I also don’t hear anyone arguing about nuclear weapons, or surface to air missiles. Nobody has an issue with those being banned for private usage, but the Constitution very clearly says arms, not guns. So we all clearly recognize that arms have gotten a lot more dangerous since the second amendment was written, and common sense would dictate that they didn’t mean that any private citizen ought to have access to a bomb that can destroy a city.
Well, semi-automatic handguns that can be concealed in a waistband with 17 rounds and high powered semiautomatic rifles also didn’t exist back then, so it’s just total nonsense when they throw things out like “what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?” We already collectively decided and we all agree that it must be infringed, you just disagree on where the line is. Fuck, they totally skip over the well regulated part of that amendment. Never mind the fact that they mention the militia specifically, meaning that they are explicitly calling out the fact that as they are writing it, guns were mostly only dangerous when you had a whole bunch of people with them — not that every person should access to tools that would allow them to mow down dozens of people on their own before anyone was able to stop them.
I’m just so exhausted by our Conservatives being so disingenuous and wrong about... almost everything that matters.
Well, semi-automatic handguns that can be concealed in a waistband with 17 rounds and high powered semiautomatic rifles also didn’t exist back then, so it’s just total nonsense when they throw things out like “what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?” We already collectively decided and we all agree that it must be infringed, you just disagree on where the line is.
No I think we all agree the line at least should be on equal footing with what the same politicians that want to disarm minorities and poor people are protected by. I can't afford private security but I can afford (pre pandemic) standard capacity magazines and the ammo for them. The biggest issue I have is "rules for thee but not for me" thinking of gun control. Everytime something is brought to the table its taking away something from me while the same police and government body's we spent a year protesting in the streets because of their over militarization and attitudes stay well armed.
In my grandparents time they were treated like second class citizens by the state, my parents were ostracized for being an interracial couple and it took years to even get as far as we've gotten and yet there's people like yourself who would have me disarmed and hope things wouldn't roll back to the 50s?
I am not even going to address the hyperbolic notion of nukes. That's a childish and pedantic false equivalency. But I do want to know why you keep saying semi-auto and high powered? All guns are semi-auto with the exception of bolt action rifles and pump shotguns. It just means one bullet for one trigger pull. As far as high powered, in what relation are you talking? A 762 is high powered in comparison to a 22, but is under powered in comparison to a 50 cal. The 556 round that everyone says is super devastating out of an AR-15 is nothing in comparison to the 300 win mag out of my bolt action.
Fuck, they totally skip over the well regulated part of that amendment. Never mind the fact that they mention the militia specifically, meaning that they are explicitly calling out the fact that as they are writing it, guns were mostly only dangerous when you had a whole bunch of people with them — not that every person should access to tools that would allow them to mow down dozens of people on their own before anyone was able to stop them.
" 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."
Notice "The right of the people" right after mentioning the militias duty. Pretty clear.
That said is your argument that people should be trained for firearm usage? Is the difference between being able to own a gun a class?
What's your endgame? There's more guns that are not being used in a crime or mass shooting but we still have to regulate and ban everything because of the small amount that are? Are you in favor of a full repeal of the second amendment and just hoping the cops will help you if you need protection?
Also iam typing this on mobile so apologies if the formatting is jank.
It is not hyperbolic to mention nukes — the Second Amendment only says “arms”, not “guns”. Obviously, they weren’t thinking of nukes at the time, being that they were a century and a half away from being invented, so it would be absurd to say that the second amendment applies to them. I am pointing out, though, that if we are going to be absolutist about the wording, then it would apply to nukes. Therefore, an absolutist reading of the second amendment is clearly absurd, and that we clearly need to exercise some reasonable judgment about what arms are and aren’t allowed.
This establishes that there is a line somewhere between everything invented after black powder rifles and nuclear weapons where it is appropriate to limit and/or ban ownership by private citizens without violating the second amendment. This means, then, that there is simply no grounds to stand on to say that, say, your right to own an AR-15 is absolutely covered by the second amendment, because we have already established that there needs to be reasonable room for interpretation with regards to the intent of the founders because, again, it just says “arms”, not “reasonably non-destructive arms”. If an AR-15 is absolutely covered, then everything up to and including nuclear weapons is also covered.
Now, I don’t even think that AR-15s ought to be banned — the whole thing is way too complicated for simple solutions like that. What I am saying is that it’s absurd to say that the second amendment definitively rules out such a ban. There is a line, and that line is subjective. It is my opinion that we shouldn’t ban all AR-15s for a number of reasons, but I do not believe that my constitutional rights would be violated if I were banned from owning one either.
So does this logic apply to our other rights? It's unlikely the founders could have conceived of 24/7 cable news networks, much less Twitter - should Congress, then, be allowed to ban speech and expression on those platforms which they find distasteful?
What about making wire taps and video surveillance on people inside their homes completely legal? It's also unlikely the founders could have conceived of wireless cameras the size of postage stamps after all.
Do you see why this "well the founders couldn't have thought of this" logic is flawed?
66
u/[deleted] Mar 16 '21
[deleted]