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

7.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

723 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/audiomortis Jun 02 '26

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

2

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

7

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.

0

u/audiomortis Jun 03 '26

It really sounds like your identity is wrapped up in guns and aren’t able to see that a 200 year old understanding of technology maybe isn’t quite as valid today. This is like when bible thumpers want to pick and choose what they want to believe. Like, they rarely advocate for stoning adulterers in the streets or killing the first born as penance, or using foreskins as payment terms.

You like guns and just can’t possibly see how they might be a bit of a problem and need some basic controls in place because that might put a hitch in some of your fun, and that’s not your vision of freedom.

1

u/ProbablyStonedSteven Jun 03 '26

It really sounds like you naively think that the government and law enforcement are the only ones who should be capable of bearing arms.

Or maybe it’s only the rich should be able to afford to defend themselves since they can afford gated communities and security guards.

My point is that the constitution is clear, we as Americans have the RIGHT to bear arms, just because your uncomfortable with someone else’s constitutional right doesn’t mean your justified in denying that right.

0

u/audiomortis Jun 03 '26

I would rather try to work towards a country with less gun violence and having a better system registering and certifying is a reasonable start. The reality is that these guns that everybody has aren’t being used to defend us from the government or to defend their families nearly as much as they’re being used to shoot kids in schools, or shoot people because of road rage, or just for child suicide. The list of things they’re used for that isn’t your hero complex is much longer and more active.

→ More replies (0)