In sane countries there’s no such thing as “right to have guns”. Even in US this “right” was never intended to mean that.
In sane countries there’s plenty of rules around having a gun permit and committing crimes, even non-violent ones, can be a reason to lose one. Consuming or being addicted to illegal substances can absolutely mean you should not be allowed to own deadly weapons.
Americans really do sound like they are constantly on the verge of civil war and taking away someone’s gun is basically a death sentence. “You can’t disarm drug users. How will they survive the war?” It would be hilarious if t wasn’t so sad.
Consuming or being addicted to illegal substances can absolutely mean you should not be allowed to own deadly weapons.
Ah yes because being addicted to a legal substance such as alcohol is leagues safer. No one ever got drunk and murdered anyone amirite. They’re not going to get rid of the 2nd amendment any time soon so while it’s still there at least we’re getting a bit more fairness from the laws.
Even in US this “right” was never intended to mean that.
I’m sure you’re going to start going on about Well Regulated Militias, and yet if someone tells you that they are in a militia that is organized and trains together regularly I bet you’re going to double down on your efforts to disarm them.
US constitution is a relict that should have been rewritten 150 years go. It contains many incredibly stupid rules like for example legalizing slavery. Pretty embarrassing in XXI century to be honest. The “well regulated militia” is just another stupid term and no one even remembers what it meant. Honestly, I don’t really care if you will allow your drug addicts and well regulated militias to keep their guns or not. I’m just saying that the entire situation is stupid and there’s nothing “common sense” about any of it.
We agree with your anti-weapon stance. But the USA does not give up its guns. Ergo, access should be equal, not only for the (rich) white middle aged folks…
Yes, I mean that they never meant to grant everyone some sacred right to own a gun. There were supposed to be some rules around it. Today no one can agree on what those rules were supposed to be. Is “well regulated militia” an army? Regulated by government? Is it still necessary to the security? If not does it still apply? It’s badly written, outdated law. Clinging to it like it’s the only thing saving the democracy is silly. The Supreme Court could abolish it as easily as it did all the other rights. We all know why it didn’t ($$$).
It has been cited many times before that “well regulated” meant sufficiently supplied and did not refer to how it was controlled. It doesn’t sound like you live here, so your opinion is not going to be taken very seriously to begin with, but your attempt to use modern vernacular to interpret a 250 year old document will get you ignored or ridiculed. Further, when the words “shall not be infringed” they did not fucking stutter, though infringement has been happening. This ruling reduces that infringement and is in fact a kind of fairness we haven’t seen from the Court since Roe vs Wade was originally decided.
And I do realize I’m not going to fix America. I just find it funny how you keep buying more guns to protect your rights but failed to actually protect any of them. Now you fight for more guns because that’s the only thing you can get. If guns were supposed to change anything, do you really think they would let you buy them?
In sane countries there’s no such thing as “right to have guns”. Even in US this “right” was never intended to mean that. In sane countries there’s plenty of rules around having a gun permit and committing crimes, even non-violent ones, can be a reason to lose one. Consuming or being addicted to illegal substances can absolutely mean you should not be allowed to own deadly weapons.
Americans really do sound like they are constantly on the verge of civil war and taking away someone’s gun is basically a death sentence. “You can’t disarm drug users. How will they survive the war?” It would be hilarious if t wasn’t so sad.
It’s just the equal application of the law in this case.
“Drug users” includes marijuana. It’s argued that the vast number of users can’t all be seen as dangerous. It’s clearly not what it was meant to do.
Ah yes because being addicted to a legal substance such as alcohol is leagues safer. No one ever got drunk and murdered anyone amirite. They’re not going to get rid of the 2nd amendment any time soon so while it’s still there at least we’re getting a bit more fairness from the laws.
Yes, “more guns” is usually the right answer. It’s not like guns ever killed anyone, amiright?
I assure you there will be the same amount of guns in the US with or without this ruling.
I’m sure you’re going to start going on about Well Regulated Militias, and yet if someone tells you that they are in a militia that is organized and trains together regularly I bet you’re going to double down on your efforts to disarm them.
US constitution is a relict that should have been rewritten 150 years go. It contains many incredibly stupid rules like for example legalizing slavery. Pretty embarrassing in XXI century to be honest. The “well regulated militia” is just another stupid term and no one even remembers what it meant. Honestly, I don’t really care if you will allow your drug addicts and well regulated militias to keep their guns or not. I’m just saying that the entire situation is stupid and there’s nothing “common sense” about any of it.
We agree with your anti-weapon stance. But the USA does not give up its guns. Ergo, access should be equal, not only for the (rich) white middle aged folks…
Okay, then can you explain what you meant by:
Because if it’s not the well regulated militia thing, I’m unaware.
Yes, I mean that they never meant to grant everyone some sacred right to own a gun. There were supposed to be some rules around it. Today no one can agree on what those rules were supposed to be. Is “well regulated militia” an army? Regulated by government? Is it still necessary to the security? If not does it still apply? It’s badly written, outdated law. Clinging to it like it’s the only thing saving the democracy is silly. The Supreme Court could abolish it as easily as it did all the other rights. We all know why it didn’t ($$$).
It has been cited many times before that “well regulated” meant sufficiently supplied and did not refer to how it was controlled. It doesn’t sound like you live here, so your opinion is not going to be taken very seriously to begin with, but your attempt to use modern vernacular to interpret a 250 year old document will get you ignored or ridiculed. Further, when the words “shall not be infringed” they did not fucking stutter, though infringement has been happening. This ruling reduces that infringement and is in fact a kind of fairness we haven’t seen from the Court since Roe vs Wade was originally decided.
Yes, let’s celebrate even more people will have guns in US. Thank god the Supreme Court is still able to make good decisions when it matters 😂
Again, we really don’t care what you think. This is a win for every American. I’m happy for you that you live in a utopia.
And I do realize I’m not going to fix America. I just find it funny how you keep buying more guns to protect your rights but failed to actually protect any of them. Now you fight for more guns because that’s the only thing you can get. If guns were supposed to change anything, do you really think they would let you buy them?
Agreed :)