6 ms·

Well, I suppose you can examine gun crime statistics in the rest of the world and see that the US gun death numbers per capita cause of death are higher than an

Well, I suppose you can examine gun crime statistics in the rest of the world and see that the US gun death numbers per capita cause of death are higher than anywhere except failed states and war zones. Do I need to cite this obvious state of affairs? I can if this part is really in doubt. Control is largely possible where there is a political will, case in point being Australia and their rather sudden shift and it’s rather obvious results. Deaths from all guns, legal and otherwise, are down, due to concerted efforts to remove guns from circulation. I propose that groups like the NRA have fetishized an absurd interpretation of the second amendment. Here is the second amendment in its entirety: “ 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” This in no way establishes a uncontrollable right for every citizen to own an arm. The phrase “well regulated militia” can be argued to death but there is no denying the well regulated part. We live in a time where fancy legal experts and corrupt Supreme Court justices feel inclined to ignore the literal text of our constitution and insist upon erudite legal interpretations that make a mockery of language itself. That some dare to call themselves conservative is a slap in the face to our heritage. What to say, legalese was always intended first and foremost as clear precise language, not as a gatekeeper hurdle or occupational shibboleth.

gladinovax 5y ago
I think "shall not be infringed" is about as clear as it gets.
908B64B197 5y ago
> Well, I suppose you can examine gun crime statistics in the rest of the world and see that the US gun death numbers per capita cause of death are higher than anywhere except failed states and war zones. Do I need to cite this obvious state of affairs? I can if this part is really in doubt. Interestingly, some of the most violent countries are in South America. Where on earth is the largest diaspora of southern American people located outside of southern America? > Control is largely possible where there is a political will, case in point being Australia and their rather sudden shift and it’s rather obvious results. Deaths from all guns, legal and otherwise, are down, due to concerted efforts to remove guns from circulation. Why did the US see the same crime rate drop in the same period despite doing nothing? > What to say, legalese was always intended first and foremost as clear precise language, not as a gatekeeper hurdle or occupational shibboleth. Indeed. "Shall not be infringed" is clearly understood in plain English.
marcusverus 5y ago
> We live in a time where fancy legal experts and corrupt Supreme Court justices feel inclined to ignore the literal text of our constitution and insist upon erudite legal interpretations that make a mockery of language itself. That some dare to call themselves conservative is a slap in the face to our heritage. Hear, hear! Anyone with a lick of sense can see that, although the Second Amendment literally says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", only an NRA stooge could torture those words into meaning the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why can't they get in line, and King's English with some respect? The real, common sense approach is to recognize that the prefatory phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", clearly indicates that the people have no right to keep and bear weapons of war. Can you imagine? And the words 'well regulated' clearly mean that the work of "ensuring the security of a free state" should occur under the watchful eye of the State! You see the founders, always suspicious of the people, wanted to ensure that the State had the means to alter or abolish them, should they become destructive to their true purpose, which is paying taxes. Hence the militias. Sometimes I lie awake at night, staring at the ceiling and saying the prefatory phrase aloud to myself, again and again. If I do it for long enough, the syllables begin to meld together, and words and their meanings mix and change, and at those times the one, true meaning of the Second Amendment becomes clear--it's clearly all about hunting. Any other interpretation is a slap in the face to our heritage! Also, did Australia's gun laws really work? You say there were "rather obvious results", but then, the US also saw a huge reduction in gun crime in the 90s. Most western nations did! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...

gladinovax 5y ago

I think "shall not be infringed" is about as clear as it gets.

908B64B197 5y ago

> Well, I suppose you can examine gun crime statistics in the rest of the world and see that the US gun death numbers per capita cause of death are higher than anywhere except failed states and war zones. Do I need to cite this obvious state of affairs? I can if this part is really in doubt. Interestingly, some of the most violent countries are in South America. Where on earth is the largest diaspora of southern American people located outside of southern America? > Control is largely possible where there is a political will, case in point being Australia and their rather sudden shift and it’s rather obvious results. Deaths from all guns, legal and otherwise, are down, due to concerted efforts to remove guns from circulation. Why did the US see the same crime rate drop in the same period despite doing nothing? > What to say, legalese was always intended first and foremost as clear precise language, not as a gatekeeper hurdle or occupational shibboleth. Indeed. "Shall not be infringed" is clearly understood in plain English.

marcusverus 5y ago

> We live in a time where fancy legal experts and corrupt Supreme Court justices feel inclined to ignore the literal text of our constitution and insist upon erudite legal interpretations that make a mockery of language itself. That some dare to call themselves conservative is a slap in the face to our heritage. Hear, hear! Anyone with a lick of sense can see that, although the Second Amendment literally says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", only an NRA stooge could torture those words into meaning the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why can't they get in line, and King's English with some respect? The real, common sense approach is to recognize that the prefatory phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", clearly indicates that the people have no right to keep and bear weapons of war. Can you imagine? And the words 'well regulated' clearly mean that the work of "ensuring the security of a free state" should occur under the watchful eye of the State! You see the founders, always suspicious of the people, wanted to ensure that the State had the means to alter or abolish them, should they become destructive to their true purpose, which is paying taxes. Hence the militias. Sometimes I lie awake at night, staring at the ceiling and saying the prefatory phrase aloud to myself, again and again. If I do it for long enough, the syllables begin to meld together, and words and their meanings mix and change, and at those times the one, true meaning of the Second Amendment becomes clear--it's clearly all about hunting. Any other interpretation is a slap in the face to our heritage! Also, did Australia's gun laws really work? You say there were "rather obvious results", but then, the US also saw a huge reduction in gun crime in the 90s. Most western nations did! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...