Reminder that “muh 2a” was written over a half a century before the first mass produced revolver and the conical bullet.
Guns were a very different concept and proposition for the founders. The very few weapons of the time that could be fired more than once in quick succession were commissioned individually crafted curiosities.
Firearms could be devastating when you had a whole bunch of people to keep up a sustained fighting despite most of the people at a given time being busy reloading (and the firearms pretty much ditched if the opponent closed on you anyway). Also the range and accuracy were crap, which was still dangerous enough when you had a volley of a bunch at once fired vaguely toward a bunch of opponents.
In terms of being afraid of what a single person could in isolation do to people, the worst they would have ever faced were blades.
Also remember that freedom of the press meant physical printing presses where you had to manually move each piece of type by hand, and physically crank the press; anything more modern than that clearly wasn’t what they intended, and you shouldn’t have it. Like computers; there’s no typesetting on a computer, so you need to get rid of them.
Oh, and freedom of religion? That only includes Judeo-Christian religions. Sorry, Wiccans, no religious rights for you.
To the extent that we should honor their work (as opposed to it being subject for tailoring to our times) could be debated, but for sake of argument I’ll go with extrapolating their intent to the modern era.
For freedom of the press, they wanted the people to be able to communicate. It being even easier doesn’t seem to run counter to their goals, nor does it seem to complicate matters in their view.
For the religion, they did have among their ranks self-proclaimed “heretics”, so no, it wasn’t strictly about Judeo-Christian religions even from the onset.
For the right to bear arms, this one hits differently. What was their goal? It says quite plainly that states should be able to field well regulated militias, and so to do that, they need a good chunk of citizens with weapons ready to go. Those pea shooters were nigh useless except for hunting and as part of a larger force. The idea of a whole town of people self-organizing a militia might have been consistent with their goals, but the concept of a single actor able to pop off dozens of accurate lethal shots at a distance in a couple of minutes is a very distinct consideration that is wholly different than those goals and wasn’t in the equation at all.
‘And only white landowners will enjoy these rights.’
Yup. The electoral college was the only thing that mattered. Citizens were never intended to have an actual say in who was elected.
To be fair, the thing about guns probably made a lot more sense back then. And freedom of speech is great, until you start dealing with state secrets and national security.
They can say whatever they want criticizing the government without retribution from the government is what it means. It was never protecting anyone from openly saying anything they wanted.
You can say you’re going to murder your neighbor and be arrested legally and charged legally for it if they find reasonable means you were going to try it.
You can slander/libel someone and legally get sued in civil court as well.
You can say you’re going to murder your neighbor
You’re going to murder your neighbor!
until you start dealing with state secrets and national security.
So you think whistleblowers exposing the crimes of the state should be locked up…
Got it.
Did I say that? reread that, at no point do I say that whistleblowers should be locked up. What I meant is that it becomes much more complex in that context
Yes you did. Crimes done by government are the State’s most closely guarded (if not well kept) secrets.
EDIT: Downvoters already forgot all about Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, and David McBride, etc.
All of whom leaked evidence of crimes committed by their governments and were prosecuted for “revealing state secrets and endangering national security”.
then maybe there should be some whistleblower program or something idk. but at the same time people in the military who have secret war plans, shouldn’t be allowed to give that to the enemy. look at both sides
Seems like guns make a lot of sense right now too.
The shift in public perception on weapon ownership when they see actual tyrany in america is very interesting. Ive been 100% pro gun and have gotten so much backlash from family and friends for being so. I dont even own a gun and to me it has been obvious that the government and media were using mass shootings (not actually commiting them as far as we know) to disarm the people.
There are and have always been such a large number of safe, moral, and sane gun owners in this country. Normal people who target practice, hunt, shoot competatively, design guns, modify them, defend their homes, study weapon history, or even just put them on display. It baffles me that anyone could be so against normal hard working americans doing no harm whatsoever.
Not a single person I spoke with was ever against owning a car when I brought it up. I was always given the same “its not the same thing”. The common denominators in vehicular violence and gun violence are mental health, education, and financial status. I dont want to compare numbers on how many people are killed in either situation because it does not matter. Human lives are lost everyday needlessly to both of these. But only guns get talked about.
Curious to know if you or anyone else have recently become pro gun, or have you always felt this way?
I’m fairly left leaning, in the US I’d own a weapon. But only because of how much they are a part of life there. Living in a country where gun ownership is the exception, I’m only pro gun in the sense that I like things that go boom. What I like more is the relative certainty my neighbor won’t pull a piece on me on a bad day and we don’t have to kit schools out with dystopian crap like panic rooms in case some deranged lunatic rolls up.
Dont know if youve been to the US or know anyone here personally but guns are not as prevalent as you might think. Theyre definitely “around” but id imagine many people could go their whole life without seeing one. Obviously you have states like texas where they have an open carry day, You can see people walking around with rifles and ARs. But not including police officers, and millitary personel. I just dont see them. Your paranoia is justafied tho, we definitely see the worst of humanity often enough.
As an American, I largely agree, but had a story that’s related.
We had someone in town for work from another country. He asks us if we carry our guns with us or keep them in our cars, because he really wanted to take a look and maybe go out shooting since his home country would never let him anywhere near a gun and that was like the one top “American” thing he wanted to try while he was here. None of us in the group actually had guns on us, in our car, or at home. This sincerely seemed to baffle him. We gave him an explanation much like yours, that the prevalence of guns might be a bit exagerated in the media, but guns rarely make an appearance, and when they do we generally also get pretty nervous because it’s so unusual.
Well this discussion was just coming up on lunch and so we go to drive him to somewhere to eat and we get outside and he asks what all those noises were. “Oh, that’s gunfire from the shooting range across the road, we kind of forgot about it and tune it out because we always hear it on days with nice weather”.
They’re only a part of life for the gun fetishists, who only really sprung up after the assault weapon can was overturned. If you are not seeking them out, in most states, you don’t see them ever.
I’m not a recent pro gun lefty. I grew up in a rural area with a gunsmith father. I’ve owned firearms in the past sorta kinda, but recently picked up an AR and 9mm.
Nice, my grandpa is a gunsmith. I met alot of really nice people through his buisness. I guess that gave me a unique perspective on this debate. Being from north east USA not many people ive spoken to have aligned with me.
Congrats on the purchases I was considering getting a 9mm for home defense in my new location. But ive also been considering less lethal devices since most violent encounters my family members (grandpa side) have had were de-escalated by simply brandishing their weapon. Also my SO is very anti-gun Id want something even shed feel safe to have around or in the worst possible case use.
You could always try a .22? Still fairly lethal, but a lot less intimidating. Air rifles are another option. You can do some damage with them too.
I think anything that uses real amunition would probably freak her out if i showed up home with one. Air rifles are a good idea but they are slow to pressurize and the air cartridge ones dont seem to have the needed stopping power. Great suggestions tho im going to keep looking
What about a shotgun loaded with rocksalt? Non letal but everyone would stop whatever they’re doing as they’ll be writhing in pain on the floor
Since you bring up the car analogy, would you be OK with normal people who target practice, hunt, shoot competitively, etc carrying liability insurance for the weapons they own?
I wouldn’t mind liability insurance for guns if it’s similar to car insurance. Car insurance only covers about $30,000 per person injured/killed, maxing out around $60k per incident.
Unfortunately that low payout amount also means coverage is near useless. Especially when insurance coverage doesn’t go to the victims but to other insurance companies.
Absolutely, and like sports cars and trucks having higher costs. I believe single fire, burst action, and shotguns would have a lower cost than fully automatic or heavier caliber weapons would. Its relative destructive power would determine its cost to maintain a registration.
They are luxury items after all, no person really “needs” a weapon. Even with government tyrany, molotovs, home made liberator pistols, and the killdozer come to mind as more than viable alternatives.
Automatics and other weapons and explosives already require heavy tax stamps and long approval processes. I’ve also needed a weapon multiple times in my life in multiple states. I suppose people who live in a sheltered utopia may never need one but I certainly have, along with many people I’ve known including my father. Wildlife, humans, wild dogs even in cities (pepper spray isn’t a guaranteed deterrent, but I go for switchblade first with sidearm as backup), etc.
Automatics and other weapons and explosives already require heavy tax stamps and long approval processes.
I know but they were asking specifically about liability insurance. and I summed up the total cost similarly to that of a vehicle as “maintaing a registration” sorry for the confusion.
I was considering getting a 9mm for home defense in my new location. But ive also been considering less lethal devices since most violent encounters my family members (grandpa side) have had were de-escalated by simply brandishing their weapon.
I wrote this later on in the conversation. It probably seems contradictory but, Im with you man, you cannot be too careful nowadays, but I do strongly believe all of the mentioned situations (except wildlife) do not require a weapon of the caliber i was describing in reference to the liability insurance. sometimes a less lethal option would have been completely viable options. However in the case of animal attacks such as bears, dogs, wolves and coyotes. A slighly higher caliber would be necessary hence why you often see park rangers and handlers with .45/.50 on their hip.
What would you recommend for less lethal home defense? An another user suggested a shotgun with loaded with rocksalt, which has me looking into different non lethal cartridges. This seems like the best option for me and my antigun gf. Im looking for something she could wield in a worst case senarion im not around.
I already carry a quickdraw knife (cant and shouldnt carry a switch in my state) Example of the quickdraw with no springs https://youtu.be/PfIXVvwFnQo
I’m fine with an armed population, as long as people that might harm themselves or do mass shootings cant get weapons.
The problem with red flag laws in some jurisdictions are false accusations.
Even before getting into constitutionality there are these issues:
- Due Process Concerns:
-
Lack of Opportunity to be Heard: Red flag laws often allow for temporary confiscation of firearms without the individual being present in court or having an opportunity to present their case.
-
Ex Parte Proceedings: Some red flag laws allow for hearings to be conducted without the individual’s presence, raising concerns about fairness and due process.
-
Inadequate Legal Representation: There are concerns about whether individuals facing red flag petitions receive adequate legal representation, particularly if they cannot afford a lawyer.
- Potential for Misuse and Abuse:
-
Subjectivity in Defining “Risk”: The definition of what constitutes a dangerous individual or a threat can be subjective, potentially leading to the misuse of red flag laws.
-
Misapplication to Lawful Gun Owners: Some worry that red flag laws could be used against individuals who are not actually dangerous or who are not a risk to themselves or others.
-
Risk of Escalation: Some fear that law enforcement actions under red flag laws could escalate tense situations, potentially leading to confrontations.
But for the sake of completeness:
Infringement on Gun Rights: Critics argue that red flag laws infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, even if the gun is temporarily removed.
Violation of Property Rights: The temporary seizure of firearms raises questions about whether red flag laws violate an individual’s right to own property.
Potential for Discrimination: There are concerns that red flag laws could be used to target certain groups or individuals based on stereotypes or biases.
“people who do mass shootings can’t get weapons” just means “everybody gets to do one mass shooting but no more”
Or just implement a process to check the mental health of people who want to get guns, and if theyre insane and are at risk of doing that, then they dont get the guns
I reread your comment and I think I parsed it differently than the way you intended it.
what you said:
people that might harm themselves or do mass shootings
what you certainly must have meant by it:
people who might:
- harm themselves
- do mass shootings
the way I read it:
people who:
- might harm themselves
- do mass shootings
so there’s where my comment comes from.
Maybe put metal detectors/bag scanner at building entrances, especially for schools.
Those don’t work well for two reasons:
-
The shooter can simply shoot the lone guard manning the metal detector. Schools don’t have the resources to station a full SWAT team all day long at the front entrance.
-
An accomplice can open an emergency exit and let a gunman in through a side door. You need to have emergency exits for any public building.
Metal detectors are not as useful as one might think. They’ll catch a kid who thinks it’s OK to carry a gun around as an everyday carry item (think gang activity), but they don’t stop actual school shooters. They can be useful to keep gang violence out of schools, but they won’t stop mass shooter incidents.
-
Do you think that hasn’t been happening around the country already for the last couple decades already?
That just means the detector attendant is the first casualty.
Schools started doing that back when I was still in school (early 00s.) It doesn’t seem to have slowed school gun violence down, though it probably helps kids prepare for the school-prison pipeline.
Maybe school system is the problem
anything but the guns
Anything but the people who use the guns in a violent manner.
I don’t think that’s the easiest solution to this
WE NEED DOOR REFORM
Whatever works you know
yeah but you could just restrict gun access and that would work fine
With Trump around, might need the guns soon.
If you utter the words “freedom of speech is great, until…,” you are 100% a fascist.
Y’all can keep downvoting. Says a lot about you and your flexible morality.
Freedom of speech is great until you yell fire in a crowded theater
Let’s freedom of speech nuclear codes to terrorist organizations. Why not? Go away, disingenuous prick.
Ok, strawman.
Please stop calling out my stupid generalizations
Do you know what a strawman or edge case is?
Do you know what a sweeping generalization is?
A good description for constitutional rights, which have minimal if any limitations on them. Your edge cases don’t change that.
Yes, constitutional rights have to be crafted for most general scenarios.
Freedom of speech is great, until people start drawing swastikas
And they’re free to do that without reprisal from the government. But that doesn’t stop the community from beating their ass.
Do you think people in Germany should be allowed to draw swastikas while saying anti semitic things? Think carefully about your response
Free from government reprisal for acts of speech, yes. I would hope their neighbors wouldn’t tolerate it. But once it escalates beyond speech like that, there’s consequences.
yeah I don’t think people who have classified info should be allowed to give that to the enemy.
The problem that we now have is that anything embarrassing or incriminating for politicians gets classified.
I see what ur saying. this whole thing is complex
Substitute teacher vibes
And I’ll defend to the death their right to bear arms, err. Say it.
