Just a reminder | TheaterFire

[-]

Thereal_Stormm006@reddit

It’s also a human rights abuse to have any restrictions on gun ownership.

[-]

How do you interpret the "Well regulated Militia" beginning of the 2nd amendment? Could one not argue that gun laws are "regulating"? Could one also argue that simply being a citizen =/= being part of a well regulated militia?

[-]

ArgieBee@reddit

You're using the word incorrectly. In the way that they are using it, it means "to keep regular". It means that the militia should be kept stocked, trained, and ready. When you regulate your bowels, it doesn't mean you make laws for shitting.

You can use some common sense to figure out that the Second Amendment, which explicitly has the purpose of protecting the means to fight against a tyrannical state, would not be written with the purpose to give power to the government to diminish or deny said means.

[-]

ChaoticRambo@reddit

So if the intent is to protect against a tyrannical state with a well regulated militia, then it has nothing to do with individual gun ownership. Sure, individual gun ownership has a place within a well regulated militia, but last I checked, we don't have any of those anymore?

[-]

ArgieBee@reddit

Yes it does. What a militia is is an organized group of individual citizens that collectively oppose the state. A militia is not a state device. Also, we still have militias, they are just infringed upon by aforementioned gun laws. The Second Amendment is written to protect the gun rights of the individual so that they can actually form them effectively.

[-]

man_o_brass@reddit

A militia is not a state device.

Militias absolutely state entities. They have been since day one. Per Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16 of the Constitution, Congress can use tax money "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

James Madison's Militia Acts of 1792 clarified this.

[-]

Gyp2151@reddit

The militia act of 1792, states outright,

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

It was never about arming the militia, it was about arming the officers. Everyone else was responsible for their own arms.

https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collections/primary-source-collections/article/militia-act-of-1792

[-]

ArgieBee@reddit

I can see it took you a while to scrape up this attempt at an argument using Google searches. There's just two things.

One, that's not the Constitution, it's a law written well after it.

Two, this doesn't state that the state controls militias, it states that they appoint civilians as officers in them, which is specifically to fulfill the "well regulated militia" part of the clause. That is to say, this is to keep militias from falling apart without leadership without the state having to take them over and defeat the entire purpose of them in the first place. The appointed officers are not state agents. They're literally just civilians who show leadership skills and the state is basically pointing to them and saying "this is who you should follow".

[-]

stapleclipsteve@reddit

Here's part of the original text of the 1775 Massachusetts militia act that was passed a couple months after Lexington and Concord. (I'm still looking for the second half) The Massachusetts militia was commanded by three generals selected by the "major part of the council" of the Massachusetts General Court, with subordinate officers all the way down to town level.

Each town was required to arm and equip any eligible militiaman who couldn't afford his gear, as well as to keep a stock of shovels, picks, and axes, as well as a fife and drum for their town's militia company. Each town was authorized to collect taxes to pay for it's company's equipment.

[-]

man_o_brass@reddit

One, that's not the Constitution, it's a law written well after it.

The colonies already had laws in place defining the command structure of their own militias. Massachusetts had been the first to officially organize the entire colony's militia under the authority of the governor in 1636. The National Guard still considers that their birthday.

By the time of the revolution, each colony had updated their militia laws to ensure readiness for war. Here's the full text of Virginia's wartime militia act. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Harrison were both members of the Virginia General Assembly that passed it. At the time of ratification, each new state's militia was under the command of its state's governor. That's why Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution was written to make it clear that the President is commander in chief of the militia, not just the army.

Madison (building on Alexander Hamilton's work) took the best parts from each colony's existing militia acts and put them all together into the Militia Acts of 1792.

[-]

man_o_brass@reddit

Fun Fact - George Mason was a member of the Virginia General Assembly alongside Jefferson and Harrison. In his famous 1788 quote:

"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day,"

the "few public officers" he refers to are the ones listed in Virginia's 1777 militia act.

[-]

ChaoticRambo@reddit

So no restrictions at all correct? Absolutely anyone should be able to buy any type of firearm? So, say I wanted to arm protestors against police violence with fully automatic firearms, no issue right? After all, what is government tyranny but abuse by police.

[-]

man_o_brass@reddit

Wasn't a big concern of the founding fathers having a standing military?

Yes. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution only allowed Congress to fund a standing army in times of need for periods of no more than two years. The state militias were intended to be the nation's primary defense force, as defined by the Militia Acts of 1972, drafted primarily by James Madison. The regular army was only a token force until the militias failed to stop the British from reaching the capitol during the War of 1812. Madison was president by that time and after the British destroyed a mostly militia American force at the Battle of Bladensburg, he said "I could never have believed so great a difference existed between regular troops and a militia force, if I had not witnessed the scenes of this day".

Further conflicts up to the Spanish-American War continued to show that we needed a more unified military force than the militias of the day. The Militia Act of 1903 created the National Guard more or less as we know it today, and the National Army formed during World War One was reorganized after the war and laws were changed so more soldiers could be kept on active duty.

[-]

talon6actual@reddit (OP)

Like Switzerland does, in addition to their competent military? Might be worth a try.

[-]

ArgieBee@reddit

Absolutely. I wouldn't necessarily call police tyrannical to the extent that it would justify an armed response en masse, though they are definitely largely corrupt and not held accountable. There certainly have been instances where police have been smoked and it was totally justified, though most often an armed response to a corrupt police officer is just a ticket to the morgue.

[-]

ChaoticRambo@reddit

So, while I disagree, I do understand where you are coming from.

Here is my question though, at what point do my rights / freedoms become your tyranny or vice versa? I.E. when do we start killing people over things we disagree about? I believe unrestricted firearms access infringes on peoples life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Does that give me and other like minded people permission to start killing people who believe in completely unrestricted firearms access?

If these "militias" are not under the responsibility of the states but are otherwise self governed, when do we expect open conflict between militias of differing viewpoints?

In the hyper politicized environment we live in, one could make a great many arguments about government or individuals who are acting tyrannical towards others (perceived or otherwise).

[-]

talon6actual@reddit (OP)

But we do, every one of the ~160,000,000 gun owners along with ~368,000,000 firearms and 6,000,000,000 sounds of ammunition is part of the militia, to overthrow a tyrannical government, if required.

[-]

man_o_brass@reddit

A CPA from Denver ain't joining your boogaloo just because he keeps a Smith J-Frame in the nightstand.

As a refresher on what the Founding Fathers viewed the militia to be:

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that the militias are State organizations that can be called up by federal authority to "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." While the states retain the authority to select militia officers and train militia forces, that training must conform to doctrines dictated by congress.

Article 2, Section 2 states plainly that the president is the commander in chief of the militia, not just the regular army. Anyone who considers themselves part of the militia must acknowledge, per our Founding Fathers, that they just spent four years under Biden's direct chain of command.

That one will DAMNED sure get me some downvotes, and from people that don't own half as many guns as I do.

[-]

Gyp2151@reddit

As a refresher on what the Founding Fathers viewed the militia to be:

As a refresher: the founding fathers intended every person in the militia to show up with their own arms. The militia act of 1792 states…

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

Article 2, Section 2 states plainly that the president is the commander in chief of the militia, not just the regular army. Anyone who considers themselves part of the militia must acknowledge, per our Founding Fathers, that they just spent four years under Biden's direct chain of command.

When all other judicial avenues have failed, and a judge signs off on it yes. Biden was the president for 4 years,,,, every American was under his direct chain of command,,, now ask every democrat if they are under the direct command of trump… republicans hated Biden no question, democrats are just as bad (if not worse) with trump.

That one will DAMNED sure get me some downvotes, and from people that don't own half as many guns as I do.

Usually the people who make claims like this tend to be all bluster and own like 10-15 guns.

[-]

man_o_brass@reddit

Usually the people who make claims like this tend to be all bluster and own like 10-15 guns.

You're off by an order of magnitude. My biggest safe is a $9,000 Fort Knox where I keep the really fun stuff. I've been to SHOT Show enough times that it's gotten somewhat boring.

[-]

Gyp2151@reddit

You're off by an order of magnitude.

Cool, probably not though.

My biggest safe is a $9,000 Fort Knox where I keep the really fun stuff.

So you’ve got a 6031 Fort Knox safe? I’ve got a 7251 xd and thought it was a bit over priced, my 7261 xd was a little cheaper and my 6637 is probably one of the nicer safes we own. All have been converted to dial, because I don’t trust digital combinations (looking at you liberty). How much you’ve spent on a safe isn’t indicative of the amount of guns you own, it’s a flex that just says “I have money to burn”, I’ll be the first to admit I have money to burn, and it’s usually dropped on guns, or cattle trailers.

I've been to SHOT Show enough times that it's gotten somewhat boring.

Not really the flex you think it is. More people go to shot and get board then don’t. We’ve had a booth there for the last 3 years, but we’ve been going since 2011.

[-]

man_o_brass@reddit

I had to open it up because I damn well couldn't remember but the sticker says 7241. It doesn't say how thick and, again, I don't remember. I definitely spent the extra money on the dual locks so I've got a dial if the buttons crap out. (I'm also looking at you, Liberty) The transferrables live in there.

If you've done three years in a booth at SHOT, then you know exactly what I mean. I've never gone as attendee. It's not a flex to anyone in the industry, but it is to the kind of turds on reddit who claim I'm "an asshole for not standing with the Constitution and supporting the 2nd Amendment."

[-]

Gyp2151@reddit

I had to open it up because I damn well couldn't remember but the sticker says 7241. It doesn't say how thick and, again, I don't remember. I definitely spent the extra money on the dual locks so I've got a dial if the buttons crap out. (I'm also looking at you, Liberty) The transferrables live in there.

So you’ve got a $3000 gun safe that you over paid for. I’ve got a couple of those as well. 🤷🏽‍♂️

If you've done three years in a booth at SHOT, then you know exactly what I mean. I've never gone as attendee.

You’re working, it’s not about having fun, it’s about making connections. That doesn’t mean it’s boring, just gotta know the right people, and it’s a blast, when you’re off the clock at least.

It's not a flex to anyone in the industry, but it is to the kind of turds on reddit who claim I'm "an asshole for not standing with the Constitution and supporting the 2nd Amendment."

You can be in the industry, and not support or stand with the Constitution. Going to shot doesn’t mean you do, just means you’re working in the industry. Trying to flex on other Redditors because “they have less guns” isn’t doing anything but making you look like a dick. Just fyi.

[-]

man_o_brass@reddit

Is that why you told me about several of your bigger, more expensive safes?

[-]

Gyp2151@reddit

Is that why you told me about several of your bigger, more expensive safes?

Kinda showing you what you look like…..

edit: It's an Executive, not a Defender.

Oh, so a 7k gunsafe… .

[-]

man_o_brass@reddit

That link says $8,149 with the options I ordered like the dual locks, and it certainly wasn't delivered for free but if you really need to diminish me that badly then sure, seven grand it is.

[-]

talon6actual@reddit (OP)

Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one and they're generally full of shit.

[-]

man_o_brass@reddit

LOL, dude thinks the U.S. Constitution is just my opinion.

[-]

talon6actual@reddit (OP)

I'm sorry, you misunderstood me, I think you're an asshole for not standing with the Constitution and supporting the 2nd Amendment.

[-]

man_o_brass@reddit

At the tail end of the Revolutionary War, Alexander Hamilton was tasked with standardizing the organization and training of colonial militias across the new nation. He was essentially told to write the TO&E that each state would be expected to conform to, because unlike most statesmen, he had served in the military directly under Washington, who complained regularly about undisciplined militia troops "whose behavior and want of discipline has done great injury to the other troops, who never had officers, except in a few instances, worth the bread they eat.”

Unfortunately, Hamilton never finished because the Constitutional ratification process got bogged down and he, Madison, and Jay switched gears and started lobbying for ratification and writing the Federalist papers.

After the ratification was settled, the Constitution forbade a permanent standing army (because they're expensive) and entrusted the defense of the new nation primarily to the colonial-turned-state militias. The task of standardizing them now fell to Hamilton's protege, James Madison. Madison dusted off all the work that Hamilton had already done and turned it into the Militia Acts of 1792. These two acts, passed by the 2nd U.S. Congress (which contained many Framers and several signers of the Declaration of Independence) lay out in plain English the role of the militia as intended by the Founding Fathers. Here's a link to the full text of both Acts. I highly recommend you read them and try to be the enlightened patriot you think yourself to be.

[-]

PsychoBoyBlue@reddit

You are kind of ignoring the fact that the Militia Acts of 1792 and 1795 were repealed by the Militia Act of 1903.

Which also means, all able-bodied males who are at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age spent four years under Biden's direct chain of command.

[-]

man_o_brass@reddit

I'm not ignoring it at all. The 1903 Act laid the foundation for the militia as we know it today, but it differs wildly from the way the militias were structured in the Founding Era. People these days would have a much more accurate notion of the colonial militia if we still had to show up to county muster once a month and state muster twice a year, but these days that only pertains to the National Guard. Where I live, Section 431.073 of Texas Code still gives the governor the authority to draft eligible civilians into the reserve militia, and you can be court-martialled for not showing up when called. Your mileage may vary depending on your state statutes.

[-]

ArgieBee@reddit

And this dude's asshole is really showing right now. 😂

[-]

ChaoticRambo@reddit

I consider it a far more likely scenario that I would be using my firearms and ammo to defend the government from a tyrannical militia.

[-]

ArgieBee@reddit

An authoritarian inclined to side with the state?! No! No way, dude!

[-]

ChaoticRambo@reddit

So just because I believe that there could be a better more responsible way to manage gun ownership makes me an authoritarian?

[-]

talon6actual@reddit (OP)

Subjugation of rights, any right, is an act of treason and is punishable by......

[-]

ArgieBee@reddit

The fact that you criticize police violence, yet then turn around and say that you believe that the state knows how to be responsible with firearms is honestly baffling.

[-]

ChaoticRambo@reddit

Do you honestly think the government makes any decisions on policing based on gun ownership?

What, some armed uprising to kill all the cops is going to happen?

Guns are not an answer to the problem.

People thinking their private armories with their cosplay military friends actually is going to do anything is honestly baffling.

[-]

Onc3Holy@reddit

Then you are a fucking idiot. The current federal government IS OBJECTIVELY TYRANNICAL, ignoring court rulings, violating people's rights (currently the rights established by the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th,and 14th amendments at LEAST). Yes, the crazy militias are bad, but they do not operate under the illusion that they have the legal authority to act as such.

[-]

ChaoticRambo@reddit

And where are all the militias? Who is doing ANYTHING about the most tyrannical US government in recent history. No one. You know why, because things have to get so unimaginably bad for there to be a popular uprising. You are essentially signing your own death warrant, so it has to get to the point where dying is better than living under the current rule. And the thing is, they would probably confiscate guns before things actually got to that point.

Would I love to see the current administration ousted, absolutely. It also terrifies me of what could replace it.

[-]

Onc3Holy@reddit

Ahem.

[-]

talon6actual@reddit (OP)

"Mess with the best, die like the rest".

[-]

ChaoticRambo@reddit

Yea, I am going to put my faith in the "best" being the US military over "unregulated militias" lol

[-]

ArgieBee@reddit

Yeah, every dictatorship in history has.

[-]

talon6actual@reddit (OP)

Traitor

[-]

ParagonTactical@reddit

You missed my point…the entire Bill of Rights is about individual rights…which is the entire point of the US Constitution. To defend against a majority rule…

[-]

talon6actual@reddit (OP)

"Majority rule, minority rights" is a founding precept of the nation.

[-]

ParagonTactical@reddit

I guess you can argue a “somewhat” majority rule considering the electoral college, and other checks and balances. I would even argue, the design would oppose of a majority. However, with corruption and human error there have been plenty of times historically all of that have been subverted. To illustrate, activists judges interpreting law and or the Constitution to enact their beliefs rather than following the Constitution.

[-]

kennetic@reddit

"Well-regulated" at the time of the writing of the BoR is more along the lines of well maintained, or well functioning. That term had nothing to do with government regulation. So no, one couldn't argue that. SCOTUS has already determined that the 2A is an individual right, just like the other ones in the BoR.

Regardless, the prefatory line in the 2A is merely a justification, not a requirement. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is about as unambiguous as it can be.

[-]

ChaoticRambo@reddit

And here is where interpretation of words and meaning goes down a rabbit hole that I am sure will be debated forever.

Because who are "the people", what are "arms"? If we are basing it on when and how it was written, then women would be excluded from "the people" since the only definition of "people" in the Constitution indicates that the House of Representatives will be chosen by "the people." And women couldn't vote, so they aren't "the people." Obviously I need not expand upon why the historical use of the term "arms" can be troublesome today.

Lets move past all of that and take it exactly as written. I would assume then you agree with removing all age limits on firearms purchases, removing all limits of people with convictions, people with psychiatric problems, heck, even illegal immigrants and people from other countries should be able to buy them, they are people after all. Whether it is a 12 year old buying their first assault rifle or a convicted felon rearming after getting out of prison.

[-]

Maleficent_Mix_8739@reddit

Lmfao, my first rifle was an M1 carbine ASSAULT RIFLE, given to me by my dad when I was 12 🤣. Hell, I asked for a .22

[-]

Cliffinati@reddit

Who are the people? The Citizenry.

What are Arms? Weaponry.

This is basic English

[-]

ChaoticRambo@reddit

At the time the constitution was written, "The People" would have excluded women, slaves and Native Americans.

[-]

Cliffinati@reddit

And we have amendments that expanded that definition, yet no amendment that alters the arms part of the 2nd.

[-]

ParagonTactical@reddit

If the US Constitution is restricting the government, why would it give that very same government the ability to “regulate” it? That would make absolutely zero sense.

This is exactly the problem with “interpreting” the constitution. Especially in modern times.

The operative clause: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” is necessary in order to complete the prefatory clause: “A well regulated militia.” In other words, you cannot have a well regulated militia without people being armed…it really is not hard. The only right that explicitly states “SHALL NOT be INFRINGED.” For good reason…it is the only right that protects all others.

[-]

ArgieBee@reddit

The problem with interpreting the Constitution in modern times is that people are either too stupid to do so or are unwilling to do so honestly.

[-]

ChaoticRambo@reddit

I think an issue with any of these documents is you can either interpret it exactly as written or you can interpret it based on the intent. Both are honestly challenging as our language has evolved and the way we use words has changed. And to understand intent of someone who lived almost 300 years ago is also extremely challenging.

I for one would be on the side of trying our best to understand the intent and not get hung up on word choice.

[-]

ParagonTactical@reddit

They established the intent, read the Federalist papers and what many of the Founders believed…the intent was to defend themselves from a tyrannical government, foreign or domestic. The same way the 1A has to do with freedom of speech, addressing grievances, etc…which applies on the internet which did not exist at the time…the entire “It is outdated.” or “We need to interpret it from a modern perspective.” completely undermines the entire premise of the Constitution…

[-]

ArgieBee@reddit

The Second Amendment was written very carefully. It was debated on for a long time before the Constitution was ratified. Both the word and intent of it are the same. We don't have to speculate on it, as we have both have the documentation of their intent and the context from which to derive it.

First you say that the Constitution does mean what it says, but then assert that it means something that it doesn't, then you say that it actually doesn't mean what it says. This is mental gymnastics.

[-]

squunkyumas@reddit

The militia is everyone.

Well regulated means in good working order.

Individuals should be able to buy any weapon they can afford and should practise with them to ensure they are well-regulated.

[-]

talon6actual@reddit (OP)

Defined as well trained, equipped and lead. As in "under proper and sufficient regulation to defend the Constitution".

[-]

BadTiger85@reddit

Every single gun law? What about violent felons or mentally unstable people possessing firearms? You're all for that?

[-]

TheSkepticOwl@reddit

Gun Laws won't stop them from getting guns if they don't follow those laws to begin with.

[-]

squunkyumas@reddit

If you're too dangerous to own weaponry, you're too dangerous to be in society.

[-]

theflyingspaghetti@reddit

How does that make sense? If you're not responsible enough to do the most dangerous thing imaginable, then you can not participate in society? What's next, if you're too dangerous to fly a 747 you're too dangerous to be in society? Straight up terminally online libertarian logic.

[-]

KoreyDerWolfsbar@reddit

All violent felons should be put down.

[-]

squunkyumas@reddit

Owning firearms is far from the most dangerous thing imaginable.

If a felon is so dangerous you don't want to fully reatore their rights the minute their sentence is over, then they should still be in prison.

[-]

ChaoticRambo@reddit

Are you kidding me? Have you never been to a gun range? At least every other time I am at the range I see people who are handling firearms in such an irresponsible way I am amazed they haven't shot themselves yet.

[-]

squunkyumas@reddit

Are you kidding me?

No, I'm not.

Irresponsible gun ownership is not comparable to violent criminal behavior.

[-]

ChaoticRambo@reddit

Ah, I don't consider dangerous and violent one in the same. I consider irresponsible gun ownership as dangerous.

[-]

squunkyumas@reddit

Irresponsible gun owners are not a general danger to society. Violent felons are. If you don't trust them enough to own guns, why release them?

[-]

ChaoticRambo@reddit

Well that leads into a much larger discussion of our entire criminal justice system and the effectiveness of our punishment based system.

[-]

squunkyumas@reddit

Well, yes, that entire conversation is what I just summed up.

[-]

ArgieBee@reddit

Yes. I think the Second Amendment is quite clear.

It's not like gun laws are particularly effective at keeping guns out of the hands of those people anyway. Plus, it's often used to keep guns out of the hands of people that are perfectly safe with them. Somebody who committed check fraud three decades ago and served a year or two is not going to go murdering people because of it.

[-]

talon6actual@reddit (OP)

And if you're a minority, every obstacle can prevent you from participating in our nation.

[-]

Sad-Wave-4579@reddit

I mean not really but they kinda do that anyway. Literally the same way addicts get their drugs if they can’t pass their 4473. So really the only felons it affects are responsible people trying to fix their lives while the shitty people are still capable of doing shitty things.

[-]

deadpools_dick@reddit

I’m a medical marijuana card holder in PA, and it fucking pisses me off to no end that I’m not allowed to own a firearm just because I have a prescription. Yet people with alcohol dependency (I’ve been down that road myself once) are allowed to have as many as they want. This fucking country, man.

[-]

Feisty-Tadpole-5127@reddit

Stop smoking and get a CCW. It's worth it

[-]

deadpools_dick@reddit

If my living situation isn’t what it is at the moment, then no question I would.

[-]

SawyerJWRBLX@reddit

Stopping cannabis use was the best decision I ever made.

[-]

Sit_back_and_panic@reddit

Moved to Okc recently and I’d rather not smoke than give up my cans and guns

[-]

BigoleDog8706@reddit

They are not, but keep thinking that.

[-]

HSR47@reddit

WRONG.

Gun CONTROL laws are unconstitutional, but there are plenty of “gun laws” that aren’t.

Here are some examples of “gun laws” that wouldn’t violate 2A:

Prohibiting the destruction of government surplus small arms, and requiring that they be offered for sale on the open market, or through orgs like DCM/CMP;
Requiring firearm familiarization & marksmanship training as part of K-12 curriculum;
States creating “Swiss-style” militias, where there citizens get issued arms and equipment that statutes require them to keep/store in a specified manner;
Mandating the creation of public ranges;

[-]

PrincessRut0@reddit

And here we are not using our 2nd amendment and allowing the country to fall into fascism just the same lol. Funny how that goes.

[-]

CandidCantaloupe8930@reddit

But since tyrants are currently only attacking a particular demographic and political position, they will sit on their hands. Could have sworn they would be uncomfortable with boots in a streets but just gotta wait till there are boots at Cracker Barrel or whatever one horse town they live in.

[-]

PrincessRut0@reddit

Anything but the Cracker Barrel!! 😱

[-]

ultim8agent24@reddit

Felons shouldn't have guns

[-]

Myte342@reddit

Yes and no. Any gun law that pertains to Keeping or Bearing firearms is an infringement. Laws that say you can't Brandish or assault others with the firearm and the like are not, as those actions would then infringe on the Rights of others. The whole "My rights end where you face begins" sort of thing. You have every right to swing your fists around in public... until you make contact with another person's face.

Still means 99.9 percent of gun laws are unconstitutional.

Fun fact, Conceal Carry permits/licenses and the like only exist because the gov't got around the whole second amendment issue by having the courts declare that you have no Right to conceal. They can't make exercising a Right illegal or require permits for a personal Right that doesn't directly infringe on the rights of others. Well since Concealing is no longer a Right according to them, they can make it illegal and arrest you for it now. So technically, the only way to exercise your 2A is to Open Carry according to the gov't.

[-]

mkosmo@reddit

Concealed carry is a form of keeping and bearing. Yes, those laws are also unconstitutional.

[-]

Sad-Ad1780@reddit

So in your view a law prohibiting carry of a hand grenade is unconstitutional?

[-]

mkosmo@reddit

Yes. Remember, when the country was founded, we were giving those very kinds of munitions to private citizens to defend our coasts and borders.

Private navies full of gunships with high explosive ordnance were not uncommon.

[-]

Sad-Ad1780@reddit

So no laws to say a person can't load his backpack with hand grenades and board the subway? No law enforcement would attempt to prevent this from happening. Hell, just open carry the grenades, no law enforcement could say shit to you. Those sure would be interesting times.

[-]

mkosmo@reddit

Why not? Possession isn't the part that's problematic. It's using it to harm others. And that part is already illegal in tons of ways.

[-]

Sad-Ad1780@reddit

Easy access to untraceable, reliable high explosives would be inherently problematic. And that's exactly what you'd have without any laws prohibiting it. With no limits at all on possession (which you say is not problematic), attacks would be every day occurrences.

[-]

mkosmo@reddit

Wait until you learn some basic chemistry.

Untraceable, reliable high explosives? Not hard to make with stuff from the drug or hardware store. What you're looking for is something that makes you feel safe, not something that actually does anything to make you safe.

[-]

Sad-Ad1780@reddit

No, it's quite difficult to make reliable high explosives. That you believe otherwise tells me I'm wasting my time getting to reason with you.

[-]

Cliffinati@reddit

Owning a weapon does not mean one is allowed to assault someone with it. Assault is a crime the weapon used doesn't change it from being an assault.

Threatening is the same. You have a right to own a gun, you however do not have a right to threaten people and using a gun doesn't magically make that a right.

[-]

r8214@reddit

The weapon used, in this case a gun, 100% changes the crime. You go from a misdemeanor to a felony too.

[-]

Cliffinati@reddit

Yes makes doesn't make it not one

[-]

trtl_playz@reddit

am i reading this correct?

you cant show your gun off in public, but you also cant hide it without buy a licence?

that doesnt make sense.

[-]

riibo_@reddit

Brandishing isn’t “showing off” it’s flagging random innocent people and aiming at people with no intent to fire to cause panic or illicit a reaction.

There are politicians who don’t understand gun laws, then there are people who don’t understand gun laws. Both are equally as bad.

[-]

trtl_playz@reddit

sorry i meant brandishing, i just didnt type it

[-]

PacoBedejo@reddit

Fun fact, Conceal Carry permits/licenses and the like only exist because the gov't got around the whole second amendment issue by having the courts declare that you have no Right to conceal.

The natural right is being infringed, nonetheless. Some robed assholes don't change that.

[-]

smax70@reddit

Also, criminals don't obey laws. That's kind of what makes them criminals.

[-]

Hoz85@reddit

Are you saying that because criminals don't obey laws, we should just cancel all laws? Because rapists rape and murderers murder - we shouldn't have laws prohibiting it?

[-]

smax70@reddit

I'm for that honestly, it would remove the laws from the law abiding citizens as well. Then WE could impose whatever justice we deem necessary on the violators.

Do you really believe rapists and murderers are meted out punishment that is comparable to their crimes?

[-]

talon6actual@reddit (OP)

Exactly, if you're a criminal, you stay in jail til you're deemed fit to rejoin society. If you can't be trusted with all your rights, you're incapable of rejoining society and stay in jail til trust is restored.

[-]

Orbital_Vagabond@reddit

And yet...

[-]

Boots402@reddit

Depends, would you count something like this as a gun law?

“A person who carries or has in his or her possession a firearm when he or she commits or attempts to commit a felony… shall be guilty of a felony”

[-]

Correct-Award8182@reddit

I think they have already committed a felony, the idea of inventing additional crimes in general is abhorrent to me.

[-]

SturerEmilDickerMax@reddit

Think Americans have worse things to worry about with their psyco/pedo king…

[-]

Sad-Ad1780@reddit

Do you apply this logic to laws pertaining to all types of arms?

Because I'm not opposed to laws prohibiting my neighbor from storing mustard gas canisters in his garage. I'm not opposed to laws limiting who can possess anthrax. Do you believe such laws violate 2A?

[-]

ntvryfrndly@reddit

Trying to compare weapons of indiscriminate mass murder (whose ONLY function is indiscriminate mass murder) to arms guaranteed by the 2A is a bit ridiculous.

[-]

Sad-Ad1780@reddit

So no 2A guarantees for arms "whose ONLY function is indiscriminate mass murder" then?

What other exceptions will you make? Let's see.

Aircraft are arms, even when not equipped with guns, bombs, or missiles. Does 2A mean that laws requiring aircraft and pilots meet certain standards to operate in public airspace violate 2A? If no, why?

How about aircraft that are equipped with guns, bombs, or missiles? Shall we have no laws?

Shall private citizens be permitted to operate a tank on public roadways without any license requirements?

Hand grenades are arms. Do laws limiting who is allowed to walk around in public with a loaded grenade carrier vest violate 2A? If no, why?

Surface to air missiles are arms. Are we okay with no laws prohibiting a group of guys (use your imagination for their cultural identity) from possessing them and even walking around with them (not yet brandished) near an airport?

The point here is clear and not the least bit ridiculous. Not every law limiting arms is an infringement. Many are, many are not. Arguing otherwise to claim that every gun law is by definition an infringement is sophomoric and hurts the credibility of serious people working to protect 2A rights.

[-]

LucasNoritomi@reddit

The constitution doesn’t give you property rights, it just shows that the government recognizes your rights.

[-]

brachus12@reddit

The constitution limits government… it doesn’t grant things to the people

[-]

tgpussypants@reddit

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. Sam fuckin Adams

[-]

PapaBobcat@reddit

Citation?

[-]

AK-1800@reddit

Brother google exists look it up

[-]

PapaBobcat@reddit

Brother someone asking you "where did you hear that?" Is a normal part of conversation. Telling someone to "look it up" is not.

[-]

AK-1800@reddit

But not everyone is going to cite information for you. Especially when it’s almost common knowledge. If your curious then look it up

[-]

PapaBobcat@reddit

If it was "almost common" I would probably have heard of it. I'm curious so I ask people who said it. This is normal.

[-]

tgpussypants@reddit

What the fuck is this a high school essay?

[-]

PapaBobcat@reddit

Aww boohoo someone asked you where you saw something. You gonna be okay little guy? Need to sit down with a warm snack in the quiet corner? You'll be okay I promise.

[-]

tgpussypants@reddit

Apparently it's from his American Independence speech from August 1st 1776 in Philly. It's about halfway through the speech. I'm not gunna MLA format a citation for you big dog.

[-]

PapaBobcat@reddit

Nope that's all I need. Many thanks!

[-]

crooks4hire@reddit

What a weird-ass ride that was.

[-]

AtomicPhantomBlack@reddit

Does that include the Second Amendment? The 2A is technically a gun law

[-]

talon6actual@reddit (OP)

No even close, not unexpected, but and enshrined right isn't a law, its a right-"not subject to law".

[-]

PsychoBoyBlue@reddit

The right: "...keep and bear arms..."

The 2A enshrines that right into law as part of the supreme law of the land.

The 2A isn't an enshrined right. The underlying right is. The 2A is what is enshrines the right.

The constitution is (part of) the supreme law of the land. Once the amendment is ratified it becomes part of the supreme law of the land. I'm curious what mental gymnastics are done to not see the supreme law of the land as a law.

[-]

Harbinger_Kyleran@reddit

I dunno, but ask the present administration, they seem to have no issue ignoring the Constitution. 😺

[-]

PsychoBoyBlue@reddit

Because the founders were naïve and didn't think so many people would act in bad faith.

[-]

talon6actual@reddit (OP)

Please cite the US Law stating the charge, penalty and sentence, if you would . Let me guess, statute isn't law.

[-]

PsychoBoyBlue@reddit

charge, penalty and sentence

For what? Violating the constitution? You really need an example of US law about that?

Let me guess, statute isn't law

Statue is legislative law. Not sure what you are trying to get at with this.

[-]

AK-1800@reddit

I was thinking about this for awhile

[-]

sleepygreendoor@reddit

Thanks Reagan

[-]

Darkside_Operator@reddit

In my country we don't have gun law in constitution, but I think we have a litke bit better gun law than more states of us.

[-]

ChevChelios9941@reddit

Blind people should not be allowed a gun. There I said it.

[-]

Cptawesome23@reddit

“A well regulated militia” is literally like the first thing the amendment says. How are the laws violating the amendment if the intent was to regulate?

[-]

talon6actual@reddit (OP)

In the original context "well regulated" meant well trained, equipped and lead.

[-]

Cptawesome23@reddit

Right, and so having laws that govern that is a good thing right? Can’t have a bunch of random idiots buying guns now.

[-]

GunDaddy67@reddit

İt's funny how people are against the 2A in your Country.

People hate Freedom.

[-]

Psyqlone@reddit

... more to the point, some people hate the freedom of other people. Haters hate. Bitches bitch. ... and control freaks ... freak.

[-]

ChaoticRambo@reddit

Considering firearm related deaths in the USA outpace other developed countries by an astronomical margin, it makes a lot of sense why gun rights would be a topic of conversation.

[-]

Psyqlone@reddit

Guns don't have rights.

The people do.

... and you may converse and discuss those rights. Who has those rights? ... guns or people?

[-]

crooks4hire@reddit

Have you ever stopped to consider who’s doing the counting…

[-]

ChaoticRambo@reddit

Have I considered that there is a worldwide conspiracy to alter murder data and firearm deaths to hurt the pro-2A at any cost crowd? No, no I havent.

[-]

BenchmadeFan420@reddit

Considering firearm related deaths in the USA outpace other developed countries by an astronomical margin,

Murder rates don't though. So your argument is suggesting that it's somehow worse to be shot to death than being stabbed to death.

it makes a lot of sense why gun rights would be a topic of conversation.

Says people who have to rely on narwhal tusks to stop criminals.

[-]

ChaoticRambo@reddit

Could you list a few examples of developed countries with murder rates higher than the USA? I can't find any.

[-]

BenchmadeFan420@reddit

murder rates higher than the USA?

You are moving the goalposts.

[-]

ChaoticRambo@reddit

In all of my replies I specified developed countries? I have not once moved the goalpost and the point still stands.

The US has the highest murder rate of any developed country and the highest murder rate by firearms of any developed country. And it isn't even close.

[-]

PelicanFrostyNips@reddit

According to the UN, the US only has about two thirds the gun homicides of Mexico. Brazil is way up there too.

So what are you on about again?

[-]

ChaoticRambo@reddit

You consider Mexico and Brazil developed countries? They are not.

[-]

GunDaddy67@reddit

İn my Country the probability to getting shot is not as high as in the US. But here People get stabbed almost every Day. And that shit adds up too.

[-]

ChaoticRambo@reddit

I have no doubt, people will naturally gravitate to whatever weapon they can easily obtain to cause the most damage. While I am no expert, and I only did a quick google search to confirm my assumption, gunshot victims have a higher mortality rate than stabbing victims and you can shoot way more people way quicker than you can stab. If I had to be attacked by someone but I could choose whether they had a gun or a knife, I am going to pick the knife without question.

[-]

GunDaddy67@reddit

Yes but there is one big difference you need to consider:

You have ways to defend yourself. We can't do shit against anyone. You can't carry a Gun. You can carry some knives but not everywhere you want. İf you encounter a Maniac it's mostly Goodbye World.

[-]

Pashur604@reddit

A knife for self defense isn't very feasible. I once heard a saying that goes something like, "The loser of a knife fight bleeds out on scene, the winner bleeds out on the way to the hospital."

[-]

GunDaddy67@reddit

Yep that's why I carry Pepperspray. İt's the only thing that's effective enough to safe your life. Pepperspray is illegal to use against humans. The only way to use it is to safe your life. Your life needs to be threatened to use it.

And btw the Stabbers here are never alone. We have a Problem that we can't talk about because it's racist. And that's coming from a Foreigner who was born and raised here...

[-]

OneInteresting7425@reddit

Yes we should able too own any weapon we can afford rpgs ,stingers , machine guns , exsplosvies , grenade launchers , anti tank , landmines , everything in case we need too fight a invading army with a civilian militia or fight our own tyrannical government

[-]

PeteTinNY@reddit

Said Mickey Mouse that won’t allow guests who have to pay hundreds of dollars a day to carry in his parks. Or even just stay in the resorts with a locked up gun.

[-]

PeteTinNY@reddit

Said the rat that won’t allow guests who have to pay hundreds of dollars a day to carry in his parks.

[-]

Underwater_Karma@reddit

What about Kennesaw, Georgia: Municipal code 32-41

Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a)In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

[-]

talon6actual@reddit (OP)

By a show of hands, who gives a fuck what the French think?

[-]