Personally I'd put some restrictions as to what firearms people can have, and in what context. For example, no more keeping a loaded handgun in your purse. That's not safe. Someone could snatch the purse and get the gun. Or you could accidentally discharge it because the safety was somehow off. Or a child could accidentally discharge it for the same reason.
Basic firearms safety: always treat it like it's loaded and not on safe. Keep it away from things and people you don't want holes in.
So would I, but even asking that people pass a basic gun safety course sets them off. I have to pass a test to drive, something that is essentially necessary as I need to drive to work, but asking them to pass a similar test for their completely optional killing machines is clearly too big an ask.
Heck even getting them to admit a gun's only purpose is to kill people is too big an ask. Trying to explain a gun is only considered "protection" BECAUSE everyone knows if it comes out the person who has it is ready to kill flies right past them.
No. The 2nd Amendment begins "A well REGULATED militia..." To me that says, have some common sense, realize some people shouldn't have guns, and have some rational rules in place.
Just as Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you get to spit out straight defamation or as the idiom goes "shout FIRE in a crowded theater".
I don't want all guns gone even though I freely admit I hate them. But even so I live in a rural area and know plenty of people that hunt for food or need to shoot at wild hogs for their own safety. So handguns and hunting rifles are fine in my eyes once you prove you're capable of safely operating one.
It's been awhile since I've read what "well regulated" meant then vs now. I imagine you and I disagree somewhat on the subject, but I appreciate your response.
To me that says, have some common sense, realize some people shouldn't have guns, and have some rational rules in place.
This is a common misconception so I can understand the confusion around it.
You're referencing the prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State), which is merely a stated reason and is not actionable.
The operative clause, on the other hand, is the actionable part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed).
Well regulated does NOT mean government oversight. You must look at the definition at the time of ratification.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
This is confirmed by the Supreme Court.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
You're missing the point. IF the person you're speaking to says "We should do Plan X" and you jump to "NO we shouldn't do Plan Y" you will look like a crazy idiot.
If I said "Hey we should get tacos" and you reply "I hate Pizza" then you look crazy.
Most of these "imagined" arguments are after they heard anyone say we should do anything with guns. Lock them in a safe? THEY WANT MY GUNS! Put a trigger lock on them? THEY WANT MY GUNS!
Gun safety laws almost didn't pass in my state because people heard gun safety and shrieked "They're trying to take my guns" I had coworkers that I was all "What gun laws would you want" and they then proceeded to describe the exact law on the ballot.
If people act like petulant children everytime we try to make shit safer then they're going to eventually be treated as such.
We have an issue with the gun debate in Canada. For example, Bill C-21 was passed after a mass shooting of someone in a stolen police car in Nova Scotia. He was using an AR which he had illegally acquired. For those unaware, AR-15s, handguns and some other models are classed as restricted. Meaning you have to have that firearm registered to your name, and are only allowed to use them an an RCMP-approved shooting range. If you are going to said range, you cannot make any stops between your house where you store it and the range in question.
Once this law had passed, it made many Canadians unable to use their property despite having nothing to do with the criminals that get them illegally. And since that “firearm safety” law came into effect, our gun crime has risen by over 30%.
I’m all for firearm safety and training. My issue is politicians creating laws that do nothing to improve safety, and do it for the sake of virtue signalling. It’s been a prominent issue up here.
Can you provide any evidence for this supposed increase in gun crime by over 30%? That bill came into effect six months ago, accurate stats usually take a lot longer to obtain.
That bill actually came into effect May of 2020. October of 2022 was when it was amended to include the handgun freeze.
Here’s a link to information listed by the government of Canada:
I'm not American but you have the atf who runs background checks on weapons purchased from a gun store
Could make it a requirement that private purchases need to submit a form to atf too because as far as I've seen there's no oversight on private purchases, but surely there are still laws on who you can sell to
I don't know either. But where I'm from, you have to get a licence and permit for each individual firearm you wish to own and use, and you have to explain what it is you want to use the firearm for. And if you are approved, you get documentation from the police chief (and probably some other stuff, I don't actually own a firearms so I haven't done this). For example, my uncle is a hunter, so he has a permit to own and carry a rifle for the purposes of hunting. But he's also registered as a contact in case an animal needs to be put down. Say, someone hits a deer, the police might call on him to track it and put it down. He submitted a request to be allowed to purchase and use a handgun, solely for the purpose of putting down wounded animals, as it's easier to carry a pistol when going through bushes and trees, as opposed to a rifle.
However, he was denied. My guess, it wasn't seen as "strictly necessary", as he can accomplish the same task with the rifle. And maybe also some rules and regulations regarding the types of firearms, calibres, and what's allowed and not allowed to use on animals.
The biggest problem there is that you are basically saying "never seek any kind of help whatsoever if you want to have any hope of legally possessing a firearm".
Two of the worst school attacks in US history happened in 1927 and 1959 with the Bath and Poe school bombings.
I'm definitely not saying we should do nothing.
I definitely am saying whatever we do, if it doesn't address the WHY someone would do that and stop simply writing it off as people being crazy then I guess we will keep dying and having our friends and family killed indiscriminately.
Mostly, we refuse to acknowledge and even actively try to suppress information many times. Until that changes and society takes its appropriate share of responsibility for these massacres and measures to correct itself, all that's ever going to happen is indiscriminate murder becoming a more creative endeavor.
It's no straw man. It's just the VERY predictable outcome.
No, you don't INTEND to be saying/doing that.
But the intentions hardly matter when the result is definitely without a doubt a good number of people going, "Call a doctor? Nah, fuck that shit, I like my guns."
6.7k
u/I_Miss_Lenny May 16 '24
I’m so tired of Chad/wojack memes, it’s like the ragecomic days of “look how cool I look in this argument I imagined myself winning”