Even I will admit this one is a stupid one. Maybe I’m biased because I have a 3D printer and am aware how fucking hard it is to keep in working condition, especially for high temp plastics needed for “3D printed” guns. Instead the legislature should target the ownership and sale of receivers.
Or the legislature should stop trampling on our rights.
2A is the only enumerated right with a specific “do not touch” admonition, and yet it’s probably the most violated right.
Or the legislature should stop trampling on our rights.
Your rights end where my nose begins, and unrestricted gun access impedes the rights of others to live.
The founding fathers built that amendment in a time whith very different technology from today. Nowadays a gun can and frequently does mow down an entire room of innocent people/children.
If you care about the lives of your children you would do something to bring our death rates in line with the low rates of Europe. We have an almost ten times higher firearm death rate than European countries. The solution is not more unfettered gun access.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
https://www.statista.com/chart/27724/gun-deaths-in-europe/
yet it’s probably the most violated right.
The right to vote would like a word.
No, prohibiting people from being armed impedes their right to live.
I carry a weapon because I was almost killed by a pair of boots once, worn by a man about 30 lbs heavier than me. I’m never going back to that situation, where somebody gets to decide whether I live or die just because they’re bigger than me.
My life is precious and I intend to keep it, and that’s why I carry a weapon. Nobody has the right to force me to be at other people’s mercy.
No, prohibiting people from being armed impedes their right to live.
This is just a repeat of one of your other comments.
Nobody has the right to force me to be at other people’s mercy.
I never said otherwise.
Your rights end where my nose begins, and unrestricted gun access impedes the rights of others to live.
These 12 Defensive Uses of Guns Support Student’s Plea for Armed Self-Defense
Impedes the rights of other to live? Like the right of criminals to live and commit crime? Like rapists to live and rape? Like murderers to live and murder?
I know the statistics of gun deaths (mass shootings, firearm suicide statistics, general gun deaths in the US), but so what?
As BearOfaTime said:
2A is the only enumerated right with a specific “do not touch” admonition
Of course that was a reinterpretation of the Second Amendment that was unprecedented:
By the beginning of the twenty-first century, many of the U.S. Courts of Appeals that considered the matter concluded that the Second Amendment protected a collective right tied to militia or military use of firearms…
And then Scalia did his thing, and now guns deaths are rising and they are the leading cause of death of children.
But so what? It’s enumerated and says don’t infringe on it.
Impedes the rights of other to live? Like the right of criminals to live and commit crime? Like rapists to live and rape? Like murderers to live and murder?
Criminals, armed with guns bought legally, or without a background check or stolen from a “responsible gun owner” whose idea of safe storage was in the glovebox of their car.
Rapists, like the domestic abusers who use their legal guns to threaten and intimidate their family, like the prominent Trump support that recently tried to execute his wife in the street.
Murderers, like the 80% of mass shooters using legal firearms or the majority of the remaining 20% using the unsecured guns of a family member.
But don’t worry guys, in 3 out of 100 mass shootings, a good guy will kill them after they’ve only killed 3 or 4 people. That’s only slightly worse than unarmed people!
What’s really fucked in the head is that you haven’t even realised that most people aren’t like you and don’t throb in anticipation at the idea of killing someone.
“If you don’t want to be raped, just use your cool gun to murder them before they murder you with their cool gun, replacing one trauma with another”.
What a shithole of a place a pro-gun utopia is.
Unless you can grok the concept of a violent event that was prevented being significant, I don’t think you’re qualified to weigh in on the ethics of deterrence.
These 12 Defensive Uses of Guns Support Student’s Plea for Armed Self-Defense
If I didn’t know better, I’d think this was an onion article because of how dumb it is. Children shouldn’t need to defend themselves in the first place.
Impedes the rights of other to live?
Yes. The unrestricted access to guns in this country has lead to countless deaths and mass shootings.
It is impeding on people’s right to life.
Like the right of criminals to live and commit crime? Like rapists to live and rape? Like murderers to live and murder?
I never alluded to crime being a right. If you can’t make an argument without jumping to strawman arguments, then politics may not be for you.
I know the statistics of gun deaths (mass shootings, firearm suicide statistics, general gun deaths in the US), but so what?
People are dying. What do you mean so what? Do you have no empathy?
As Pizza man said:
I think one of us is confused about who is saying/arguing what.
It’s enumerated and says don’t infringe on it.
The constitution was built to be able to be changed. And it can be changed so that firearms are no longer the leading cause of death for children.
If I didn’t know better, I’d think this was an onion article because of how dumb it is. Children shouldn’t need to defend themselves in the first place.
Hey Genius, he means College Students
College students basically are children, though I will I admit I only skimmed the article.
Regardless, nobody shouldn’t have to defend themselves in the first place. There shouldn’t be any threats at all.
Nobody [should] have to defend themselves in the first place. There shouldn’t be any threats at all.
What are you seven?
Consider this: somebody ought to tell nature about how “no threats existing” is a better state of affairs, because literally every organism in existence has weapons.
If it’s a better strategy to just “say no to threats”, nature wouldn’t waste enormous quantities of energy arming literally every living thing.
This is a Just World Fallacy in which you assume the world is just, thus unsavory actions not be taken and anyone who dies is suspect.
Unfortunately the world is a dangerous place, and big cities, many of which are host to a lot of the universities in the country of United States of America, are typically the most dangerous in the first world.
Although there are many negative stereotypes but americans, especially American gun owners, people are more complicated than stereotypes.
There is a saying amongst responsible gun owners, and that the only good gun owners are the ones who hope that they never have to fire a single shot.
Gun ownership, especially for people who live in cities, is often a case of “Better to have it and not need it…”
Sure you have your gun nuts that masturbate over the idea of getting to legally kill someone who tried breaking into their house, people who may even be tempted to intentionally create an attractive nuisance in order to try to create the scenario which would still count as a murder charge by the way. However just like with every group, there are many sensible people who are gun owners, it’s just the craziest tend to be the loudest.
Yet another dishonest gun grabber pretending like gun deaths is a remotely relevant statistic to go by. Probably because any actual relevant numbers like “homicide” don’t actually support your agenda.
Any gun death is a gun death.
Homicides are bad.
Suicides by gun are bad.
My agenda is to reduce these deaths.
Cool. Guns are the tool, not the cause. You’re looking at it backwards. Why do people commit suicide? Why do they kill others?
At best you’re ignorant and at worst your intentionally lying because you’d rather people died than you had to actually prove you were a responsible gun owner. Either way, your “gut feelings” about suicide are demonstrably wrong.
Means reduction is a massive part of suicide prevention, at both a social and personal level. It’s why they take away knives but not spoons, despite a determined enough person being able to kill themselves with basically anything, even gravity.
And do you know how many people who survive a suicide attempt go on to die by suicide? 1 in 10. Do you know how many people survive suicide attempts with guns? Basically 0.
Even your “it’s a mental health problem” excuse is bullshit.
I know the motivation is to demand something impossible is done before you will even consider gun control – in this case, accessible mental healthcare for every man, woman and child in America that can instantly cure them of complex problems far beyond even the most cutting edge medical science, so completely that they will never relapse for even a minute, delivered within a budget of $0.
But do you know what you’re actually doing? Admitting that the American public are simply not healthy enough for such permissive gun laws to be safe.
So how about we just take your guns away and when you’ve finished building that impossible mental healthcare network, you can have them back.
In Colorado we recently voted to help people commit suicide if their circumstances suck enough, and I’m for that.
I think if you take away a person’s means of suicide you are encasing them in a prison of flesh. A person has the right to decide whether their own life continues and if your plan for suicide prevention is to remove the means, it just means you’re willing to force people to suffer fates worse than death.
So are me and my life property of the government then? If not, why the fuck does the government have a place in telling me what to do with my life?
Cool. Guns are the tool, not the cause.
They’re catalysts.
Why do people commit suicide? Why do they kill others?
Simply owning a gun increases your chances of killing someone.
https://apnews.com/article/science-health-homicide-d11c8f4ac07888b19309c3e1ff2ae3c9
Yeah, nobody worth a damn believes your bullshit
It’s the pro-gun community that has been pushing the “gun control is pointless because you can just 3D print a gun” lie in the first place.
But honestly, fuck your right. Just because something is an amendment, doesn’t mean it’s moral – and any right that comes at the expense of countless other lives is definitely immoral.
What’s in it for us to even let you keep it? You’ve made crime worse, you maximise the damage domestic terrorists can do and enthusiastically voted for the tyrants you swore you’d protect us from.
Half of you wouldn’t even wear a mask in a pandemic, but we’re supposed to believe you’ll be the saviour of democracy?
Well one day, that democracy is going to take away your grossly permissive access to guns and you’re going to be left with 3 choices.
You could meekly hand over your guns, admitting that all your promises were actually just fantasies and bravado after all.
You could comply with the new licensing and safety laws, something you could have agreed to 25 years and thousands of murders ago.
Or you could follow through on your threats to become a domestic terrorist and prove once and for all that your guns always mattered to you more than your country, or it’s citizens, or it’s democracy.
I’d prefer the first two but I’m not even sure we’d notice the third since 80% of mass shooters are already legal gun owners anyway.
Still, at least it would be the biggest enablers of gun violence dying to gun violence, rather than score of innocent and oppressed people.
Do you really think the right to bear arms is just for the satisfaction of shooting guns, at the cost of lives?
Like, the people who wrote that amendment just decided that lives weren’t important?
No man. The whole point of a human right to defend oneself is that human life is precious.
You’re trying to compare a world where guns are allowed by government, in which people die, to an alternate world where they aren’t allowed and so people don’t die. But that’s not what happens when you disarm people. They don’t stop dying. There are endless, endless, endless, endless examples in history (oh, and in the news like right now) of governments and armies just mowing down unarmed populations.
The whole point of a right to be armed is to protect people from being in a totally asymmetric relationship with the people who are armed.
There’s endless examples in countries that have a fraction of the wealth and stability of America and exactly zero from comparable countries – except of course from within America itself.
The US government has the most comprehensive domestic surveillance networks in the world and the second amendment did nothing to stop it.
The US government has repeatedly massacred striking workers and the second amendment did nothing to stop it.
The US government sends American citizens off to fight and die in foreign wars that are neither a threat to the nation nor a humanitarian effort and the second amendment does nothing to stop it.
The US government routinely executes unarmed minorities and the second amendment does nothing to stop it.
A US government that enslaved and oppressed millions of black people and the second amendment did nothing to stop it.
A US government that wiped out the native inhabitants of their land in deliberate acts of genocide.
The US government has repeatedly conducted experiments on the population, often fatally, and the second amendment does nothing to stop it.
The US government imprisons people far in excess of the rest of the world and the second amendment does nothing to stop it.
Conservative politicians functionally and literally disenfranchise voters and the second amendment does nothing to stop it.
Conservative politicians openly call for a Republican dictatorship and the second amendment does nothing to stop it.
Yet you still try and convince people you’re not just sharing your hero fantasy that’s literally never come true for anyone.
How stupid do you think people are?
A “well regulated militia” that has no proof they know how to operate their firearms at all, let alone to a military standard.
A “well regulated militia” with potentially zero combat training or even basic combat communication.
A “well regulated militia” full of morbidly obese, middle aged men, beholden to no physical fitness requirements whatsoever.
A “well regulated militia” that is riddled with racists and psychopaths that want to kill innocent people.
A “well regulated militia” that enthusiastically votes for idiots and tyrants every opportunity they get.
A “well regulated militia” that insists they’ll sacrifice their lives to protect their countrymen but wouldn’t even wear paper masks during a pandemic.
The founding fathers would have nothing but contempt for you.
Fuck your right to free speech. You don’t deserve it.
Then get the majority of the country to agree and then take it away from me.
If the majority of the country wants to end the right to life of a certain ethnicity, is rust acceptable to you?
A “well regulated militia” is reasoning. It’s a dependent clause. The independent clause, the right itself, is as follows “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”
It’s bizarre that you’d openly admit that while trying to pretend that you’re not twisting their words and intentions to suit you.
They gave their reasoning for the right to bear arms. A single, clear justification.
You didn’t even bother to claim that gun owners meet the given justification for that right. Instead, you’ve argued “oh they just added that bit for no reason”.
Should we selectively edit the other amendments too, stripping them of their conditions? Third amendment, soldiers are no longer allowed to live in houses. Fourth amendment, no warrants shall be issued. Fifth amendment, no person shall be held to answer for a crime.
The constitution is littered with conditions and caveats but the only one they didn’t mean just happens to be the one that would require you to be fit for military service.
Once you said “fuck your right”, you lost all credibility.
Anyone who says something like that is if no use to me, or society.
Go pound sand.
Oh boo hoo.
The founding fathers could have just as easily included the right to own slaves and the right to help yourself to children’s bodies since they were apparently cool with those too.
Would you be rushing to the defense of those too? Probably, since they would benefit you and what you wanted and you could hide the immorality of it behind the constitution.
The only rights the right actually give a shit are the right to own guns and what they incorrectly think “free speech” means. They’re happy to strip people of every other right from the right to life to the right to not be imprisoned without charge.
