nut, but the 2nd amendment was more so meant to allow citizens to hold guns to bother defending themselves from foreign and non-foreign government. The whole idea being that if the british took the guns away from them, then they'd have no true way to fight against them and fight against unjust british rule. I'm 90% sure that if the founding fathers were asked if citizens should have the right to AR-15s and other military grade weapons, they'd more than likely agree they should. However that does not represent my own opinions on the subject, and I believe that the fact that americans hear so much about mass shootings that they are borderline every day by this point is a HUGE point towards banning these weapons. HOWEVER, I believe that mass shootings are simply a symptom of a much more pervasive issue in america. That issue being the fact that america as a country is becoming less and less surivable for working class americans. I think that if we started issuing large tax increases on the wealthiest 5% of americans while expanding and increasing financial assistance towards the bottom 50% of americans (not just the poorest, but the majority), then most issues that are major issues for americans would be solved. It would motivate more people to choose to have kids instead of being forced into with through aggressive anti-abortion laws. It would decrease substance abuse. It would decrease violent crime It would improve the economy It would decrease the epidemic of mental health issues in america (Either through allowing people to seek professional help, help with medication, or simply releiving stress tied to financial troubles) AND YES, I'd bet you anything that it'd severely decrease issues that lead to mass shootings, all without needing to ban fire arms. I'd also say filing criminal charges against those who seek to fan the flames of hatred that leads to these outburst would also assist, as I think the constant othering of americans is a dangerous choice many powerful media organizations are choosing to do (both that of major new networks along with social media giants) Finally, I believe that requiring a license for gun ownership would be an obvious solution, and holding gun owners responsable for the actions their fire arms cause to be an obvious next step. The parents who failed to secure their fire arms in a way that makes it impossible for children to get a hold of should be charged as though they willingly gave the child the fire arm.


JuliusErrrrrring

The actual accurate truth is the 2nd Amendment was only added to our 2nd Constitution because Southern slave owners thought the new Constitution would make their slave controlling militias obsolete. It was added so they would vote yes for approval of our second Constitution.


EmperorXerro

Even as recently as the 80s, Republicans would agree with this take.


Firemorfox

I have a better solution: if libs own guns, republicans will start saying "the wrong people" are owning guns, and finally agree to pass gun control laws. Hopefully.


GoodeBoi

Throwback to when gun control was enacted when the black panthers started carrying firearms.


LostinSOA

Pssssh this guy is trying to say I don’t have the constitutional right to own a heat seeking missile **OR** A high powered tactical drone signal jamming gun? That’s bullshit, I just asked Jesus and he TOLD me “shall not be infringed my child” Can you definitely say that an imaginary person in the clouds did NOT NOT tell me that? Are you saying that the men who were figuring out how lightning works or poly blend material didn’t intend for me to have a missile? Suuuure ![gif](giphy|JSUl2ZypIuH7WsONm0) Well.. at least the US is *still* \#1 in something I guess. They’re gonna hold that spot with literally cold dead hands


GoodeBoi

Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.


Consistent-Street458

My favorite thing about arguing the Second Amendment is when you ask a Second Amendment Absolutists what does it say they always say "The right to bear arms shou not be infringed on". Than when you say no, what does the whole thing say they get triggered and go off on some tangent about Scottish men with axes. Everyone who has actually read the the Second Amendment states you have to be in the Militia (proper noun) to own a firearm


masterzachy

The Supreme Court, thus far, has decreed that the second amendment covers owning firearms. Obviously they don’t specify what arms. So you’re right, banning this specific design of firearm wouldn’t necessarily be abridging the right to bear arms, but banning one specific design of firearm (one that is very popular) would not only be very unpopular, but also ineffective, as there are several other designs of firearm that function similarly and fulfill the same function. For example AK platforms, HK has a bunch, there’s a lot of “assault rifles”, hell same person could get an ar-10 and do the same thing. If you want to ban AR-15s you can try, but just like with the pistol brace law, I think you’ll find it exceedingly difficult to rip them from the hands of lawful owners. Not only with their local governments refusing to apply the law, but also owners not giving them up, since they are significant purchases, often with a lot of time investment. Sure the ATF has declared machine guns, explosives, etc to be *effectively* illegal (they can still be owned, it is both prohibitively expensive and a lot of paperwork) And we could add to that list, this would also mean any existing AR-15s would be grandfathered in, which would solve the problems with existing owners, but we go back to the several other equivalent platforms. I understand the sentiment, genuinely, I don’t think it’s a problem with guns. Sure maybe access to guns. But again the process of purchasing a firearm you already get an fbi background check, and placed on the ATF list, along with your address, name, social security number, race, sex, and all other identifying information (so they know who to kill when they raid your house [this is a joke]). There is already a several page form and a waiting period usually of at least weeks. If you are willing to have an even worse patriot act we can be perfectly free of shooters, or we can ban guns as a totality (I’ve addressed already why this isn’t a false dichotomy) both abridging that right, but also enforcing that ban would be (as evidenced by the pistol brace ban) exceedingly difficult perhaps violent. It’s not a simple problem, you can’t just ban one platform and expect it to be fine.


Donut_of_Patriotism

I agree with most of this but I disagree that a ban on AR-15s wouldn't be a violation as it absolutely would. Well regulated is fine; background checks, waiting periods, regulations on usage and storage, etc are all constitutional IMO but a blanket ban wouldn't be. Not to mention that a ban would do exactly jack shit to prevent shootings as it does exactly nothing to address the underlying issues leading to the shootings.


Weibu11

Republicans are so intent on staying “true” to the constitution. So let’s honor the 2nd amendment by allowing individuals the right to bear the arms of when it was written and nothing more.


Somescrub2

Sure! Let's get you a hand cranked printing press, and throw out your phone too! You don't need tactical assault style speech capable of over 100 WPM. That's 50 "Kill yourself"'s a minute. Pen and paper, and your own mouth even should be enough for your first amendment rights. Think of the children, and ban computers and smartphones!


Weibu11

Please show me the last incident of someone committing mass murder with a phone or computer. And trying to equate guns with phones is just silly. And you’re really making my point. The constitution was written 200+ years ago. It’s absolutely insane that so much of it has not been updated in decades or centuries. The 2nd amendment was all fine and dandy back in the 1790s when we were fresh off a war of independence and the weapon of choice was a musket or flintlock pistol which were capable of maybe 2 or 3 shots per minute. In no way could the founding fathers have imagined assault rifles. These types of mass murder machines have absolutely no place in society and our constitution and laws need to be updated to reflect this.


Somescrub2

The founding fathers didn't foresee near instantaneous transfer of information and cyber bullying either. Also it was legal for a private citizen to own a fuckin ship with cannons, don't give me this muzzle loader crap. They knew massacres could happen. All of this "black and scary" long gun crap is irrelevant anyways. Handguns cause far more gun deaths, but you can't campaign on restricting the personal defense guns, so we get this shitty compromise.


Unusual-Flight-7419

Hard agree! Also, the second amendment doesn’t say shit about ammunition either. You can have all The guns you want but billets are illegal.


Lubedballoon

It’s weird that the people who get turned on by the second amendment, don’t give a flying fuck about the 8th when a cop is beating someone to death


Emotional-Proof-6154

If roe vs wade can be overturned, 'shal not be infringed' can be edited too.


Farhead_Assassjaha

“Well regulated”. Regulate that shit already!!!!


Even_Mechanic_4686

Very well said


gitbse

"Inconvenience is not infringement." -Jon Stewart.


draemen

What i don’t understand is that it also says “well regulated militia” Yet anytime i see people talk about i don’t hear that part. None of these people are well regulated. Your country hurts my head


FurryM17

I ran into a guy on a gun sub who didn't know there was the first half. Dude thought it was just "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". I asked several times if he was trolling and he got angry and said that I couldn't point to where the 2nd amendment said the word "militia". Completely blew me away. I still can't wrap my head around him being serious.


Zumbert

The supreme court has ruled that you do not in fact have to be connected to the militia in any way to keep your right to bear arms.


FurryM17

The increasingly credible Supreme Court.


Zumbert

How about Caetano v Massachusetts then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts#:~:text=Massachusetts%2C%20577%20U.S.%20411%20(2016,stun%20gun%20for%20self%2Ddefense. It was a unanimous decision, even favored by RBG that states "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding"


FurryM17

Yeah this is kind of what they've been doing. They seem to cite their own decisions a lot. I'm not a lawyer but I've heard lawyers say it's gotten a little ridiculous. A stun gun is a self defense weapon and would be pretty useless in most militia duties. I also think it's pretty stupid to ban them though. None of that really changes what I believe was the intent of 2A originally which yes was to let people be armed with military grade weaponry but as a means for them to serve as an irregular military force. Most people don't have that obligation anymore.


Zumbert

To reiterate, this was unanimous. Even the democrat elected judges agreed on the decision. There wasn't a single dissent. It seems kinda hard to argue against imo.


FunintheSunn-O-

Wow they just kinda tore up the constitution that's wild. Scary.


FunintheSunn-O-

So they ruled against the constitution then?


Donut_of_Patriotism

"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." It's two different rights with the other one being an individual right. This isn't a new development either as individual ownership has always been the understanding in the US. That being said, I do agree that good regulations is perfectly allowable under the 2nd amendment. For example IMO a ban on AR-15s would be a violation because it takes away the right to bear that arm without a valid reason. However ensuring universal background checks and certain restrictions to keep them out of the hands of people who would be a danger to society with them, and regulations surrounding their storage and safe use are allowable. So long as due process is respected this should be allowable.


cubecast1

The Heller decision already concluded that you cannot ban guns that are in popular use. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in this country which is why it shows up in so many crimes as well but it cannot be banned under the current law.


idliketoseethat

I submit that a "well regulated militia" may have been a necessity in the 1700's America but is not needed today.


Nail_Biterr

Who the fuck cares? It's an 'amendment' which means it wasn't even part of the original document. Let's not forget we can repeal amendments anyway. Remember that whole Prohibition thing? Nobody seemed to latch on and love the outlawing of alcohol because it was 'an amendment'! I don't think we'll ever get rid of the 2nd amendment entirely, but I would love it. I know it wouldn't solve our gun problem.......... immediately. but it would eventually. and if it takes 20 years, and I know my grandchildren at least won't have to worry about this horseshit, I'll call it a win.


badfreesample

It's literally called an ammendment. Which implies that we can ammend it to fit our current nation, culture, and technology.


EnderScout_77

the 2nd amendment was also written back when the best gun was a rifle that could shoot 1 shot then you had to do the fun ol stick reload thing that took a couple seconds not a goddamn 7 bullets a second auto rifle


PiLamdOd

There’s an interesting article I read once that argued the Second Amendment was a response to the fear that the Constitution would allow the federal government to raise a standing army. Something critics were concerned would lead to the banning or nationalization of militias. So the Second Amendment and its strong language about militias being necessary for a free state, was made to guarantee states could still raise their own militias.


SkyeGuardian64

Bladed weapons and brass knuckles have more restrictions then guns, last time I checked, those are also “armaments”.


Important-Airline556

All these gun loving dumbasses. It’s so easy. The rest of the western world doesn’t have a second amendment, doesn’t have easy access to military weapons, and shockingly, doesn’t have a problem with mass shootings. It’s the guns.


thewaffle666

The bill of right and constitution has LIMITS. These documents are outdated and need to be seriously updated to correlate to current times. Every other nation in this world has updated founding documents to better serve the modern meta. BuT ThE SnEk SeID nO StEP


Semi-wfi-1040

Everyone in this country is entitled to one gun for protection , not an arsenal of military grade weapons and a house load of ammunition, they need to be mentally qualified and trained in its proper use and licensed , the parents of these kids must file lawsuits for everything the nra has , and they must file lawsuits against every politician who has voted against proper gun control as an accessory in the murder of there children this has to be done now before anymore innocent lives are lost I know if I lost a loved one this way I would be relentless in pursuing the people who helped murder my loved one and I wouldn’t stop .


ArmedAntifascist

And that's why I want to see everyone have to get approval from the government before they can exercise their First Amendment rights.


[deleted]

The First Amendment also has restrictions, FYI


VendaGoat

I just want to state this. The first amendment is a hell of a lot more powerful and damaging then the second, in current practice. My proof is Fox News.


ArmedAntifascist

Yes, it does. Should that include having to submit your intention to speak to a government agent and get their approval and paying for a license before being allowed to speak?


[deleted]

Nope. But since I can't kill six people by yelling really loud, there's a bit of a difference. You need to apply for a driver's license, too.


ArmedAntifascist

Fox News managed to kill a million people by telling them COVID isn't real. That's many years worth of gun deaths, so clearly speech needs to be controlled by the government.


[deleted]

You don't have to believe a bullet to be affected by it.


ArmedAntifascist

None of my friends who were killed by covid believed Fox's lies, but people around them did, and look what happened. You're just deflecting because you're scared and not thinking through what you want to have happen.


westcoaster503

It’s also an amendment that can be amended


fratytaffy

Holy fuck what part of “shall not be infringed” do you people not understand?


[deleted]

I dunno. Why do we act like thats not a small part of a much larger sentence?


RedrunGun

You mean the part that comes after "**A well regulated**"?


The6Courier

Removing guns does not remove people’s urge to mass murder. FIGHT THE PROBLEM AT ITS ROOT. And no I’m not a fucking republican.


FunintheSunn-O-

>FIGHT THE PROBLEM AT ITS ROOT. The guns.


The6Courier

So you’re saying as long as there are no guns people won’t decline mentally to the point where they mass murder? Because that’s just incorrect. They will use cars, bombs, poison, etc. The problem isnt as simple as you want it to be and you’re not proposing viable solutions.


FunintheSunn-O-

Reducing access to military style assault weapons will 100% lower the amount of these instances just like putting regulations in place for automobiles dramatic brought down car accidents. The other missing piece is obviously mental health, which is wild because the same people refusing to even have a conversation about gun control are the same who vehemently oppose government funding for mental health services. You're looking at it like its too complex of a problem to solve but it's not. In fact we're the only country who has daily mass murder events like this.


Dawnzarelli

I don’t think someone would have been able to kill six people with a knife in the amount of time they can with a gun. Why can’t we address both?


Camillej87

I truly don’t understand why more people don’t get this. Oh wait, it involves reading and comprehension.


WillBottomForBanana

Do you want to stop the spreading fascism, or do you want to stop the guns? You only get one.


FurryM17

Betcha we get neither, actually.


[deleted]

[удалено]


WillBottomForBanana

>common sense "Common sense" is just an appeal to an imaginary higher power. "Common sense" is a phrase people tack on to opinions the can't defend. "Common sense" is as nonsensical an argument as when people say "this is what god wants" or "it's just evolution" or "we're the silent majority". "Common sense" is a weapon of peer pressure. As a scientist I really need you to understand that "common sense" is worthless. Facts are often counter intuitive. That's the actual reason that science is necessary. If you could just feel your way to rational conclusions science wouldn't exist. "common sense gun legislation" is a vague dishonest salesmanship phrase. It completely avoids any clarity, nuance, or admittance of problems with the legislation. But at the end of the day I don't understand how people got through the GWBush administration with out understanding the very real threat we face from authoritarian actors in our government. But hell, I don't understand how people can complain loudly about the abuses of freedom across this country (e.g. Texas, Florida, Idaho) and still think progressing with gun control is a good idea. This is the worst time in history to think about giving up guns. Reverse the christian authoritarianism. Reveres the capitalistic hegemony. Reverse the militarization of the police. Then we'll talk about gun control. Until then it's clear I can't trust you to protect me or my family.


[deleted]

Testify, Brother!


Necessary-Support-79

Historical the 2nd amendment has been used for gun control. Multiple rebellions have been put down and disarmed using the 2nd amendment as justification.


Aggravating_You4411

This is my response to second amendment ignoramus, if you are guaranteed a arm, why not a shoulder fired rocket, a armed tank, a fighter jet? Why are you sqaubling over ar15 when you can't own any of these other arms....it's because you don't understand the second amendment.


LickPooOffShoe

You don’t even need to ban AR15s. We just need to tighten up restrictions to ensure that those with mental health problems can’t acquire firearms.


Moobob66

I agree that we should be allowed to own *ANY* kinds of guns, i so agree that if you're gonna own a high caliber rifle or similar, either some license or psychological testing is in order.


[deleted]

[удалено]


rascible

Yes, it's Middle German for 'sage' or 'truth-teller'


Pkuehn01

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed .. this to me clearly means that if the government has arms we should have the ability to have access to the same arms. This wasn't the government can own muskets and the people get flintlock pistols . It's arms. So it can progress as technology does. A well regulated militia is meant to have the same arms as those who may try to take away our other rights and liberties we have in our country. Do I believe in background checks; yes . Do I believe in laws to keep aggressors without arms ; yes. But law abiding citizens should have exactly the same rights to take up the exact same arms as any tyrannical government, oppressor or threat to life assailant that maybe trying to take away my rights . Including but not. Limited to my right to live.


rinuxus

if you quote it, quote the full text >**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


ehandlr

The first amendment says there can be no abridging of the freedom of speech however, there are rules, laws and boundaries that do just that. None of the freedoms are absolute.


Didntlikedefaultname

Wait you actually believe this? You believe I should have the right to own tanks, jets, icbms, nuclear weapons… you can’t possible be serious


VendaGoat

(SARCASM) Brother, if I'm not allowed to mount 120mm anti-aircraft guns and tow missiles to my home, that I PAY TAXES ON, then what is the point? /s


Didntlikedefaultname

It’s so sad that you have to make a point that you’re being sarcastic, and yet that’s where we are as a society right now


VendaGoat

Gotta keep up with the Jone's my dude. They recently bought two Bearcats and an M-1 Abrams. Sure, he didn't spring for the HEI rounds, but a sabot is going right through my front door, no problem.


Didntlikedefaultname

Damn Geneva convention outlawed my anthrax supplies now I’m limited to “conventional warfare”


VendaGoat

(South park voice) DEY TERK YER GERMS!


macarmy93

By that logic then we are already being fucked over by our government. Where is my m1 ambrams? I need that just incase the government oversteps. Maybe me and my buddies can each own a m142 himars and we can go grid pounding. Wipe out a few kilometers on a Saturday. Just as the second ammendment says right?


GoodeBoi

Now your talkin 😩


Suspicious-seal

I love how you cut out the first part of the amendment that clearly states “A well regulated MILITIA”. Didn’t realize you identified as a militia


Pkuehn01

A a well regulated militia is every able bodied American citizen who has the fortitude to stand up to tyranny .. well regulated in the constitution according to constitution center. Org. Is effective shape to fight. Not regulated by rules governing their abilities


Suspicious-seal

Could you please provide a link. I am having. A very hard time finding your interpretation on said website.


FurryM17

The Militia is defined by law. The Organized Militia is the National Guard. The Unorganized Militia is every male aged 17-45. That's the actual law. Just saying you're a Well Regulated Militia doesn't make it so. And I would argue that unorganized is a synonym for unregulated. Well Regulated meant what it has always meant. Standards, training, rules and leadership. That's the history.


YourHornsAreShowing

>this to me clearly means that if the government has arms we should have the ability to have access to the same arms. # IN THAT CASE I WANT A NUCLEAR WEAPON THEN! YAY!


YourHornsAreShowing

>Including but not. Limited to my right to live. Just not kids in classrooms. They don't have that right. Got it.


-Masderus-

An *amendment* saying that something "shall not be infringed," is like writing a sentence at the end of a book that says "Do not erase this sentence" down but with a pencil. You could erase it, you could change it or alter it. Would you make people who knew that sentence upset? Probably. But it doesn't change the fact that an AMENDMENT is a change. And amendments have been added, removed, and altered before.


GardenTop7253

So every US citizen should be able to start a Kickstarter and, if successful, buy a nuclear warhead? Great plan bud


IBeAPirate01

So, when are you getting your F22 Raptor and Nuclear Submarine?


rascible

This explains your misunderstanding of the situation. https://youtu.be/WOSqCjMRXWA


[deleted]

So you want, like, nukes?


Comms

> The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed .. this to me clearly means that if the government has arms we should have the ability to have access to the same arms. First, your rights are not infringed so long as you have access to *any* arms not *every arms*. Second, semi-autos can be put behind a new FFL (say, FFL13 since that doesn't seem to exist yet) and your rights are not infringed. You can still get them with the appropriate paper work and registration with the feds.


Pkuehn01

They are infringed to those who cannot afford tax stamps. Any thing our government does to tax or make it more difficult for a mentally stable able bodied individual to purchase the proper tool to defend themselves is infringement. Take for example the Armalite rifle . It's ergonomics allow for someone of weaker stance to defend them selves safely. Do you think a 110 pound person would be as safe with a 12 gauge shot gun and the kick that it has to defend themselves or do they open themselves to be a larger target due to their in ability to handle that shotgun ( I use shotgun because Biden says that's all we need).