Forum Index
»
Off-Topic
My hot take - if you own an AR-15 you have a few loose screws
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
I think responsible adults need to accept that the gun culture people are totally OK with all the gun violence and mass killings so long as they get to keep their hobby exactly how they want it.
If I really liked playing Dominoes as a hobby but it kept getting a bunch of people killed unnecessarily I'd stop. But they won't. Vote accordingly. |
Anonymous
|
I hate guns but I do not think someone has to be crazy to own one OP.. Rather, I think it is a phallic symbol and very prima!... "Me tough guy-- me own scary gun". It is just one more tool for men to control others OP. Tale as old as time.
|
Anonymous
| Should we list all of the Republican legislators who make it easy access to guns - even in cities. |
Anonymous
There is no rational basis for owning a 9mm handgun. |
Anonymous
Why is this funny? Of course it makes a difference- there are violent attacks in the UK,, they have guns and gun culture there but not permitted to own assault rifles that go off several rounds and when they have attacks, even in schools, maybe one teacher gets shot in the leg, and then the salt shots the shooter in the head. That is much better outcome. They also have a lot of knife attacks and people do die, of course but maybe 1, 2 max 3 people die when someone goes postal or does a nice attack, not 19 children. If someone broke into a primary school or started shooting at a playgtuud, they would have 1 shot before they'd have to reload and they usually get shot or body slammed before that happens. scroll through google and violent attacks in UK and you'll see. The impact of the attack is much less severe and that is the intent, you cant stop all violent death, you just stop the number of casualties. |
Anonymous
and if that is true- then why cant we require that these sorts of guns be kept at a range, we require horse owners to keep their horses in stables, we don't let them keep horses in their backyards. This country is nuts when it comes to guns- 2 judges said that it is dishonoring the teens who fought and died in the revolutionary war to limit teen gun ownership in 2022, guess what 2nd amendment people, the US government will use its army to destroy you if you try to rise up against it. Ask people from the south- the whole idea that Americans are free to violently overthrow the United States government bc we overthrew the British 250 yers ago is baloney. Just b/c it is legal doesn't mean it cannot be a well regulated militia- the 2nd amendment actually calls fro gunners to be both trained (able to serve in a militia) and well regulated. Going to Walmart and buying a gun is not either one of those things. |
Anonymous
im pretty sure that those 2 women could've beat the shit out of him if he had a baseball bat. Im sorry but we know how that plays out in other countries- its not like these attacks don't happen in other societies, they do. A freakong ax murderer attacked a school in Scotland, and they had this number of injured, not dead, INJURED. those kids lived. That is the point, hoobyests want access to all sorts of fancy guns to shoot at ranges, buy them and keep them at the ranges. And yes the ineffective police response is another reason that "good guys" with guns are not the solution, less freedom to carry human killers is. |
Anonymous
+1 If you actually read the 2A it has nothing to do with free access to guns. It's right in there - well regulated. And yet they scream about regulations infringing on their rights. Don't even get me started on the racist motivations of 2A.... |
Anonymous
Let's be honest. The 2nd Amendment is not anywhere as clear as you think it is. It reads: 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. Plenty of thoughtful and well-intentioned scholars have parsed that language closely and disagreed on its interpretation and what impact, if any, the militia reference has on the scope of the right. But you cannot simply gloss over the fact that it speaks directly to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of a state to arm a militia. |
Anonymous
And the other take is that cannot infringe on the rights of the people to form a well-regulated militia. That the individual right cannot be infringed when a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. As you noted, plenty of scholars agree that this isn't so much an individual right as it is one that allows the formation of a well regulated militia. The well regulated militia is the subject of that sentence. |
Anonymous
Again, that view just happens to be an interpretation you agree with. But it is not the only plausible interpretation, and it is certainly not the only interpretation with support in the historical record. It would've been great if the drafters cleaned up the syntax and wrote a more straightforward sentence, but they didn't and this is what we have to work with. |
Anonymous
See, I can buy in to that parsing. To your point, the 2A is not clear. But what makes me really shake my head is the approach that Scalia took in Heller. His textualist/originalism approach was that the framers meant for the word "arms" to be whatever arms are available at the time that the 2A is read, i.e., 1850, 1900, 1950, 2000, etc., not what arms were available at the time the Bill or Rights was adopted. That to me is not originalism or textualism, that is literally reading something in to the words. Horse poopy. |