6 ms·

A fairy tale? The UK, Australia, and Brazil all have something to say about that claim. In developed countries, the United States is an extreme outlier so why p

by kittoes 1mo ago

A fairy tale? The UK, Australia, and Brazil all have something to say about that claim. In developed countries, the United States is an extreme outlier so why pretend this is a completely unapproachable problem? Our constitution itself gives us a blueprint because it states, in no uncertain terms, a "well-regulated militia"; not "each individual citizen".

genewitch 1mo ago
I notice you put a semicolon there. You forgot to put the rest: > the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. what does "the people" mean to you?
- iamnothere 1mo ago
  Not the OP, but if I had to guess, they probably imagine that it means the nation as a whole, embodied by its government. You know, as in “The People’s Republic of North Korea.” (If anyone wants to alter the 2nd so it’s more in line with their views, there’s a clear legal path. Pass an Amendment or call a Constitutional convention.)
- kittoes 1mo ago
  You know, the human beings eligible to join the previously mentioned militia. The idea wasn't "everyone has the right to openly carry", the way it has been perverted recently, it was that you were individually responsible for the acquisition and maintenance of your own armaments. The militia act of 1792 was passed almost immediately after the second amendment was ratified, codifying what I just claimed.
  - genewitch 1mo ago
    > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, are these the same people? so only the militia gets to be secure? Are you sure?
    - kittoes 1mo ago
      That's the fourth amendment, not the second, so it's quite the leap to go from "I have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures" to "I have the right to personally bear arms against the government to protect my property.". And yes, I'm absolutely certain. Go ahead and test your theory against the American government and I'll wait to see you on the news.
      - genewitch 1mo ago
        > "I have the right to personally bear arms against the government to protect my property.". i never made that claim. "that's what they call a strawman" - Poli-sci Ph.D. so you say that there's a difference between "the people" in the second amendment and "the people" of the 4th amendment. Can you back that up at all?
M3L0NM4N 1mo ago
The UK, Australia, and Brazil have significantly less firearms (which makes gun control a million times easier), and are not constitutionally granted the right to bear them (which makes gun control unconstitutional). If you go ahead start a new country with no guns and implement strict gun control, sure, it would probably have less gun deaths, but that's irrelevant to the American policy debate. Criminals in America will have ridiculously easy access to guns for a long time, and further restrictions on ownership will only decrease law-abiding gun-ownership rates.
- Hikikomori 1mo ago
  Thoughts and prayers

by kittoes 1mo ago

genewitch 1mo ago

I notice you put a semicolon there. You forgot to put the rest: > the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. what does "the people" mean to you?

iamnothere 1mo ago
Not the OP, but if I had to guess, they probably imagine that it means the nation as a whole, embodied by its government. You know, as in “The People’s Republic of North Korea.” (If anyone wants to alter the 2nd so it’s more in line with their views, there’s a clear legal path. Pass an Amendment or call a Constitutional convention.)
kittoes 1mo ago
You know, the human beings eligible to join the previously mentioned militia. The idea wasn't "everyone has the right to openly carry", the way it has been perverted recently, it was that you were individually responsible for the acquisition and maintenance of your own armaments. The militia act of 1792 was passed almost immediately after the second amendment was ratified, codifying what I just claimed.
- genewitch 1mo ago
  > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, are these the same people? so only the militia gets to be secure? Are you sure?
  - kittoes 1mo ago
    That's the fourth amendment, not the second, so it's quite the leap to go from "I have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures" to "I have the right to personally bear arms against the government to protect my property.". And yes, I'm absolutely certain. Go ahead and test your theory against the American government and I'll wait to see you on the news.
    - genewitch 1mo ago
      > "I have the right to personally bear arms against the government to protect my property.". i never made that claim. "that's what they call a strawman" - Poli-sci Ph.D. so you say that there's a difference between "the people" in the second amendment and "the people" of the 4th amendment. Can you back that up at all?

M3L0NM4N 1mo ago

The UK, Australia, and Brazil have significantly less firearms (which makes gun control a million times easier), and are not constitutionally granted the right to bear them (which makes gun control unconstitutional). If you go ahead start a new country with no guns and implement strict gun control, sure, it would probably have less gun deaths, but that's irrelevant to the American policy debate. Criminals in America will have ridiculously easy access to guns for a long time, and further restrictions on ownership will only decrease law-abiding gun-ownership rates.

Hikikomori 1mo ago
Thoughts and prayers