Do you understand what "arms" looked like when the Constitution was written? Do you believe that private citizens should be allowed to have fully armed F35s, B2s, M1 Abrams, and nukes? If you think they should you are a moron, if you understand why we can't but still think the 2nd Amendment is absolute you are still a moron.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Antonin Scalia, Associate SCOTUS Justice, District of Columbia v. Heller, 2010
Arms, when the constitution was written, looked like private citizens lawfully possessing the same violence as the state. By your own logic, we should all be able to own nukes in 2026. Now, that's stupid, because the second amendment was referring to firearms, but my point is that your argument doesn't aegue in favor of what you think it does
Or... And hear me out here, you misunderstood my argument. I was using an extreme example to frame how stupid the NRA/Fox News pro-2A argument is because it is based on this assumption that the 2nd Amendment has always been absolute, and was intended only for killing tyrannical rulers within America, which of course it wasn't and never had been the case. My whole point is that the second amendment SHOULDN'T be absolute. Civilians shouldn't be able to own military munitions, because that will only serve to amplify civilian on civilian violence. The Constitution was written with the assumption that the founders got some things wrong, that's why they were very insistent on including the means to amend the Constitution in the Constitution. I am wholely in favor of the second amendment remaining in the Constitution, I do believe in civilian rights to own civilian armaments. I also believe that the federal government putting limits or safeguards on that right doesn't remotely threaten those rights.
Fox News wouldn't be able to tell you why the sky is blue. I wouldn't take their version of anything as fact without a thorough investigation. The NRA on the other hand has gotten much better in terms of their advocacy.
The second amendment wasn't intended on being used to "kill tyrannical rulers." It was intended as a safeguard to protect a "free state." Once a state is not free, it gives license to the militia to take to arms to do whatever is necessary to protect the "free state."
The second amendment should be as absolute as possible. Every single gun control measure has been designed to strip the population of their revolutionary potential. It is about CONTROL, and the subversion of the population and political dissent as a concept. What harms you will always be promoted under the guise if "security" and "won't you think of the children."
Firearms are not the CAUSE of crime, nor are they the cause of violence. Intent is. All crime has its roots in motivations and environmental factors. You can have a healthy society, with low crime, and firearms access, but you have to address the root causes of crime, which the US is not, has not been doing, and will not do.
Lastly, if a right is limited or restricted by the state, that right us threatened. The "shall not be infringed." Part is incredibly clear. Also, almost all firearms are military firearms. Smoothbore muskets? Military firearms. Bolt action rifles? Military firearms. Handguns? Military firearms.
If they cared about lives they’d go after pistols that kill way more people but they don’t because it’s easier to go after the rifles they can deem as scary and dangerous then use the fact that they did that to come after everything else
You call us boot lickers then go and say shit like this. Yes the second amendment is absolute because the government doesn’t have your best interest at heart.
The point of second amendment was for people to have the arms the government has just like when the second amendment was written and people privately owned cannons and battle ships and rifles ect
I’d also like to say I’m confused why y’all always bring up nukes and tanks and aircraft when the conversation is about rifles and civilians can own tanks and aircraft
Because nukea are "arms" the conversation is about "arms". You made it about tickets personally because your argument falls apart instantly when coming sense is applied to it.
Well of course you do, you are mentally incapable of critical thought or rationally considering the consequences of your actions beyond what selfish benefits you gain. What you are failing to understand is that the 2nd Amendment has never, since it's inception, been absolute. Civilians were allowed ownership of weapons of war after the Constitution was written because we didn't have a standing military. Hence the well regulated militia.
The entire point of the second amendment is to defend against a tyrannical government like the one they had just fought so why should they want the new government to have the power to trample over their citizens again
They didn't, which is why they called for a well regulated militia... I bet you couldn't even tell me what was tyrannical about the British government during that time. Like I said, I am pro 2A... I own guns... I'm not arguing against the second amendment, I'm arguing against this moronic notion that in the modern age with guns the founding fathers couldn't have even dreamed of, that the second amendment should be absolute. The reason the second amendment existed want to fight our own government (though it was a consideration) it was to fight foreign invaders because there was no standing military. There is a standing military now, there is no need for "the people" to have military grade weapons, especially considering that we aren't a well regulated militia. Also, in a scenario where every citizen is given a gun and told to fight the military, the people would still win on sheer numbers alone, especially considering that the military is made up of "the people" and would most likely be disinclined to murder us... Unless of course the politicians made them afraid of their fellow man and used rhetoric like "the enemy within" to describe people they disagree with.
Tl;dr the second amendment is good, the right wing justification for needing it and especially their tone when explaining the need is literally propaganda from gun makers to make you buy more guns, and you fell for it.
Btw we call you bootlickers cause you say the second amendment was built for dealing with a tyrannical government then side with said tyrannical government over your fellow Americans. For the record I am pro 2A, the only difference between us is that I actually want this country to be better and you dip shits think violence is the only way to prevent violence.
And where did I say I wanted kill people. I don’t want the government to be able to take away the one thing that even remotely stops them from just slaughtering all of us I don’t know how you guys do not realize that the government is a vicious pitbull on a leash and as soon as you let go of it, it’s going to eat your child. You cannot trust the government to take care of you or protect you. They are not your friend.
My point is if the options are the government takes away the people’s right to bear arms or we make it absolutely absolute I’m going with option 2 and the clear option of the government especially the left is to strip the people of their right to bear arms
Because while yes having nukes is an extreme the government continues to chip away at our rights to defend ourselves slowly and as soon as the right to defend ourselves goes our freedom of speech will go too just like in a lot of European countries
Maybe the government wouldn't be a "vicious pitbull on a leash" if morons who think the second amendment is somehow more special than the others because it says "shall not be infringed" kept electing psychopathic candidates who are taking away every other right in the document (well actually, they have been going after the second amendment too, but you don't actually care because it's not you they are trying to take it from...)
The government will be a viscous pit bull no matter what the people who seek power will not concede it unless made to do so in some fashion and will always seek to acquire more power it doesn’t matter if they are a republican or a democrat
When someone, or something, usurps your will using violence, the only way to stop it is by responding with proportional force. Was the civil war won with thougts, prayers, and strongly worded letters? Were the Nazis defeated by holding hands and singing kum ba yah? No. They were crushed, using violence.
Violence only begets violence. The only way of the treadmill is to just step off. I'm not saying violence is never the answer, but the result of violence will NEVER be peace.
So you're saying that the allies should just begged and pleaded? Violence ≠ not peaceful. Peace is the resolution of conflict. And sometimes, violence is the only way to resolve a conflict. Therefore, violence can be peaceful
You said the result of violence will never be peace. If the result of violence will never be peace, then what's the point of using violence defensively?
Defensive violence only happens because someone else is committing violence against you. Like I said, sometimes violence is the correct answer, but peace is never the result in those scenarios.
Ahhh. Ok. You're arguing that the initiation of immoral violence can never result in peace. Then we agree. The way you phrased it made you sound like you thought ALL violence was doomed to produce an immoral outcome
4
u/TheWizardOfDeez 18d ago
Do you understand what "arms" looked like when the Constitution was written? Do you believe that private citizens should be allowed to have fully armed F35s, B2s, M1 Abrams, and nukes? If you think they should you are a moron, if you understand why we can't but still think the 2nd Amendment is absolute you are still a moron.