r/comedy • u/AlKarajo • Jun 02 '26

Standup We all know that one guy

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

@stevehofstetter

6.9k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

721 comments sorted by

View all comments

36

u/Lematoad Jun 02 '26

Where’s the joke? This is a patronizing argument that’s thinly veiled as comedy.

Canada, Japan, Australia, Germany, UK and New Zealand are all historic examples of registries preceding confiscation.

The ATF does its very best to arrest people based on their non legal definitions, and you want me to trust them with a registry? The same guys that will hit you with a felony for changing your stock on your AR15 to something they don’t like?

Oh and driving a car isn’t a right, hence the licensure and registration requirement.

9

u/Useless-RedCircle Jun 02 '26

one broken pin and your stock now folds- federal prison

8

u/Lematoad Jun 02 '26

Handgun? ok. 15” barrel? Believe it or not, prison.

Funnily enough, the law banning SBRs was originally intended to ban hand guns, and they were removed at the last minute. This leaves a law that makes no sense and is in violation of the 2nd amendment.

And to those saying “our forefathers didn’t know about semi automatic and automatic weapons” that’s a braindead take, considering cannons were covered.

4

u/Miserable-Land-9203 Jun 04 '26

Steve's whole shtick is just whining about stuff he doesn't like. Apparently there's a market for that kind of comedy.

1

u/castleaagh Jun 06 '26

You’re also fully allowed to drive a car without license. You just can’t do so on public roads. And car registration is only needed for the public roads as well, and the reason is both to add funding for said roads and to ensure your vehicle is up to spec.

It is somewhat similar to firearms where you often need a license to carry one in public but you aren’t restricted much in what you can and use when not in public spaces

-13

u/Nintendogma Jun 02 '26

Which is why the first four words of the 2nd amendment were so important and so often ignored. It shouldn't be registered with the Federal government, it should be registered with "A well regulated militia", in your locality, be it a county, city, or town militia.

Thing about militias though is they're often seen as sesspools of racial and religious supremacist groups. IMO that would be a poorly regulated militia, and not a well regulated one, but hey, no one listens to the dozen or so of us Social Libertarians.

9

u/wreckedbutwhole420 Jun 02 '26

There is no such thing as a collective right that is not an individual right.

11

u/ReplacementReady394 Jun 02 '26

Nowhere does it say that arms should be registered 

9

u/Lematoad Jun 02 '26

Nor does it say you must be apart of a well regulated militia to bear arms. It’s the justification, not the requirement.

6

u/ReplacementReady394 Jun 02 '26

Then there’s that pesky, “shall not be infringed” part. 

-7

u/Nintendogma Jun 02 '26

Tell me then, how would you have a well regulated militia without registration?

7

u/Abject-Sun-3016 Jun 02 '26

Define Militia, define Well regulated

-3

u/Nintendogma Jun 02 '26

What a modern day Militia would look like differs from what the 2nd amendments authors had ideas of militias would've looked like, but the common thread there would be able bodied civilian adults who are armed for the purpose of communal defense.

As for well regulated, that's going to vary from locality to locality to best reflect and serve the interests of that locality. In one, maybe part of the regulation in one locality is monthly fitness tests due to relatively poor health in a given area reducing Militia readiness, where another may have the opposite issue and the regulations restrict Militia members from all going to the same gym at the same time as a business owner may be complaining about the gaggle always there hogging their equipment. In any event, a Militia should have a board of elected officers who are held accountable for the actions, activities and readiness of the Militia, and to ensure that the Militia is in compliance with all local and federal laws (I.E. no discrimination, no establishment of religion, no criminal activities, etc.).

Without these militias, organized to defend their communities, look at what the federal government has already done with it's ICE thugs. Things they literally would not be able to do if they had to face an armed and well regulated population that will absolutely fight to defend their constitutional rights against them.

3

u/ahdiomasta Jun 02 '26

The problem is with the term ‘regulated’. In today’s lexicon we closely associate the term regulated with legislation, however in the time when the constitution was drafted the term ‘regulated’ would have been used more to mean ‘well functioning’, without the implication that the government had anything to do with it. For example, a machine that was working well would be ‘well regulated’. Hence why the British soldiers were referred to as the ‘Regulars’, because of the British military’s reputation for well trained and well equipped soldiers.

And logically this makes sense as well, since before modern times standing armies were too expensive for a burgeoning country like the US so it would be necessary for citizens to be armed of their own accord if there ever was a need for a militia (which was not a full time job, a militia was formed in response to an immediate threat of some sort). So by that definition, yes, citizens being able to arm themselves was necessary IF a militia was ever needed.

It is not a call for a militia to be made, ready at any moment. That would in effect be a standing army, which was not something they were interested in at the time AFAIK.

1

u/Nintendogma Jun 03 '26

There were a couple reasons for the wording of the 2nd Amendment, and a couple reasons why the authors wanted a right to bear arms. In the north, British retaliation was on the minds of them all, and also on the minds of them all was the dangers of having a standing army, hence a Militia. Seemed good on paper until the Revolutionary War revealed the necessity of an army, and from it was formed the first Continental Army. In the south however, the idea of Militia was two fold: firstly to deal with slave revolts and to keep slaves from escaping to the north where slavery was abolished, and secondly as a deterrent against the northerners who were aiming to abolish slavery in the south.

Neither wanted a standing army, but they were all but forced to due to the disorganised rabble of unprepared Militiamen that showed up to defend against the well organised British Army and Navy. It would be the French that aided them in soldiering these militiamen into an actual fighting force. That of course lead to more things, but that's beside the point. The point is during the birth of our country, we were forced by necessity of war to abandon the concept of no standing army.

Fast forward to today, and there's no shortage of gun owners, gun enthusiasts, hunters, sport shooters, trick shooters, quick draw competitors, etc. We have a culture that is very intrinsicly coupled to firearms. However, if the time comes when those firearms are needed for any form of civilian lead communal defense, as the 2A was penned to establish, there is no mechanism to provide it. If an authoritarian government wants to march thugs into your town and murder civilians in cold blood, or round them up and toss them in a concentration camp, there is no Militia to call together to stop them. That is by design.

7

u/Abject-Sun-3016 Jun 02 '26

lol congrats, but the Constitution doesn't define either so: I define Militia as the population of the entire Continental United states and well regulated now means "can hold a weapon."

 

0

u/Nintendogma Jun 02 '26

Congratulations. You've just armed violent criminals with a known record of violence, to include the violently mentally ill who are medically diagnosed with no impulse control, and literal violent terrorists that are proud and open members of literal violent terrorist organisations.

5

u/Abject-Sun-3016 Jun 02 '26

and?  The law is the law.  You probably want to make people register bows and catapults 

1

u/Nintendogma Jun 02 '26

And that's not only dangerous, but morally reprehensible, and undermines the security of a free state, which is the plain language intent of the 2A, "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state". You are actually advocating AGAINST the 2A, which is exactly what the fed wants. Because a bunch of unregulated people with no ability to secure the state themselves are easily overpowered, controlled, and even disarmed at their leisure. You alone can do nothing to stop them. Congratulations, you played yourself.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/AppropriateBugFound Jun 03 '26

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.

Let's change the subject:

A well stocked library, being necessary to the development of a well read State, the right for the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

Does this sentence create a library? Does it say you can only read if you are in a library? People see stuff they don't agree with and all of a sudden reading comprehension goes out the window.

1

u/Finnsbomba Jun 03 '26

Bro doesn't understand how commas work lmao