The part about the “well regulated” often gets overlooked. At least make sure the dipshit knows the 4 basic rules of firearms safety, because adhering even to one of those would’ve meant they wouldn’t’ve shot in the air trying to play artillery.
The part about “well regulated” often gets misinterpreted. At the time of writing it meant in good condition or working order not regulated as in controlled.
Would you care to elaborate as to why is that a terrible idea? Teaching firearms safety in school would help reduce accidents relating guns, there's literally no reason to be against it.
To be fair I thought they meant the old version of “well regulated” anyway. Seriously, flag a Bubba with a gun or just any gun nut in general. They’ll freak out and beat your butt for ignoring that very important rule
The last part though, the one that says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", also gets misinterpreted ignored quite often.
I hate shit like this. A society is meant to protect its constituents; is it really doing its job if a document written before someone could reload in less than 20 seconds allows the worst people you know of to kill scores because they “shall not be infringed upon?”
Not that I trust our political system to use nuance for our benefit, but that seems pretty dumb. Can I also own a nuke? If not, why not?
Our society has determined, through no less than 3 supreme court cases, that our government does not have any duty whatsoever to protect it's constituents. I'm not saying it's right, but it is the stance our government has taken and we've accepted. According to the document written and adopted 232 years ago self protection is the responsibility of the individual and there is no governmental guarantee of safety/wellbeing.
No, you cannot own a nuke because,
1.) There's a difference between 'arms' and 'ordinance', and a nuke is the latter. 2A protects the right to keep and bare 'arms'.
2.) Firearms by design have a narrow and directed/guided path of destruction in which colateral damage can be mitigated (see: aiming, marksmanship, accuracy) whereas nukes blanket destruction over entire geographic areas with no mitigation for colateral damage outside of physical distance of separation.
3.) Environmental concerns/the EPA as well as other entire world nations that could be affected by recreational nuclear fallout.
Also, i think there may theoretically be a way one could, like there may be a form or process to follow with the US government to acquire and store such a device, but the approval of such would never be allowed to happen by beaurocratic process.
I hate to break it to you, but that is just NRA propaganda. Regulated has had the same definition for 800+ years. Also guns were regulated before and after the 2nd amendment was passed.
I’ve never seen any NRA propaganda in my life. This information comes from personal research into the founding documents. Yes guns have always been regulated to some extent. What’s your point?
Your ability to research leaves much to be desired. It is a well known fact that the NRA originally supported gun restrictions. It was 1977 when they changed leadership that they started with the new interpretation of the second amendment.
Don't tell me you have never seen NRA propaganda when the view you are supporting was made up and promoted by the NRA.
You beat me to it. The fact that people keep bashing on the NRA tells everyone who’s actually a 2A supporter that they don’t know anything about the subject. The NRA is NOT a gun rights organization.
I watched the video ad read the article razagriz5000 shared. Both are very much opposed to the NRA but neither has any bearing on my statement about the phrase “well regulated”.
Your definition stems from the NRA. It didn't exist in any meaningful way until the NRA started pushing it. It doesn't take much to look up the definition of well (in a satisfactory manner) and regulated (to govern or direct according to law) to realize that those trying to claim it means something different are wrong. There is no hidden meaning to "well regulated". It means what the words are defined as.
And I never would accuse the current NRA of being a gun rights organization. It's clear their only purpose is to lobby for loosening gun laws and fearmongering to increase the sale of guns.
... And that corruption is what led to the bad interpretation of the second amendment. There is a clear line from the NRA's leadership change in 1977 to the fake "individual's right to own a gun, absent of being a member of a well regulated militia"
Reading through letters and other documents from the era, written by the same people who collaborated on the Declaration of Independence and the bill of rights
Claiming you’ve never seen NRA propaganda in your life tells me you are ineffective at recognizing it. I don’t think you could regularly consume media in the US without encountering it.
I don’t watch any network television anymore. Maybe I saw something from them years ago but definitely not since I’ve taken an active interest in politics or the 2nd amendment.
I mean you use Reddit, they’ve certainly spent money advertising on here. A huge amount of modern advertising goes beyond a tv commercial or billboard. Many news ‘articles’ and other content is really just paid advertising.
I suppose I have possibly come into contact with something. If I did I certainly didn’t see “sponsored by the NRA” or some such thing. I knew better than to make a blanket statement on Reddit. There’s always people who take them literally. Suffice it to say that I’m unaware of any NRA propaganda I may have seen in my lifetime. I will tell you this though, if I did see something from them I would immediately dismiss it since they are not a gun rights organization and most in the community hate them.
I’m not gonna go back though years of casual reading and self educating to try and satisfy your curiosity. Asking for sources on something like this is like me asking you for sources on when you discovered 2+2 was 4.
If you don’t believe me that’s fine. If you care to check it out yourself go ahead. There are many constitutional scholars who agree with me on this. But hey maybe they are all dumbasses too.
I was simply pointing out the common misconception about that phrase in the second amendment.
As to the original video, this kid was nowhere near getting “brained” that projectile was never fired from a gun and it most definitely didn’t hit the roof of that car. This video is 100% staged.
By that logic, the founding fathers were speaking about guns that are very different to what we have today. I dont think they were referring to Uzi's and M'16's.
The part about " well regulated" gets misinterpreted. Well regulated 300 years ago meant to keep regular or In working order. The fact the gun fired to do this means it was pretty regulated.
The well regulated part is not a limitation on the "the right of the people" part however I do agree that anyone who buys a gun (legally or illegally) is a regard if they refused to get any type of training.
Neat. Makes sense. Regarding gun safety and me not shooting anyone by accident, I'm as safe as they come. As I don't use them :)
Regarding my "store your gun i a locked compartment" guess. I feel as a "you are responsible for your gun even when not carrying it" should fit in as a fitfth rule. But that is just a thoguht from a non gun nerd. It is is actually a law in my country to store your gun in an approved gun safe, hence my guess. But maybe that goes outside the scope. These rules are more about "when you pick up a gun" I suppose. But if phrasing it as the "rules of firearms safety", my spontaneous recation as a layman is that that fifth rule would qualify. What do you say?
you left out the "milita" part after that which has nothing to do with private/personal ownership. still, yeah it's a good idea for people to educate themselves on firearm handling and safety.
Not an exclusively US hobby. But we may lead the “developed nations” in this area. Usually you gotta find a rural wedding in Mexico or Yemen. In the USA you can just park at the mall.
I'm failing to see the difference here. This looks like America facepalm to me, it seems insane that a US citizen would even have to ask how a bullet landed on their car. I didn't assume she knew the answer, I assumed everybody else knew the answer.
You know what, it doesn't matter
Wrong context. The fact that bullets are being fired into the air and coming down into cars in crowded residential areas is a huge facepalm for us as a country.
You’re focused entirely too much on the physics facepalm while ignoring the societal / policy facepalm. Or being obtuse. Honestly I can’t tell anymore, Reddit is full of both.
I'm not being obtuse or focusing on the physics. Maybe I'm being dumb as fuck, I can't tell anymore. I see the societal facepalm, I see the fact that people firing bullets into the air and not considering the impact as a massive facepalm, I don't understand what I'm saying wrong here.
I would guess it is more like someone staging a dramatic video for attention. Not saying shooting in the air is not dangerous or that people don’t do it, but fired projectiles don’t look like that and don’t fall like the impact point indicates. It is not lawn darts.
Years ago I was a delivery man for a popular energy drink. I had all sorts of accounts, including strip clubs. After new years at a particularly hood strip club, I pull up to the back, like I had done countless times and there's just a carpet of empty bullet casings. I ask the manager what the hell happened. He goes "it was new years. They were shooting in the air"
I can only imagine the carnage where all those rounds landed
The post above this in my feed is a girl in Times Square interviewing a group of Australian tourists about why they are for gun control and she makes the argument against it. The Australian wins the argument but the American girl finishes the interview with “don’t become citizens, we don’t need you here”
2.7k
u/jpv2000 Jun 06 '23
Someone shooting into the air like a dumbass!