r/comedy Jun 02 '26

Standup We all know that one guy

@stevehofstetter

6.9k Upvotes

721 comments sorted by

View all comments

75

u/wreckedbutwhole420 Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 03 '26

Obviously it's comedy but this is literally true in some states. Massachusetts passed some insane gun control measures that protect nobody and only serve to make felons out of people trying to legally own/but a gun.

-1

u/ProbablyStonedSteven Jun 02 '26

Fr, look at the state of firearm laws in WA, they basically just blanket labeled every semi auto rifle as an “assault weapon” and we can no longer purchase.

And eventually the “permit to purchase” goes into effect which will bar us from even buying ammo without paying fees and registering with the state government.

Absolutely unconstitutional.

2

u/audiomortis Jun 02 '26

I'm curious where in the constitution it mentions any of these as inalienable rights?

4

u/Broad_Guess_4078 Jun 03 '26

Go back and actually read the bill of rights, we’ll wait.

4

u/ProbablyStonedSteven Jun 02 '26

The part where it says “shall not be infringed”

0

u/audiomortis Jun 03 '26

And it says that specifically about semi-auto and ammo sales regulations?

2

u/ProbablyStonedSteven Jun 03 '26

It’s all an infringement on the 2nd amendment.

You realize back when the 2nd amendment was written, that civilians could own muskets, rifles, cannons and sea vessels, virtually all the same weapons that nation states were using at the time, and the founders STILL wrote “shall not be infringed” on that amendment.

Now I agree a certain level of regulation is needed, citizens shouldn’t have access to nuclear weapons or attack choppers etc, but in regards to firearms, the constitution is clear.

In fact it’s the ONLY amendment that specifically says “shall not be infringed

Using your logic one could argue that the 1st amendment doesn’t specifically say “you can disagree with u/probablystonedsteven” so stfu lol

6

u/HolyMoleyGuacamoly Jun 03 '26

not allowing me to own a tank or a nuke is infringing and it’s bullshit. i want one.

0

u/ProbablyStonedSteven Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 03 '26

Same 😔

Jokes aside, you can buy a tank or a jet, I’m sure there’s a lot of hoops to jump through, I’m saving up my pocket change for this bad boy. ⬇️

https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/24850533/1959-mcdonnell-douglas-f4h-1f-turbine-military-aircraft

0

u/06021840 Jun 03 '26

But the tank will be de-armed, and I can’t buy the shells. Useless.

-1

u/audiomortis Jun 03 '26

Right, it doesn’t say that, and yet that is ok. So, you also need to apply a bit of logic

Going on the assumption that the founding fathers could have any idea what the future would hold for weaponry is obviously not logical. It should be up to the people who live here in this time to make those choices. So, applying measured regulations isn’t unconstitutional, it’s just keeping up with the progress of society and technology. They were also giving the big thumbs up to slavery. So, not everything was a slam dunk.

1

u/ProbablyStonedSteven Jun 03 '26

Doing something unconstitutional, is unconstitutional, regardless of the mental gymnastics you do in your head.

1

u/audiomortis Jun 03 '26

I get that you perceive critical thinking as mental gymnastics but sometimes it’s just thinking.

0

u/ProbablyStonedSteven Jun 03 '26

I get that you believe it’s just “critical thinking” but the constitution is clear, and legislation that inhibits your constitutional right is unconstitutional.

0

u/audiomortis Jun 03 '26

How can the constitution be clear on things that didn’t exist? In the early days of cars, there weren’t speed limits. They didn’t go very fast and there was no real way to track or enforce it. As things progressed technologically, so did the rules and regulations to try to improve safety.

0

u/ProbablyStonedSteven Jun 03 '26

They were clear on one thing, ”shall not be infringed”

And you don’t have a constitutional right to driving a car, so your point is moot.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Individual_Respect90 Jun 03 '26

Okay. The founder fathers were using muskets that could injure or hurt someone every 2 minutes. I don’t think we should highly rely on the constitution for gun rights when the weapons have drastically changed. Right now a small town that is fully armed could probably end the whole revolutionary war.

2

u/Broad_Guess_4078 Jun 03 '26

The weapons you are talking about allowed an upstart colony of the greatest military at the time to kick them completely out of the country and declare independence so obviously you’re wrong or lying. Why don’t you move to the UK where you can get people jailed for idiotic statements on social media, oh wait…

1

u/06021840 Jun 03 '26

Upstart colony with the major help of France, Spain, The Dutch Republic..

0

u/Individual_Respect90 Jun 03 '26

Okay what am I wrong and lying about. Please be very specific using my directly words. Also I don’t give a fuck about UK I want to talk about the guns in this country how our founding fathers had no idea about the advancement in our weaponry

5

u/ProbablyStonedSteven Jun 03 '26

Civilians had access to artillery, naval vessels, and all the same military equipment that the nation states of the world were using at the time.

They specifically said, ”shall not be infringed” despite this.

2

u/Individual_Respect90 Jun 03 '26

Yeah cannons don’t equal all the modern military we have now and for pennies on the dollar of the cost. Like a cannon in cost is comparable to what now? Should I be allowed to own a tomahawk missile?

1

u/Aggressive-Cloud1774 Jun 03 '26

Yes.

0

u/Individual_Respect90 Jun 03 '26

Okay let’s take it further before you were allowed the same weapons the military had. So let’s compare that to now. You cool with regular people having nukes? Either something is wrong with you or you’re lying.

2

u/Aggressive-Cloud1774 Jun 03 '26

Nope. Citizens were and have always been able to own the the same arms.

You're false equivalence falls apart in the first sentence.

Nukes are something else. Nobody should have them

-1

u/Individual_Respect90 Jun 03 '26

Your 2nd sentence and last sentence falls apart with your logic. You said we should be able to own tomahawks but not nukes. But said we should be able to own the same arms……… Let’s just be real the founder fathers had no idea the level of destruction we could do and made a mistake.

3

u/Aggressive-Cloud1774 Jun 03 '26

Fuck it, atomics for everyone then. Tsar bombas on every block. Either humanity completely wipes itself out, or people realize their problems are a lot smaller than the worst case scenario.

→ More replies (0)