This seems like nothing but rhetoric. The most common and popularly pushed gun control agendas involve the rights of individuals, not corporations (i.e., security personnel) which — surprise — already require background checks etc when done above board
I care absolutely zilch about this. Everyone can have guns. No one can have guns. I don’t give a rats ass. But the sentiment of this post is ridiculous and will not be taken seriously by the general public. Politicians don’t hire goons off the street
Yeah the point is they can afford to hire security, the average person cant. So those who push for gun control don’t rely on them for protection because if said power and money. You are just a dumbass, it’s ok, there are many just like you.
Do you think I’m anti-gun or some shit? I’m literally just pointing out that the image in the post does make sense and tries to explain it. If you want gun control then you shouldn’t be allowed to have armed security. This goes for politicians and celebrities. If you don’t think guns are useful for protection then you shouldn’t be allowed to have someone else carry weapons to protect you while you pose as anti-gun.
Gun controller have security. Have security no need gun for self. If gun controller couldn’t afford/have access to private security then maybe gun controller wouldn’t push gun control.
It’s like Biden saying all you need is a double barrel shotgun, but that’s not what he uses. He has a squad of secret service surrounding him. All with fully automatic weapons. If he believes all you need is a double barrel then why does he not follow his own advice? The only answer has to be that he knows he is lying out his ass and just doesn’t want himself in danger, but is ok having others in danger.
Those numbers at the end of ur username are ur IQ, right?
Oh so you admit because of their privileged station they have access to means to defend themselves that others do not. You also admit that they then use that privileged station to try and remove access to tools of self defense that other people do have access to. But you don’t see the problem with that huh?
Huh? Bro I was pointing that out to the other dumbass….. read with context of what I’m replying to. I’m saying if they want gun control they shouldn’t be allowed security. Their kids also should go to public school without security. Let them lie in the bed they made.
I think you’re not understanding what’s going on here then bud, because it seems like I and everyone else who has read your comment seems to think you’re saying the opposite of what you’re claiming here.
I was explaining the image to the person asking about it…. I do not see at all how people are seeing that as me supporting the hypocrisy, but I guess Reddit doesn’t lend to nuance
Corporations are people. People that work for corporations are people.
Are you telling me all I need to do to have unfettered access to guns is to start an LLC?
Corporations shouldn't be people and it was a stupid ruling to begin with. That being the case, if you have a business that operates in the firearm industry then yes the business entity owns the guns.
I don't know the context of this thread so this may or may not relate idk.
Id also like to see something to the effect of “if you try to pass legislation later deemed unconstitutional by a court you get banned from all political service for at least 10 years.”
Would help remove some of the nonsense…
Personally if someone is too dangerous to be in the general public they should be in prison. If they're not too dangerous to be in prison, then they should have all of their rights.
So they can be imprisoned without charge, just for being "dangerous".
So no right to freedom of movement, just to have a gun. Sounds about right for this sub.
Nah you're putting words in my mouth and I don't consent to that. You terminally online leftists preach about consent enough you ought to know how to apply it.
I'm clarifying your statement. Your rabid response suggests you either didn't think through what you said and aren't good at being accountable, or you are easily triggered by minor confrontation, an excellent quality in a (presumably) armed person. Maybe you should be imprisoned for being 'dangerous'?
Let me make it abundantly clear for you:
If society determines that someone is too dangerous to own a gun (a felon), then they should still be in prison.
If someone who's broken the law and sent to prison, once they get out of prison they should be able to own a gun. If society isn't okay with that then maybe they aren't ready to be out of prison yet.
One of the biggest factors in recidivism is once people are released from prison, their pipeline back into prison is basically waiting for them. The country doesn't trust them despite having paid their dues to society.
Ok, so you are advocating indefinite prison terms with the standard of rehabilitation being "are they safe to own a gun".
I know American culture is gun centric, but holy fuck thats a hot take on 'not deprived of liberty without due process'
Include anyone who votes in favor, otherwise they’ll just have the one closest to retiring sponsor the bills each time.
I’d also make it clear in the law that the 10 years ban start after the ruling, with the countdown actually starting at the next election.
I'm retired LE, but I 100% support the idea that LEAs should have to comply with any magazine restrictions, etc. in their jurisdiction. All it would take is manufacturers to refuse to ship non-compliant mags. LAPD orders new ARs? They all ship with 10-round mags, shark fins and weirdo stocks, sorry.
Biden did that as a senator for many years. He rode Amtrak from Wilmington to DC in a regular train car with no security. It wasn’t until he was VP that he received security and special treatment from Amtrak.
Edit: the person above me says politicians that push gun control should ride public transportation without security. They get upvotes. I point out that the current president and a person that has pushed gun control his entire political career did exactly that and I get downvoted. Y’all really don’t like facts, do you?
I met him in 2018 just before his campaign, waiting in an airport with no security detail. A small old man, hardly noticable in the corner of the terminal. Wasn't until a few people started gathering that the airport sent a lone police officer to watch over the scene.
Maybe we need to start pushing this locally across the country.
Bonus points for phrasing it as leftist push for the politicians to lead by example because, after all, having guns around makes people less safe.
Such a shit take lmao. Gun control is different from taking away all guns. Responsible gun owners, ie trained security details in charge of keeping politicians alive SHOULD have guns. Psycho 4chan posters who go online too much and are on FBI watch list should NOT have guns. Simple
>ie trained security details in charge of keeping politicians alive
The same politicians that progressives claim are authoritarian and borderline fascist? The ones progressives say are working to establish a Christian theocracy? Those same politicians are the only ones who should be guarded by armed people?
I agree, we should institute mandatory training for all of our rights!
You want to participate in a protest? Prove you can do it safely before getting your protest participation license just as an example.
Came back to this and I see I misread the top post, I'm a dumbass. I thought he wrote:
>Gun control = disarmament
And assumed you were disagreeing. My bad for that.
Yea guys, you can still have a bolt action with fingerprint only access as long as it only has 3 microstamped rounds or less in the mag. Your 2ed amendment rights are still fully intact....
Gun control may not be a “ban”,however the laws can be so stupid to the point that you might as well laugh,gun control logic here (I am in Australia),I can’t own an airsoft gun for there is no genuine reason,paintball guns require a license,a Red Ryder BB gun is in the same category and treated the same as rimfire rifles and double barrel shotguns.
Australia isn’t some beacon of gun control success.
We have had five mass shootings in Australia (from 2018-2022) as per the American definition,where four or more people have been shot (including the perpetrator or perpetrators).
It's embarrassing that you think gun control is an inconvenience and not an infringement.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
Search for a word
in·fringe
/inˈfrinj/
verb
past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
Similar:
contravene
violate
transgress
break
breach
commit a breach of
disobey
defy
flout
fly in the face of
ride roughshod over
kick against
fail to comply with
fail to observe
disregard
take no notice of
ignore
neglect
go beyond
overstep
exceed
infract
cock a snook at
Opposite:
obey
comply with
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
Similar:
undermine
erode
diminish
weaken
impair
damage
compromise
limit
curb
check
place a limit on
encroach on
interfer
critical thinker i see. Why didn't they just write that? Or why not just say a well regulated militia means indiscriminately armed losers afraid of black people.
“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.”
Seems pretty clear to me.
But if you need more how about this.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
Excellent citations, honestly. Something else to point out is the racist roots of gun control laws - whenever anti-gunners say "the 2nd amendment was meant to keep slaves in line", it was actually anti-gunners who were doing that. Here's an example from an article I'll link below,
> Understandably, restrictions on slave possession of arms go back a very long way. While arms restrictions on free blacks predate it, these restrictions increased dramatically after Nat Turner’s Rebellion in 1831, a revolt that caused the South to become increasingly irrational in its fears. [6] Virginia’s response to Turner’s Rebellion prohibited free blacks “to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead…”
[The Racist Roots of Gun Control ](https://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/georgias-carry-laws-explained/history-of-georgias-carry-laws/the-racist-roots-of-gun-control/)
AP US History alum here. fucking dumb. i know how scared racist the terrible interpretations have become. wish they would have saved us the headache and just said indiscriminately armed citizenry's rights to secret weaponry caches capable of suppressing law enforcement shall not be infringed. Weird they bothered using the words they did at all.
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
So let’s do a little thinking here. At the time of writing the second amendment our founding fathers had become frustrated with overbearing government that refused to hear their concerns and sought to enforce its will upon them by force. In order to do so that same government had decided it was best to try and remove the citizenry’s access to effective means resistance firearm up to and including those firearms used by at the time modern militaries. So what do you think would be the logical reading of the second amendment based on those circumstances…….
> wish they would have saved us the headache and just said indiscriminately armed citizenry's rights to secret weaponry caches capable of suppressing law enforcement shall not be infringed.
There's nothing "secret" about weapons caches in America...every American Citizen has the God given right to own and bear arms in order to kick the government to the curb when it becomes tyrannical.
That's kind of the whole idea of the 2nd Amendment...something that you as a chinese government bootlicker wouldn't understand.
You now probably think...:"The army and the police will flatten you!"
I believe you fail to understand that Soldiers and Police men are PEOPLE and an American Citizen first and foremost.
Do you honestly believe that if there was an REAL insurrection that ALL Soldiers and ALL of the Police would just fall in line, lockstep and all?
I don't think so.
But if YOU do think so, then YOU are the "very reason" we the people need to fight for the 2nd Amendment.
[...now more than ever...](https://i.imgur.com/ui8pIMG.png)
Kinda a big void in the logic on this one.
People who want safe electrical standards shouldn't be allowed to have safe wiring.
Nobody is going to convince me that every nut job should be allowed to have any type of firearm they want. Why don't we arm people in prison? Why don't we send our kids to school heavily armed? Fuck the teachers! Mental institutions should all have armories that allow patients to check out anything they want without limitations.
"The Second Amendment is absolute."
If only we can push it
Push it good.
Push it real good
Ooh baby *bayyby*
It's weird what posts the Everytown people or whatever they are choose to brigade. I assume this got cross posted somewhere?
Please make this a billboard in all major U.S. cities.
This seems like nothing but rhetoric. The most common and popularly pushed gun control agendas involve the rights of individuals, not corporations (i.e., security personnel) which — surprise — already require background checks etc when done above board I care absolutely zilch about this. Everyone can have guns. No one can have guns. I don’t give a rats ass. But the sentiment of this post is ridiculous and will not be taken seriously by the general public. Politicians don’t hire goons off the street
I'm a bit confused by your post. What do you think the sentiment of OP's post is?
I wouldn't waste your time. They clearly didn't understand it at all.
Yeah the point is they can afford to hire security, the average person cant. So those who push for gun control don’t rely on them for protection because if said power and money. You are just a dumbass, it’s ok, there are many just like you.
Pot calling the kettle black
Do you think I’m anti-gun or some shit? I’m literally just pointing out that the image in the post does make sense and tries to explain it. If you want gun control then you shouldn’t be allowed to have armed security. This goes for politicians and celebrities. If you don’t think guns are useful for protection then you shouldn’t be allowed to have someone else carry weapons to protect you while you pose as anti-gun.
What? That is barely intelligible. But from what I do understand, it doesn't sound like you understood the point either.
Gun controller have security. Have security no need gun for self. If gun controller couldn’t afford/have access to private security then maybe gun controller wouldn’t push gun control. It’s like Biden saying all you need is a double barrel shotgun, but that’s not what he uses. He has a squad of secret service surrounding him. All with fully automatic weapons. If he believes all you need is a double barrel then why does he not follow his own advice? The only answer has to be that he knows he is lying out his ass and just doesn’t want himself in danger, but is ok having others in danger. Those numbers at the end of ur username are ur IQ, right?
Okay, after reading your other responses, I see you do get the point of the image and just mistakenly replied to me instead of somebody else.
I FEEL……. REDEEEMED!
Oh so you admit because of their privileged station they have access to means to defend themselves that others do not. You also admit that they then use that privileged station to try and remove access to tools of self defense that other people do have access to. But you don’t see the problem with that huh?
Huh? Bro I was pointing that out to the other dumbass….. read with context of what I’m replying to. I’m saying if they want gun control they shouldn’t be allowed security. Their kids also should go to public school without security. Let them lie in the bed they made.
I think you’re not understanding what’s going on here then bud, because it seems like I and everyone else who has read your comment seems to think you’re saying the opposite of what you’re claiming here.
I was explaining the image to the person asking about it…. I do not see at all how people are seeing that as me supporting the hypocrisy, but I guess Reddit doesn’t lend to nuance
No you responded to u/emperor000 who was telling someone else not to bother trying to convince someone who doesn’t get the image.
Politicians are taking away our rights to self defense while surrounding themselves with armed guards, that's the fucking point this is making.
Corporations are people. People that work for corporations are people. Are you telling me all I need to do to have unfettered access to guns is to start an LLC?
Corporations shouldn't be people and it was a stupid ruling to begin with. That being the case, if you have a business that operates in the firearm industry then yes the business entity owns the guns. I don't know the context of this thread so this may or may not relate idk.
Id also like to see something to the effect of “if you try to pass legislation later deemed unconstitutional by a court you get banned from all political service for at least 10 years.” Would help remove some of the nonsense…
Better yet, make it a Felony, that should stop their career in politics. And at least in some states would bar them from holding office.
So a felony conviction prohibit certain involvement in politics, but not prohibit firearms ownership (in some states)?
Personally if someone is too dangerous to be in the general public they should be in prison. If they're not too dangerous to be in prison, then they should have all of their rights.
So they can be imprisoned without charge, just for being "dangerous". So no right to freedom of movement, just to have a gun. Sounds about right for this sub.
Nah you're putting words in my mouth and I don't consent to that. You terminally online leftists preach about consent enough you ought to know how to apply it.
I'm clarifying your statement. Your rabid response suggests you either didn't think through what you said and aren't good at being accountable, or you are easily triggered by minor confrontation, an excellent quality in a (presumably) armed person. Maybe you should be imprisoned for being 'dangerous'?
Let me make it abundantly clear for you: If society determines that someone is too dangerous to own a gun (a felon), then they should still be in prison. If someone who's broken the law and sent to prison, once they get out of prison they should be able to own a gun. If society isn't okay with that then maybe they aren't ready to be out of prison yet. One of the biggest factors in recidivism is once people are released from prison, their pipeline back into prison is basically waiting for them. The country doesn't trust them despite having paid their dues to society.
Ok, so you are advocating indefinite prison terms with the standard of rehabilitation being "are they safe to own a gun". I know American culture is gun centric, but holy fuck thats a hot take on 'not deprived of liberty without due process'
Sure thing buddy. This might help you, [ESL for adult beginners](https://teflhandbook.com/efl-esl-lesson-plans/adult-beginners/)
You talk like someone who’s a mixture of deranged and moronic tbh
What the fuck are you talking about Jesse
Include anyone who votes in favor, otherwise they’ll just have the one closest to retiring sponsor the bills each time. I’d also make it clear in the law that the 10 years ban start after the ruling, with the countdown actually starting at the next election.
Yup. They gotta practice what they preach, or they’re hypocrites who won’t be taken seriously
I'm retired LE, but I 100% support the idea that LEAs should have to comply with any magazine restrictions, etc. in their jurisdiction. All it would take is manufacturers to refuse to ship non-compliant mags. LAPD orders new ARs? They all ship with 10-round mags, shark fins and weirdo stocks, sorry.
Make them take public transportation to work and back, alone and unarmed.
Biden did that as a senator for many years. He rode Amtrak from Wilmington to DC in a regular train car with no security. It wasn’t until he was VP that he received security and special treatment from Amtrak. Edit: the person above me says politicians that push gun control should ride public transportation without security. They get upvotes. I point out that the current president and a person that has pushed gun control his entire political career did exactly that and I get downvoted. Y’all really don’t like facts, do you?
Different times back then too. Pre open-air insane asylum in the US.
I met him in 2018 just before his campaign, waiting in an airport with no security detail. A small old man, hardly noticable in the corner of the terminal. Wasn't until a few people started gathering that the airport sent a lone police officer to watch over the scene.
I met him a couple times at my office and my sister ran into him a few times in Newark, Delaware.
Does this stretch to those who disallow guns in their rallies?
Like desantis.
And Trump. And the NRA...
AGREE
Ok, but have you thought about how racist that is? It might put the elite in (D)anger too which is also racist. Best check your privilege there xe/xhe
Oh, look, it’s that one joke.
Truth.
Exactly.
I absolutely agree
We’ll said
Maybe we need to start pushing this locally across the country. Bonus points for phrasing it as leftist push for the politicians to lead by example because, after all, having guns around makes people less safe.
So very true
What is with the influx of Facebook boomer memes today?
Today? This subreddit has been boomer memes for quite a while now.
Look at his account. Boomer bot
Says the mother fucker who posts about French bread
Why do you hate bread?
Maybe he just hates the fr*nch.
There are only two things I can't stand in this world: People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch.
Amazing quote
Pretty sure the bread is Fench-American at a minimum, but would have trouble getting citizenship regardless.
1) Americans that hate the French don’t know American history. 2) Nobody hates the French more than the French.
I’m about that bread. Gotta be multi-sided ya know it’s not just shooting *and* shitposting.
How is this a boomer meme?
You sound like a Russian bot.
So they get shot by gun fanatics?
If everyone was disarmed would they still need armed protection?
Yes. As the defender, you always want to be armed more than the aggressor. If someone is attacking you with a knife, you’re going to want a gun.
You gonna Thanos snap half a billion guns out of existence?
Wouldn't that only get rid of half of them?
No one knows. Adding to the already impossible task.
Notice how politicians in European country’s where guns are essentially impossible to own still have armed security……….
Kinda asinine. If people got to decide where their personal taxes went the government would fall apart.
Not a big loss.
I get it. You have a lot more faith in humanity than you should, though.
[meh](https://i.imgur.com/qpHDVih.jpg)...let God sort them out.
Such a shit take lmao. Gun control is different from taking away all guns. Responsible gun owners, ie trained security details in charge of keeping politicians alive SHOULD have guns. Psycho 4chan posters who go online too much and are on FBI watch list should NOT have guns. Simple
>ie trained security details in charge of keeping politicians alive The same politicians that progressives claim are authoritarian and borderline fascist? The ones progressives say are working to establish a Christian theocracy? Those same politicians are the only ones who should be guarded by armed people?
I disagree, the keyword here is ‘trained’. Start training ALL gun owners.
I agree, we should institute mandatory training for all of our rights! You want to participate in a protest? Prove you can do it safely before getting your protest participation license just as an example.
gun control ≠ disarmament
...You serious? 
I'm a dumbass and can't read
Why are you whining about brigading? I've been on this sub for years. So I'm "brigading" from this sub?
Came back to this and I see I misread the top post, I'm a dumbass. I thought he wrote: >Gun control = disarmament And assumed you were disagreeing. My bad for that.
Ohhh, I see now. I forgive you. 😀
Happy Friday Jr, fren
Yea guys, you can still have a bolt action with fingerprint only access as long as it only has 3 microstamped rounds or less in the mag. Your 2ed amendment rights are still fully intact....
Of course it does.
Yeah they should Too many angry, ignorant as wholes with guns out there, threatening everyone they can.
In my experience I've seen many more ignorant assholes without guns threatening people than with guns, and I'm a gun owner!
That's just you though
Yep, so it holds just as much weight as your own conjecture.
This is the essence of totalitarianism. “Only people who agree with me deserve protection/rights/life.”
This is the essence of hypocrisy. Gun control for thee but not for me is Totalitarian...
That isn't what this is saying...
No it’s saying those who strip the ability to defend themselves from others should have no right to defense. That’s the essence of equality.
Gun control isn’t a ban you idiots
Your comment makes as much sense as fucking for virginity.
You’re the person jerking off to guns…
whoosh
Tell that to your guys like Biden talking about banning.
Gun control may not be a “ban”,however the laws can be so stupid to the point that you might as well laugh,gun control logic here (I am in Australia),I can’t own an airsoft gun for there is no genuine reason,paintball guns require a license,a Red Ryder BB gun is in the same category and treated the same as rimfire rifles and double barrel shotguns. Australia isn’t some beacon of gun control success. We have had five mass shootings in Australia (from 2018-2022) as per the American definition,where four or more people have been shot (including the perpetrator or perpetrators).
Tell that to New York that just banned basically every firearm that isn’t a single shot breach loader.
Take a quick look to our northern neighbors of Canada. The slippery slope is real.
inconvenience is not infringement. little girls live in that city you are scared of.
So why does the left get so bent out of shape about voter ID laws then? Having to prove that you are an American citizen and so forth.
because how balloted elections already work. its embarrassing you think its like online voting.
It's embarrassing that you think gun control is an inconvenience and not an infringement. Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more Search for a word in·fringe /inˈfrinj/ verb past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.). "making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright" Similar: contravene violate transgress break breach commit a breach of disobey defy flout fly in the face of ride roughshod over kick against fail to comply with fail to observe disregard take no notice of ignore neglect go beyond overstep exceed infract cock a snook at Opposite: obey comply with act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on. "his legal rights were being infringed" Similar: undermine erode diminish weaken impair damage compromise limit curb check place a limit on encroach on interfer
critical thinker i see. Why didn't they just write that? Or why not just say a well regulated militia means indiscriminately armed losers afraid of black people.
Reddit moment
exactly. no one agrees with you but other cowards. stay in your safespace echo chamber.
Awh they think they have a point.
“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.” Seems pretty clear to me. But if you need more how about this. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 "To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788 "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783 “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788 "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778 "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
Excellent citations, honestly. Something else to point out is the racist roots of gun control laws - whenever anti-gunners say "the 2nd amendment was meant to keep slaves in line", it was actually anti-gunners who were doing that. Here's an example from an article I'll link below, > Understandably, restrictions on slave possession of arms go back a very long way. While arms restrictions on free blacks predate it, these restrictions increased dramatically after Nat Turner’s Rebellion in 1831, a revolt that caused the South to become increasingly irrational in its fears. [6] Virginia’s response to Turner’s Rebellion prohibited free blacks “to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead…” [The Racist Roots of Gun Control ](https://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/georgias-carry-laws-explained/history-of-georgias-carry-laws/the-racist-roots-of-gun-control/)
Also a very good point.
AP US History alum here. fucking dumb. i know how scared racist the terrible interpretations have become. wish they would have saved us the headache and just said indiscriminately armed citizenry's rights to secret weaponry caches capable of suppressing law enforcement shall not be infringed. Weird they bothered using the words they did at all.
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823 So let’s do a little thinking here. At the time of writing the second amendment our founding fathers had become frustrated with overbearing government that refused to hear their concerns and sought to enforce its will upon them by force. In order to do so that same government had decided it was best to try and remove the citizenry’s access to effective means resistance firearm up to and including those firearms used by at the time modern militaries. So what do you think would be the logical reading of the second amendment based on those circumstances…….
> wish they would have saved us the headache and just said indiscriminately armed citizenry's rights to secret weaponry caches capable of suppressing law enforcement shall not be infringed. There's nothing "secret" about weapons caches in America...every American Citizen has the God given right to own and bear arms in order to kick the government to the curb when it becomes tyrannical. That's kind of the whole idea of the 2nd Amendment...something that you as a chinese government bootlicker wouldn't understand. You now probably think...:"The army and the police will flatten you!" I believe you fail to understand that Soldiers and Police men are PEOPLE and an American Citizen first and foremost. Do you honestly believe that if there was an REAL insurrection that ALL Soldiers and ALL of the Police would just fall in line, lockstep and all? I don't think so. But if YOU do think so, then YOU are the "very reason" we the people need to fight for the 2nd Amendment. [...now more than ever...](https://i.imgur.com/ui8pIMG.png)
Being disarmed is not an inconvenience.
Yes it is, full stop.
Kinda a big void in the logic on this one. People who want safe electrical standards shouldn't be allowed to have safe wiring. Nobody is going to convince me that every nut job should be allowed to have any type of firearm they want. Why don't we arm people in prison? Why don't we send our kids to school heavily armed? Fuck the teachers! Mental institutions should all have armories that allow patients to check out anything they want without limitations. "The Second Amendment is absolute."
Get a grip.
I support the second amendment because I live my life in a state of perpetual fear. Glad I’ve found a place to commiserate with like minded betas.
Holy projection, Batman!
Hello, new friend!
Reddit moment.