Reply to What does it take to get a little gun control

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "What does it take to get a little gun control "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]People claim they want to focus on the shooters instead of the guns, but then immediately say no to things like gun licensing, universal background checks, insurance, safety training, and inspections.  It always circles back to freedom, infringement, rights, and so on.  Individual power.  Let’s be honest: you’re not serious about reducing gun violence.

Guns were a tool when the Constitution was written.  Now they’re a fetish.  The nature of them and our use of them has changed, and our rules need to adapt as well.[/quote]

All things that are credibly part of a well-regulated militia. [/quote]

“Well regulated” at the time and in the context of the Constitution meant (and continues to mean) well-equipped/prepared, that is to say “well-armed,” not saddled by a bunch of magical thinking and false flag regulations designed to create the opposite. [/quote]

Wow, way to prove the PP right.  You demand that we focus on the shooters, then you immediately throw up roadblocks to that as well.

OK, fine.  Let’s return to the original implementation of the Second Amendment. All white men ages 16-60 will be enrolled in state regulated militias and train regularly in order to be well prepared (that is what the phrase means, not just well armed).  Weapons will be registered with the state and presented for inspection periodically.  If your gun is not well maintained, you’ll be fined.

Concealed carry is no longer allowed, except in certain regulated circumstances.  And no more stand your ground laws.  If they weren’t good enough for the American Colonies, they’re not good enough for us.

You’ll have to store your gun unloaded, outside your house, the way they did in Boston in 1786. The legal principle of health and public safety was perfectly compatible with the 2A back then.

Oh, and don’t forget to swear a loyalty oath to that same government that the Constitution says you’re not allowed to levy war against with your arms.  If you refuse the oath, you will be disarmed.

Whoops! Women and black people aren’t part of the militia, so their right to bear arms isn’t covered.

If you want to be really strict and originalist, muskets and 18th century pistols only, because that’s exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote “arms”.

All of this was perfectly legal in the late 1700s.  Gun ownership and gun regulation existed side by side, even with the Second Amendment.

If you think all of that is ridiculous and doesn’t take the modern world into account, congratulations, you’ve just acknowledged that the Second Amendment is open to interpretation.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics