Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns should be regulated the same way we do cars and driving.

1. Age and health requirements (i.e. not blind, mentally ill, etc) for owning and/or operating a gun
2. Mandatory training
3. Probationary period during training
4. Mandatory licensing requirement with periodic renewal that also checks to ensure owner/operator of the gun still meets legal and health requirements
5. Mandatory registration of guns
6. Mandatory title transfer process if gun changes hands that includes mandatory background check of recipient
7. Insurance requirement to cover liability costs
8. Mandatory periodic inspection of the gun to ensure it is still safe to operate, has not been illegally modified, and is still in the registered owner's possession.

We do this for cars and it does not impede law abiding drivers. As such it cannot be credibly argued that this would be an infringement on lawful gun owners' rights.

Second amendment advocates believe that license requirements will be used to ban private ownership, and their fears are most likely warranted based on the evidence. Cities with "may issue" license requirements made it so difficult to obtain permits that ordinary citizens could not possess or carry weapons. SCOTUS is about to rule on this issue in NYC. The Heller case addressed similar problems in DC.

I think at this point it would take a Constitutional amendment to layout a clear individual right to gun ownership for self-defense purposes in return for the licensure, insurance, and training requirements. That would be a fair trade in my opinion. But of course many people on both sides make a lot of $$$ politicizing the issue and don't want the gravy train to stop.

A fair trade would be agreeing to something like that but also having minimum prison sentences of 50 years for all violent crimes committed with a firearm. If you’re going to make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves then we should at least put all of our criminals away for life. No early releases, no pleading down, no exceptions.

The majority of "violent crimes committed with a firearm" are committed by black men under the age of 30. If an 18 year old sticks up a convenience store in Chicago with a handgun, you'd effectively be giving them a life sentence. As bad as crime is in certain places, I'm not sure the country would support that.

I for one would have no problem at all with that. I don't care what color they are. If they are robbing people at gunpoint I want them off the streets. Robbing a convenience store with a gun is not some minor indiscretion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns should be regulated the same way we do cars and driving.

1. Age and health requirements (i.e. not blind, mentally ill, etc) for owning and/or operating a gun
2. Mandatory training
3. Probationary period during training
4. Mandatory licensing requirement with periodic renewal that also checks to ensure owner/operator of the gun still meets legal and health requirements
5. Mandatory registration of guns
6. Mandatory title transfer process if gun changes hands that includes mandatory background check of recipient
7. Insurance requirement to cover liability costs
8. Mandatory periodic inspection of the gun to ensure it is still safe to operate, has not been illegally modified, and is still in the registered owner's possession.

We do this for cars and it does not impede law abiding drivers. As such it cannot be credibly argued that this would be an infringement on lawful gun owners' rights.

Second amendment advocates believe that license requirements will be used to ban private ownership, and their fears are most likely warranted based on the evidence. Cities with "may issue" license requirements made it so difficult to obtain permits that ordinary citizens could not possess or carry weapons. SCOTUS is about to rule on this issue in NYC. The Heller case addressed similar problems in DC.

I think at this point it would take a Constitutional amendment to layout a clear individual right to gun ownership for self-defense purposes in return for the licensure, insurance, and training requirements. That would be a fair trade in my opinion. But of course many people on both sides make a lot of $$$ politicizing the issue and don't want the gravy train to stop.

2nd Amendment defined the right as being for establishing a well regulated militia. Within 6 months of ratifying 2A the same Founding Fathers who wrote 2A also codified what militia meant in the Militia Act of 1792 and what eligibility and responsibilities that entailed. And it's not at all what 2A advocates today think it is.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials”

-George Mason, Founding Father



They knew exactly whom the militia was.



Now, tell us that the word “regulated” in the context of 1791 means the same thing we think it means today. Go ahead! Fail 2-for-2 !

Well, in 1791, the only guns were flint lock Brown Bess muskets, so they are the only “arms” protected by the second amendment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns should be regulated the same way we do cars and driving.

1. Age and health requirements (i.e. not blind, mentally ill, etc) for owning and/or operating a gun
2. Mandatory training
3. Probationary period during training
4. Mandatory licensing requirement with periodic renewal that also checks to ensure owner/operator of the gun still meets legal and health requirements
5. Mandatory registration of guns
6. Mandatory title transfer process if gun changes hands that includes mandatory background check of recipient
7. Insurance requirement to cover liability costs
8. Mandatory periodic inspection of the gun to ensure it is still safe to operate, has not been illegally modified, and is still in the registered owner's possession.

We do this for cars and it does not impede law abiding drivers. As such it cannot be credibly argued that this would be an infringement on lawful gun owners' rights.

Second amendment advocates believe that license requirements will be used to ban private ownership, and their fears are most likely warranted based on the evidence. Cities with "may issue" license requirements made it so difficult to obtain permits that ordinary citizens could not possess or carry weapons. SCOTUS is about to rule on this issue in NYC. The Heller case addressed similar problems in DC.

I think at this point it would take a Constitutional amendment to layout a clear individual right to gun ownership for self-defense purposes in return for the licensure, insurance, and training requirements. That would be a fair trade in my opinion. But of course many people on both sides make a lot of $$$ politicizing the issue and don't want the gravy train to stop.

A fair trade would be agreeing to something like that but also having minimum prison sentences of 50 years for all violent crimes committed with a firearm. If you’re going to make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves then we should at least put all of our criminals away for life. No early releases, no pleading down, no exceptions.

The majority of "violent crimes committed with a firearm" are committed by black men under the age of 30. If an 18 year old sticks up a convenience store in Chicago with a handgun, you'd effectively be giving them a life sentence. As bad as crime is in certain places, I'm not sure the country would support that.

I for one would have no problem at all with that. I don't care what color they are. If they are robbing people at gunpoint I want them off the streets. Robbing a convenience store with a gun is not some minor indiscretion.

+1

I’m not sure what the PP was referring to. I have absolutely no problem giving an 18 year old a life sentence for robbing a convenience store. I really don’t think most of America would either. It’s not like you can do it by accident.

The only reason criminals do these things is because they know the consequences aren’t that bad and so they decide to take the risk. Make it so that they can’t be released for 50 years and watch how fast the crime rate goes down.

And I couldn’t care less what color they are. And I’m not sure why you would either. Even if it’s true that you’d mostly be putting young black men behind bars, why is that a bad thing? You think there won’t still be a lot of nice young black men left? You think that a whole bunch of black women and especially black children won’t benefit greatly by having gangs and other criminals removed from their streets?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns should be regulated the same way we do cars and driving.

1. Age and health requirements (i.e. not blind, mentally ill, etc) for owning and/or operating a gun
2. Mandatory training
3. Probationary period during training
4. Mandatory licensing requirement with periodic renewal that also checks to ensure owner/operator of the gun still meets legal and health requirements
5. Mandatory registration of guns
6. Mandatory title transfer process if gun changes hands that includes mandatory background check of recipient
7. Insurance requirement to cover liability costs
8. Mandatory periodic inspection of the gun to ensure it is still safe to operate, has not been illegally modified, and is still in the registered owner's possession.

We do this for cars and it does not impede law abiding drivers. As such it cannot be credibly argued that this would be an infringement on lawful gun owners' rights.

Second amendment advocates believe that license requirements will be used to ban private ownership, and their fears are most likely warranted based on the evidence. Cities with "may issue" license requirements made it so difficult to obtain permits that ordinary citizens could not possess or carry weapons. SCOTUS is about to rule on this issue in NYC. The Heller case addressed similar problems in DC.

I think at this point it would take a Constitutional amendment to layout a clear individual right to gun ownership for self-defense purposes in return for the licensure, insurance, and training requirements. That would be a fair trade in my opinion. But of course many people on both sides make a lot of $$$ politicizing the issue and don't want the gravy train to stop.

A fair trade would be agreeing to something like that but also having minimum prison sentences of 50 years for all violent crimes committed with a firearm. If you’re going to make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves then we should at least put all of our criminals away for life. No early releases, no pleading down, no exceptions.

Why just violent crimes committed with a firearm? Why not just violent crimes in general? If someone was to stab your loved one to death, would you really be more "ok" with that than if they shot your loved one?

You’re right. If you commit a violent crime, you should be put away for life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns should be regulated the same way we do cars and driving.

1. Age and health requirements (i.e. not blind, mentally ill, etc) for owning and/or operating a gun
2. Mandatory training
3. Probationary period during training
4. Mandatory licensing requirement with periodic renewal that also checks to ensure owner/operator of the gun still meets legal and health requirements
5. Mandatory registration of guns
6. Mandatory title transfer process if gun changes hands that includes mandatory background check of recipient
7. Insurance requirement to cover liability costs
8. Mandatory periodic inspection of the gun to ensure it is still safe to operate, has not been illegally modified, and is still in the registered owner's possession.

We do this for cars and it does not impede law abiding drivers. As such it cannot be credibly argued that this would be an infringement on lawful gun owners' rights.

Second amendment advocates believe that license requirements will be used to ban private ownership, and their fears are most likely warranted based on the evidence. Cities with "may issue" license requirements made it so difficult to obtain permits that ordinary citizens could not possess or carry weapons. SCOTUS is about to rule on this issue in NYC. The Heller case addressed similar problems in DC.

I think at this point it would take a Constitutional amendment to layout a clear individual right to gun ownership for self-defense purposes in return for the licensure, insurance, and training requirements. That would be a fair trade in my opinion. But of course many people on both sides make a lot of $$$ politicizing the issue and don't want the gravy train to stop.

2nd Amendment defined the right as being for establishing a well regulated militia. Within 6 months of ratifying 2A the same Founding Fathers who wrote 2A also codified what militia meant in the Militia Act of 1792 and what eligibility and responsibilities that entailed. And it's not at all what 2A advocates today think it is.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials”

-George Mason, Founding Father



They knew exactly whom the militia was.



Now, tell us that the word “regulated” in the context of 1791 means the same thing we think it means today. Go ahead! Fail 2-for-2 !

Well, in 1791, the only guns were flint lock Brown Bess muskets, so they are the only “arms” protected by the second amendment.

Cool.

Now do the First and Fourth Amendments!

You know - where only Town Criers and manual printing presses are the only form of free speech, because that’s all that existed in 1791. Radio, TV, internet - all that can be tightly regulated and restricted by Trump starting Jan 20, 2025!

Same with the Fourth Amendment. From now on, the only affects you have a right to be secure in are those you wrote with a quill pen. All the electronic data and phone calls are now subject to warrantless search at any time for any reason. Because, you know, that stuff didn’t exist back then. Also good for helping Trump root out all the deepstaters and trouble-making libs out there.

Still sound like a good idea to interpret the Second Amendment as protecting only the technology available at the time? Because that’s going to applied to everything else, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns should be regulated the same way we do cars and driving.

1. Age and health requirements (i.e. not blind, mentally ill, etc) for owning and/or operating a gun
2. Mandatory training
3. Probationary period during training
4. Mandatory licensing requirement with periodic renewal that also checks to ensure owner/operator of the gun still meets legal and health requirements
5. Mandatory registration of guns
6. Mandatory title transfer process if gun changes hands that includes mandatory background check of recipient
7. Insurance requirement to cover liability costs
8. Mandatory periodic inspection of the gun to ensure it is still safe to operate, has not been illegally modified, and is still in the registered owner's possession.

We do this for cars and it does not impede law abiding drivers. As such it cannot be credibly argued that this would be an infringement on lawful gun owners' rights.

Second amendment advocates believe that license requirements will be used to ban private ownership, and their fears are most likely warranted based on the evidence. Cities with "may issue" license requirements made it so difficult to obtain permits that ordinary citizens could not possess or carry weapons. SCOTUS is about to rule on this issue in NYC. The Heller case addressed similar problems in DC.

I think at this point it would take a Constitutional amendment to layout a clear individual right to gun ownership for self-defense purposes in return for the licensure, insurance, and training requirements. That would be a fair trade in my opinion. But of course many people on both sides make a lot of $$$ politicizing the issue and don't want the gravy train to stop.

2nd Amendment defined the right as being for establishing a well regulated militia. Within 6 months of ratifying 2A the same Founding Fathers who wrote 2A also codified what militia meant in the Militia Act of 1792 and what eligibility and responsibilities that entailed. And it's not at all what 2A advocates today think it is.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials”

-George Mason, Founding Father



They knew exactly whom the militia was.



Now, tell us that the word “regulated” in the context of 1791 means the same thing we think it means today. Go ahead! Fail 2-for-2 !

Well, in 1791, the only guns were flint lock Brown Bess muskets, so they are the only “arms” protected by the second amendment.

Cool.

Now do the First and Fourth Amendments!

You know - where only Town Criers and manual printing presses are the only form of free speech, because that’s all that existed in 1791. Radio, TV, internet - all that can be tightly regulated and restricted by Trump starting Jan 20, 2025!

Same with the Fourth Amendment. From now on, the only affects you have a right to be secure in are those you wrote with a quill pen. All the electronic data and phone calls are now subject to warrantless search at any time for any reason. Because, you know, that stuff didn’t exist back then. Also good for helping Trump root out all the deepstaters and trouble-making libs out there.

Still sound like a good idea to interpret the Second Amendment as protecting only the technology available at the time? Because that’s going to applied to everything else, too.

Historically people weren't getting killed because of radio, TV and the internet.... but with the massive spread of anti-vaxx disinformation that's gotten hundreds of thousands of Americans killed, along with the spread of QAnon and other right wing lies that resulted in a violent attack on the US Capitol, maybe you have a point. Maybe disinformation that leads to violence and death should be cracked down on.

Except the right wing is already howling "censorship!" over social media companies cracking down on their lies while refusing to acknowledge that nobody has a problem when the right wing tells actual truths.

Clean up your act, stop spreading lies and maybe people won't want to censor you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns should be regulated the same way we do cars and driving.

1. Age and health requirements (i.e. not blind, mentally ill, etc) for owning and/or operating a gun
2. Mandatory training
3. Probationary period during training
4. Mandatory licensing requirement with periodic renewal that also checks to ensure owner/operator of the gun still meets legal and health requirements
5. Mandatory registration of guns
6. Mandatory title transfer process if gun changes hands that includes mandatory background check of recipient
7. Insurance requirement to cover liability costs
8. Mandatory periodic inspection of the gun to ensure it is still safe to operate, has not been illegally modified, and is still in the registered owner's possession.

We do this for cars and it does not impede law abiding drivers. As such it cannot be credibly argued that this would be an infringement on lawful gun owners' rights.

Second amendment advocates believe that license requirements will be used to ban private ownership, and their fears are most likely warranted based on the evidence. Cities with "may issue" license requirements made it so difficult to obtain permits that ordinary citizens could not possess or carry weapons. SCOTUS is about to rule on this issue in NYC. The Heller case addressed similar problems in DC.

I think at this point it would take a Constitutional amendment to layout a clear individual right to gun ownership for self-defense purposes in return for the licensure, insurance, and training requirements. That would be a fair trade in my opinion. But of course many people on both sides make a lot of $$$ politicizing the issue and don't want the gravy train to stop.

2nd Amendment defined the right as being for establishing a well regulated militia. Within 6 months of ratifying 2A the same Founding Fathers who wrote 2A also codified what militia meant in the Militia Act of 1792 and what eligibility and responsibilities that entailed. And it's not at all what 2A advocates today think it is.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials”

-George Mason, Founding Father



They knew exactly whom the militia was.



Now, tell us that the word “regulated” in the context of 1791 means the same thing we think it means today. Go ahead! Fail 2-for-2 !

Well, in 1791, the only guns were flint lock Brown Bess muskets, so they are the only “arms” protected by the second amendment.

Cool.

Now do the First and Fourth Amendments!

You know - where only Town Criers and manual printing presses are the only form of free speech, because that’s all that existed in 1791. Radio, TV, internet - all that can be tightly regulated and restricted by Trump starting Jan 20, 2025!

Same with the Fourth Amendment. From now on, the only affects you have a right to be secure in are those you wrote with a quill pen. All the electronic data and phone calls are now subject to warrantless search at any time for any reason. Because, you know, that stuff didn’t exist back then. Also good for helping Trump root out all the deepstaters and trouble-making libs out there.

Still sound like a good idea to interpret the Second Amendment as protecting only the technology available at the time? Because that’s going to applied to everything else, too.

Historically people weren't getting killed because of radio, TV and the internet.... but with the massive spread of anti-vaxx disinformation that's gotten hundreds of thousands of Americans killed, along with the spread of QAnon and other right wing lies that resulted in a violent attack on the US Capitol, maybe you have a point. Maybe disinformation that leads to violence and death should be cracked down on.

Except the right wing is already howling "censorship!" over social media companies cracking down on their lies while refusing to acknowledge that nobody has a problem when the right wing tells actual truths.

Clean up your act, stop spreading lies and maybe people won't want to censor you.

Words (spoken and written) have historically killed more people than firearms, and it isn’t even close. I.e. the ability to influence others’ actions is the greatest weapon there is. Having said that, freedom of speech is a great right that we all must have. But, there are laws and rules that regulate speech none the less. Which is also a good thing. I think the same can be applied to firearms. Background checks, licenses, and ownership papers (title - like a house), etc.

The background check qualifies a person to own a firearm. Low standard of qualification. No prior violent criminal history and no history of mental illness.
The license simply identifies a person has has been qualified to own a firearm
The ownership title ties each legally purchased firearm to the licensed owner.

No right infringed in the above, just the ability to track and hold accountable if that firearm is used in a crime. Now, for all the illegally trafficked and possessed firearms? There is no real answer to those, just like there’s no real answer to illegal drugs either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns should be regulated the same way we do cars and driving.

1. Age and health requirements (i.e. not blind, mentally ill, etc) for owning and/or operating a gun
2. Mandatory training
3. Probationary period during training
4. Mandatory licensing requirement with periodic renewal that also checks to ensure owner/operator of the gun still meets legal and health requirements
5. Mandatory registration of guns
6. Mandatory title transfer process if gun changes hands that includes mandatory background check of recipient
7. Insurance requirement to cover liability costs
8. Mandatory periodic inspection of the gun to ensure it is still safe to operate, has not been illegally modified, and is still in the registered owner's possession.

We do this for cars and it does not impede law abiding drivers. As such it cannot be credibly argued that this would be an infringement on lawful gun owners' rights.

Second amendment advocates believe that license requirements will be used to ban private ownership, and their fears are most likely warranted based on the evidence. Cities with "may issue" license requirements made it so difficult to obtain permits that ordinary citizens could not possess or carry weapons. SCOTUS is about to rule on this issue in NYC. The Heller case addressed similar problems in DC.

I think at this point it would take a Constitutional amendment to layout a clear individual right to gun ownership for self-defense purposes in return for the licensure, insurance, and training requirements. That would be a fair trade in my opinion. But of course many people on both sides make a lot of $$$ politicizing the issue and don't want the gravy train to stop.

2nd Amendment defined the right as being for establishing a well regulated militia. Within 6 months of ratifying 2A the same Founding Fathers who wrote 2A also codified what militia meant in the Militia Act of 1792 and what eligibility and responsibilities that entailed. And it's not at all what 2A advocates today think it is.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials”

-George Mason, Founding Father



They knew exactly whom the militia was.



Now, tell us that the word “regulated” in the context of 1791 means the same thing we think it means today. Go ahead! Fail 2-for-2 !

Well, in 1791, the only guns were flint lock Brown Bess muskets, so they are the only “arms” protected by the second amendment.

Cool.

Now do the First and Fourth Amendments!

You know - where only Town Criers and manual printing presses are the only form of free speech, because that’s all that existed in 1791. Radio, TV, internet - all that can be tightly regulated and restricted by Trump starting Jan 20, 2025!

Same with the Fourth Amendment. From now on, the only affects you have a right to be secure in are those you wrote with a quill pen. All the electronic data and phone calls are now subject to warrantless search at any time for any reason. Because, you know, that stuff didn’t exist back then. Also good for helping Trump root out all the deepstaters and trouble-making libs out there.

Still sound like a good idea to interpret the Second Amendment as protecting only the technology available at the time? Because that’s going to applied to everything else, too.

Historically people weren't getting killed because of radio, TV and the internet.... but with the massive spread of anti-vaxx disinformation that's gotten hundreds of thousands of Americans killed, along with the spread of QAnon and other right wing lies that resulted in a violent attack on the US Capitol, maybe you have a point. Maybe disinformation that leads to violence and death should be cracked down on.

Except the right wing is already howling "censorship!" over social media companies cracking down on their lies while refusing to acknowledge that nobody has a problem when the right wing tells actual truths.

Clean up your act, stop spreading lies and maybe people won't want to censor you.

Words (spoken and written) have historically killed more people than firearms, and it isn’t even close. I.e. the ability to influence others’ actions is the greatest weapon there is. Having said that, freedom of speech is a great right that we all must have. But, there are laws and rules that regulate speech none the less. Which is also a good thing. I think the same can be applied to firearms. Background checks, licenses, and ownership papers (title - like a house), etc.

The background check qualifies a person to own a firearm. Low standard of qualification. No prior violent criminal history and no history of mental illness.
The license simply identifies a person has has been qualified to own a firearm
The ownership title ties each legally purchased firearm to the licensed owner.

No right infringed in the above, just the ability to track and hold accountable if that firearm is used in a crime. Now, for all the illegally trafficked and possessed firearms? There is no real answer to those, just like there’s no real answer to illegal drugs either.

I believe in freedom of speech but I also think it is being grotesquely abused by cynical politicos. When speech leads to people getting killed, I think those responsible should be held accountable. The minute your freedom causes someone else harm, you've crossed the line on freedom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns should be regulated the same way we do cars and driving.

1. Age and health requirements (i.e. not blind, mentally ill, etc) for owning and/or operating a gun
2. Mandatory training
3. Probationary period during training
4. Mandatory licensing requirement with periodic renewal that also checks to ensure owner/operator of the gun still meets legal and health requirements
5. Mandatory registration of guns
6. Mandatory title transfer process if gun changes hands that includes mandatory background check of recipient
7. Insurance requirement to cover liability costs
8. Mandatory periodic inspection of the gun to ensure it is still safe to operate, has not been illegally modified, and is still in the registered owner's possession.

We do this for cars and it does not impede law abiding drivers. As such it cannot be credibly argued that this would be an infringement on lawful gun owners' rights.

Second amendment advocates believe that license requirements will be used to ban private ownership, and their fears are most likely warranted based on the evidence. Cities with "may issue" license requirements made it so difficult to obtain permits that ordinary citizens could not possess or carry weapons. SCOTUS is about to rule on this issue in NYC. The Heller case addressed similar problems in DC.

I think at this point it would take a Constitutional amendment to layout a clear individual right to gun ownership for self-defense purposes in return for the licensure, insurance, and training requirements. That would be a fair trade in my opinion. But of course many people on both sides make a lot of $$$ politicizing the issue and don't want the gravy train to stop.

2nd Amendment defined the right as being for establishing a well regulated militia. Within 6 months of ratifying 2A the same Founding Fathers who wrote 2A also codified what militia meant in the Militia Act of 1792 and what eligibility and responsibilities that entailed. And it's not at all what 2A advocates today think it is.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials”

-George Mason, Founding Father



They knew exactly whom the militia was.



Now, tell us that the word “regulated” in the context of 1791 means the same thing we think it means today. Go ahead! Fail 2-for-2 !

Well, in 1791, the only guns were flint lock Brown Bess muskets, so they are the only “arms” protected by the second amendment.

Cool.

Now do the First and Fourth Amendments!

You know - where only Town Criers and manual printing presses are the only form of free speech, because that’s all that existed in 1791. Radio, TV, internet - all that can be tightly regulated and restricted by Trump starting Jan 20, 2025!

Same with the Fourth Amendment. From now on, the only affects you have a right to be secure in are those you wrote with a quill pen. All the electronic data and phone calls are now subject to warrantless search at any time for any reason. Because, you know, that stuff didn’t exist back then. Also good for helping Trump root out all the deepstaters and trouble-making libs out there.

Still sound like a good idea to interpret the Second Amendment as protecting only the technology available at the time? Because that’s going to applied to everything else, too.

Historically people weren't getting killed because of radio, TV and the internet.... but with the massive spread of anti-vaxx disinformation that's gotten hundreds of thousands of Americans killed, along with the spread of QAnon and other right wing lies that resulted in a violent attack on the US Capitol, maybe you have a point. Maybe disinformation that leads to violence and death should be cracked down on.

Except the right wing is already howling "censorship!" over social media companies cracking down on their lies while refusing to acknowledge that nobody has a problem when the right wing tells actual truths.

Clean up your act, stop spreading lies and maybe people won't want to censor you.

Words (spoken and written) have historically killed more people than firearms, and it isn’t even close. I.e. the ability to influence others’ actions is the greatest weapon there is. Having said that, freedom of speech is a great right that we all must have. But, there are laws and rules that regulate speech none the less. Which is also a good thing. I think the same can be applied to firearms. Background checks, licenses, and ownership papers (title - like a house), etc.

The background check qualifies a person to own a firearm. Low standard of qualification. No prior violent criminal history and no history of mental illness.
The license simply identifies a person has has been qualified to own a firearm
The ownership title ties each legally purchased firearm to the licensed owner.

No right infringed in the above, just the ability to track and hold accountable if that firearm is used in a crime. Now, for all the illegally trafficked and possessed firearms? There is no real answer to those, just like there’s no real answer to illegal drugs either.

I believe in freedom of speech but I also think it is being grotesquely abused by cynical politicos. When speech leads to people getting killed, I think those responsible should be held accountable. The minute your freedom causes someone else harm, you've crossed the line on freedom.

So we should preemptively restrict speech and expression so there’s no chance a person might say something dangerous? Because that’s what infringements on the Second Amendment do: they punish people before the fact, by restricting or denying them their rights preemptively.

Anonymous wrote:if you feel like a proposal like being required to carry liability insurance is "punitive" then you should get on board with measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill to drive down liability risk.

It's astounding that the party that preaches "personal responsibility" completely abandons that principle where it comes to irresponsible gun ownership.