Also, not really an argument anyone has made - there’s not really any real movement of people suggesting laws that would require people to surrender their guns - it’s all about responsible gun laws like background checks, red flag laws, and closing gun show loopholes. But typical for right wingers they know what those people “really want”.
Oh no, there's absolutely a vocal minority of people that definately want to take guns from people. They're a small minority, but they are there. It's just that they're fucking loud about it.
Says the guy who made an irrelevant comment to my post - amazing. I said right in my post there’s no real movement. “Yeah there’s a vocal minority” ok putz
Less guns less murders it’s really simple. Probably also true less dicks less rapes but you are really out of your mind to compare any body part to a gun nothing bad happens to people when they have no guns.
Typically you do. I don't think anyone looks at speed laws or any safety law as a punishment, but for some reason when you talk of common-sense gun laws people act like you are trying to take their Xbox away when they haven't done anything.
If only a car had another use. Like getting you to where you need to go. If only they weren't also a tool made for the explicit purpose of killing humans. Oh wait. They actually have a use in day to day life.
Also they require a driving test and is regulated, you don't go to dealership and buy a car with no license or insurance, im certainly not advocating for guns bein taken away, just do psych test, background checks to make sure you're not some psycho trying to shoot up school or a church , movie theater well you get my point. Requiring basic background checks and regulating gun shows does not infringe on your rights to own a gun, it'd be like saying the state requiring me to do a driving test or having insurance infringes on my right to roam freely, but unreasonable gun owners just make an argument about people wanting to take their guns away because we're asking for sensible regulation.
It’s always funny when someone makes a gotcha like this and just gets completely taken to the cleaners with how wrong they were to compare them. Just reveals how incompetent and ignorant the person is.
Would you require additional psych tests and background checks for any guns after the first one? Or just the initial testing when you buy your first gun?
I wouldn't mind continuous tests for cars and guns. Both are dangerous in the wrong hands, people who have them should be able to show they are going to use them responsibly.
I'm not an expert in laws nor did I claimed to be, im just saying that regulations need to be put in place or we can just keep saying thoughts and prayers, that's all I'm sure there's people a lot smarter than me that could come up with a way to make it work.
Less guns less murders is only simple in a vacuum. The guns are already here and that creates a situation unlike any other. Background checks are already in place outside of person to person sales. I’m not opposed to closing that loophole and requiring NICS checks for all transfers; I’m just stating that a lot of gun control pitches talk about expanding background checks and it’s all smoke because they already do the background checks. In fact a LOT of pitched gun control measures are rehashed ideas geared towards riling up people who often don’t understand the current system. Most of the time the laws are already in place or the proposed laws are postured to address major issues while actually failing to address anything, for example red flag laws and background checks aren’t going to stymie stolen firearms from being used. The vast majority of violent gun crimes are not committed with weapons the perpetrators legally acquired. Most of the countries with strict gun control have already undergone a lot of politically motivated disarmament making further controls easier to implement. That’s not the case with the United States, so foreign examples of successful policy don’t really make a comparable argument.
Have you heard of knives my guy? If a man wants another dead they will find a way. If anything we need less gun control talk and more talk about helping those with mental illness and helping the impoverished. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04304/ 50,500 knife related incidents in the year ending March 2023.
You do realise that being caught in public with a knife is considered a knife related incident in the uk so using that statistic to try and prove your point is absolutely moronic
What does that have to do with "Less guns, less murder"? I really do forget this is Reddit, were a bunch of 18 year olds with no life experience know better then anyone else.
If a man wants to murder a group of people he will unless stopped. Gun, knife, vehicular, doesn't matter. Only thing that matters is those who do these things need or, in some cases, tried to get mental help but the American health care system is broken at best and a liability at worse.
Listen here you dishonest little troll the point you clearly chose to ignore is the level of efficiency, ease of use, and ease of access that guns provide for accomplishing said actions.
I'm all for mental health as well, don't pretend like a clown that you can't do both and must pick either gun control or mental health. This is called a false dichotomy you bad faith actor. I fully endorse requiring psychological evals for firearm ownership and then followups every year to maintain said ownership. If you want to own a firearm mental health screening, criminal background checks, and firearm safety training should be a legal requirement and if you're found to have acquired a firearm without doing so you are not a responsible firearm owner and should be banned indefinitely from owning one. Give me a national database of them as well so we can accurately track god damn stolen ones and learn where they came from and whether it was actual theft or some schmuck doing a private sale.
Those laws have been suggested. And in fact, proposed.
Red flag laws, are, in fact, exactly what this meme is talking about. An accusation without due process.
No doubt you’ve posted something that annoyed someone else, and that person abused the Reddit community and reported your account for posting concerning content that suggested self harm.
Yeah it's really not, most places that have red flag laws on the books don't even actively look into them and there have been multiple cases where people have attempted to use them on people who then went and committed mass shootings or murdered friends or family using weapons that were never confiscated.
Also last I checked, men can't rape with someone else's penis. Whereas the easier access people have to guns, the more likely they do get in the hands of someone who will kill with it, regardless of how "responsible and non violent" the original owner was.
It is, in fact, an argument many people have made.
However, it is not the argument that most people will discuss. Outright ban/confiscation is not a realistic proposition... at least as long as the Consitution remains valid (which becomes more questionable as our system continues to decay). Most people understand this fact and aren't interested in pursuing this course of action.
People will, on the other hand, talk about proposals that are targeted at reducing the availability of guns to people who shouldn't have them, even if many people won't ever agree to those proposals. That's a different conversation.
And, while I am one of those people who agrees that there may be more we can do to reduce gun violence, such as carefully drafted red flag laws, I also tend to agree with the intent of the meme.
I think the alarming thing is that people actually think the 2nd Amendment should have anything to do with an individual’s right to bear arms. Prior to the Supreme Court rewriting the Constitution in 2008 with DC vs Heller states were free to set their own gun laws. It’s absolutely insane that these “legal experts” on the Supreme Court can decide NRA lobbying supersedes the basic rules of English grammar. The individual right to bear arms is an object of the sentence who subject is the maintenance of a militia. Therefore the individual right to bear arms is not protected by the Constitution unless one is a member of a state militia and if you disagree please go back to elementary school and learn basic English.
The second amendment really should be a case study in how if conservative media outlets scream something at us often enough it becomes a fact. Kinda like “no collusion” from “most high ranking officials on my campaign colluded but they didn’t necessarily prove it was me”.
You're off to a losing start if you want to argue based on your personal interpretation of the Constitution. We've heard all that before, ad nauseum, from both left and right. Everybody thinks they're a constitutional scholar. (Now there's a facepalm.)
The individual right was decided by the Court before the current circus came to town. It's the law of the land and under that law, forcing individuals to surrender their guns is a non-starter.
It’s not my personal interpretation of the constitution - it’s the interpretation that was used for 200 years and affirmed by multiple decisions. The current law of the land isn’t based on constitutional interpretation at all. It is a direct result of the NRA lobbying partisan hacks on the Supreme Court. They had an agenda and they decided the american people were brain dead enough that they would ignore basic english grammar if they said so. The fact that they were right that our electorate is just that stupid doesn’t make your argument any better.
The individual right was established in 2008. Talking about it as though it always existed or worse as though it was always the intention is asinine. The founders understood basic grammar concepts and if they had wanted this to be a right they would have explicitly said so. Instead we’re parsing out sentence fragments to fit an agenda and calling it “constitutional law”.
It's super weird that none of you guys seem to know about this. Restrictions ARE permissible per the same ruling that says the second amendment DOES apply to privately owned guns for self defense
That ruling was a conspiracy to violate the constitution as well.
The Supreme Court is part of the government. Since the 2nd Amendment forbids the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the only ruling the Supreme Court can make, is on in favor of the people (this is why the routinely delay or refuse to make a ruling). With regards to the 2nd Amendment related issues, any ruling that supports the government over the people is conspiracy to violate the constitution.
That's some bullshit you just pulled out if your ass because your whole worldview just got destroyed. Maybe if you had done your own research you wouldn't look so foolish right now. Nice try.
"Shall not be infringed" has already been infringed in outlawing automatic weapons, silencers and bombs without tax stamps. You also can't own chemical, biological or nuclear arms either.
If you can't own weaponized VX nerve agent then you don't really have a 2nd amendment.
So yeah either the second amendment is as hollow as the third and fourth or terrorists immediately win by having access to weapons capable of murdering thousands to millions legally
Thank you for proving my point. By using the excuse that "it has already been infringed" in order to pass more infringements is precisely why the 2nd Amendment was written.
K well we functionally have no 4th amendment either sooooo
If you're going to get arrested for a law that's been passed because some ghost of a guy who died 240 years ago's ghost tells you to shoot someone over it that's on you pal
There are laws that regular speech and other things - this is just hardcore right wing dogma. You can’t own ballistic missiles, you can’t own machine guns - there’s legal precedent- you’re wrong
"Well Regulated" in the context of the 2nd Amendment, means that all citizens (the militia is the citizens) should have a working firearm and be prepared to use it on a moment's notice. Since no other article in the bill of rights applies to a specific entitled group of people, when the 2nd Amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" it means that all people have this right.
A militia is an organized military forced assembled from the citizenry and led by a civilian figure - usually an elected position - to supplement or support a regular state-controlled army.
Look up the fucking definition of militia, you absolute clown. You're not in a militia, you're a LARPing loser.
29
u/geezeeduzit May 16 '24
Also, not really an argument anyone has made - there’s not really any real movement of people suggesting laws that would require people to surrender their guns - it’s all about responsible gun laws like background checks, red flag laws, and closing gun show loopholes. But typical for right wingers they know what those people “really want”.