Cops shouldn’t have assault rifles either, they’re not the military. I find the second amendment so fucking dumb. It’s to rise up against a tyrannical government. But since you have it, precisely now is the time to use it. Helloooow? Why don’t you use it? You have a tyrannical government full of pedophiles. All those decades full of innocent deaths, all so you can keep your precious second amendment, just in case you reach a point you are in now. Well, go ahaid then, prove all those deaths were worth it. Bunch of self-centered uneducated hypocrites.
I agree with you. The issue is that the people who have been fighting to keep the second amendment are the ones who are siding with and enabling the government. The pro-second amendment people are the ones who voted for Trump in the first place.
I’m assuming from the way your comment is worded that you’re not from the U.S.
Blue states tend to have much stricter gun laws, as another user pointed out. For example, in California, “Assault Rifles” are banned. You most certainly cannot walk into a supermarket and buy an AR-15. As far as i’m aware, most major retailers including Walmart don’t sell guns at all in California. Even handguns have a maximum magazine capacity. No more than 10 rounds. Much less than your standard Glock or Sig Sauer.
I’d also like to point out that “Buying a gun in the local supermarket” is a little bit of a misconception. It’s true that some superstores sell guns, but they aren’t right next to the milk and bread. They’re in locked cabinets in a specific part of the store where you’ll also find other hunting equipment. The whole point of a superstore/supermarket is that they sell everything in one place as opposed to the pre-supermarket days where you had to go to multiple different stores just to get your weekly shopping supplies.
Over here, we don’t need to buy guns with our weekly shopping supplies. We have liquor over 20% alcohol in a different section of the store. Can’t even buy cigarettes at the supermarket. Even slingshots and batons are illegal here. Did you know, with a 10 round magazine you can still kill 10 people before reloading? If your aim is right. That’s an acceptable amount? As those magazine sizes are allowed.
That’s what i’ve been saying for years. You don’t need a 30 round AR-15. A manual, 4 - 5 round bolt-action hunting rifle in the right hands can also be used for a mass shooting. Yet they’re completely legal in states like California. The only reason “Assault Rifles” (and I use quotation marks because the name “Assault Rifle” is based on a misconception) are so heavily regulated and labeled as having “evil features” is because they look scary. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle, NOT full auto. Functionally, it’s no different to a hunting rifle. Yet the media never shuts up about that one specific model of rifle.
Looks Scary ≠ Lethality. I wish people would realize that.
Criminals don’t follow the rules anyway, so you can put as many restrictions on guns as you want for all the difference it will make. At least here in the U.S.
Unfortunately some people struggle to grasp that concept.
I’ve been in the military for 15 years. Semi auto is far more lethal than full auto. You control every bullet instead of emptying a full clip in a few seconds in spray mode, hitting with the first bullet and missing the rest. It’s just that you don’t know what the stray bullets hit.
Well for starters, we can’t just buy a gun in a supermarket. You seem to not actually know what you’re talking about and just get information from memes.
I would love it if I could just buy a gun in the local supermarket.
The democrat states/cities have much harsher gun laws. The republican states/cities aren’t going to resist Trump.
If more people would move to the left we would see more anti-fascist gun resistance (think Black Panther Party). But since people still believe that we can fix this decades-long decline by voting in the right Democrats, we’re going to have to learn the hard way.
What is an assault rifle? I don’t think what non-military civilians or police carry qualify. I know a few grandfathered fully automatic rifles are out there but they cost like $40k and they’re mostly in the hands of collectors. Most guns are semi auto and semi auto rifles are great for hunting things like wild boar.
The only problem is when we define everyone who disagrees with us as a fascist. I won’t go hunting authoritarians but if they bring a fight, I’m ready to finish it. That includes authoritarian fascists and leftists, because I’m not on board with either.
The interpretation of the 2nd amendment that the courts take never made sense to me. It clearly says states can have well-regulated militias, not that citizens must have rifles with 50rd drum magazines.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Emphasis mine - obviously there’s more than one interpretation, but I think that if the intent was to only protect the rights of people to keep and bear arms if and only if they are members of some organized militia, it would have been clearly indicated by the text. It seems obvious to me that everything before that comma is explanatory, personally.
You can actually look at court cases that wildly expanded the second amendment throughout the years.
This idea that a gun is a given right for whatever reason you want was precisely not the understood reading of the text through much of the country’s history.
The reality is that a lot of that law discussion is bullshit, the Supreme Court infamously just picks and chooses constitutional interpretations to support whatever goes in line with whatever they wanted to do in the first place. The more you learn about the Supreme Court, the more obvious it becomes.
I can’t speak for the rest of Europe, but we don’t have anything similar here, but we don’t have a written constitution.
Perhaps. I read it as the “setup” being the emphasized part (i.e. the context set by the first part of the sentence), with the states being a representative of the “people” under the political theory at the time… This was written by the elite more or less fine with slavery and indentured servitude, and only thought that white male landowners really counted. Either way, I think regular citizens should be able own firearms.
Cops shouldn’t have assault rifles either, they’re not the military. I find the second amendment so fucking dumb. It’s to rise up against a tyrannical government. But since you have it, precisely now is the time to use it. Helloooow? Why don’t you use it? You have a tyrannical government full of pedophiles. All those decades full of innocent deaths, all so you can keep your precious second amendment, just in case you reach a point you are in now. Well, go ahaid then, prove all those deaths were worth it. Bunch of self-centered uneducated hypocrites.
I agree with you. The issue is that the people who have been fighting to keep the second amendment are the ones who are siding with and enabling the government. The pro-second amendment people are the ones who voted for Trump in the first place.
So? Are they the only ones allowed to buy guns? Or is the second amendment also for the Trump haters?
When my government would turn complete authoritarian fascist, I would love it if I could just buy a gun in the local supermarket.
I’m assuming from the way your comment is worded that you’re not from the U.S.
Blue states tend to have much stricter gun laws, as another user pointed out. For example, in California, “Assault Rifles” are banned. You most certainly cannot walk into a supermarket and buy an AR-15. As far as i’m aware, most major retailers including Walmart don’t sell guns at all in California. Even handguns have a maximum magazine capacity. No more than 10 rounds. Much less than your standard Glock or Sig Sauer.
I’d also like to point out that “Buying a gun in the local supermarket” is a little bit of a misconception. It’s true that some superstores sell guns, but they aren’t right next to the milk and bread. They’re in locked cabinets in a specific part of the store where you’ll also find other hunting equipment. The whole point of a superstore/supermarket is that they sell everything in one place as opposed to the pre-supermarket days where you had to go to multiple different stores just to get your weekly shopping supplies.
Over here, we don’t need to buy guns with our weekly shopping supplies. We have liquor over 20% alcohol in a different section of the store. Can’t even buy cigarettes at the supermarket. Even slingshots and batons are illegal here. Did you know, with a 10 round magazine you can still kill 10 people before reloading? If your aim is right. That’s an acceptable amount? As those magazine sizes are allowed.
That’s what i’ve been saying for years. You don’t need a 30 round AR-15. A manual, 4 - 5 round bolt-action hunting rifle in the right hands can also be used for a mass shooting. Yet they’re completely legal in states like California. The only reason “Assault Rifles” (and I use quotation marks because the name “Assault Rifle” is based on a misconception) are so heavily regulated and labeled as having “evil features” is because they look scary. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle, NOT full auto. Functionally, it’s no different to a hunting rifle. Yet the media never shuts up about that one specific model of rifle.
Looks Scary ≠ Lethality. I wish people would realize that.
Criminals don’t follow the rules anyway, so you can put as many restrictions on guns as you want for all the difference it will make. At least here in the U.S.
Unfortunately some people struggle to grasp that concept.
I’ve been in the military for 15 years. Semi auto is far more lethal than full auto. You control every bullet instead of emptying a full clip in a few seconds in spray mode, hitting with the first bullet and missing the rest. It’s just that you don’t know what the stray bullets hit.
Well for starters, we can’t just buy a gun in a supermarket. You seem to not actually know what you’re talking about and just get information from memes.
The democrat states/cities have much harsher gun laws. The republican states/cities aren’t going to resist Trump.
If more people would move to the left we would see more anti-fascist gun resistance (think Black Panther Party). But since people still believe that we can fix this decades-long decline by voting in the right Democrats, we’re going to have to learn the hard way.
What is an assault rifle? I don’t think what non-military civilians or police carry qualify. I know a few grandfathered fully automatic rifles are out there but they cost like $40k and they’re mostly in the hands of collectors. Most guns are semi auto and semi auto rifles are great for hunting things like wild boar.
The only problem is when we define everyone who disagrees with us as a fascist. I won’t go hunting authoritarians but if they bring a fight, I’m ready to finish it. That includes authoritarian fascists and leftists, because I’m not on board with either.
I’m not labeling anyone I don’t like a fascist. Like Trump, calling people fascist communists. Like, how does that even work exactly?
I only classify fascists as such if they behave like fascists.
The interpretation of the 2nd amendment that the courts take never made sense to me. It clearly says states can have well-regulated militias, not that citizens must have rifles with 50rd drum magazines.
That’s because Antonin Scalia was a feckless hypocrite
Emphasis mine - obviously there’s more than one interpretation, but I think that if the intent was to only protect the rights of people to keep and bear arms if and only if they are members of some organized militia, it would have been clearly indicated by the text. It seems obvious to me that everything before that comma is explanatory, personally.
You can actually look at court cases that wildly expanded the second amendment throughout the years.
This idea that a gun is a given right for whatever reason you want was precisely not the understood reading of the text through much of the country’s history.
It’s very funny to me how much of US law discussion is arguing the intent of what some slavers wrote 250 years ago.
Is it even worse in Europe? Are people holding up the Magna Carta and going “see, it was never intended for widows to remarry”
The reality is that a lot of that law discussion is bullshit, the Supreme Court infamously just picks and chooses constitutional interpretations to support whatever goes in line with whatever they wanted to do in the first place. The more you learn about the Supreme Court, the more obvious it becomes.
I can’t speak for the rest of Europe, but we don’t have anything similar here, but we don’t have a written constitution.
Perhaps. I read it as the “setup” being the emphasized part (i.e. the context set by the first part of the sentence), with the states being a representative of the “people” under the political theory at the time… This was written by the elite more or less fine with slavery and indentured servitude, and only thought that white male landowners really counted. Either way, I think regular citizens should be able own firearms.
I upvoted both comments, because I’m torn on this