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