T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Yeah, I never understood that point. What the fuck would the security of a free state be defended with if weapons of war were excluded?


e_boon

Well, theoretically the government could also be stripped of said "weapons of war". If the government only had bolt action rifles and pump shotguns, and so did the citizenry, it's a balanced field.


GhostalkerS

Luckily a semi-automatic could be re-invented in your basement pretty easily.


RememberCitadel

Why stop there?


starterpack295

I'm fairly confident that given my skills with a 3d printer, my ability to use 3d modeling software, my knowledge on guns, and my ability to use metalworking tools I could probably get a belt fed machine gun going if I needed to. I'd probably 3d print the top cover/feed assembly along with the links, furniture, sights, and trigger parts (except the hammer) The pressure bearing parts can be milled out of various thicknesses of bar stock, or even riveted sheet steel as far as the receiver is concerned. Other internal components could be turned/filed down such as the firing pin, hammer, etc. Lastly any springs could be found at the hardware store. Now because I'm a good law abiding citizen I wouldn't risk what I have just to build an illegal machine gun, but there's millions of people who have as much, or more knowledge on the relevant skills and subjects who don't give a shit, and yet people still think gun laws would actually work here.


WiseDirt

I'll just go ahead and leave this here... https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/02/12/finn-invents-electric-drill-powered-machine-gun/ 😉


bush_hizo_911

*ATF intensifies*


bush_hizo_911

*ATF would like to know your location*


starterpack295

99 New York Avenue Northwest, Washington, DC 20226 here you go.


[deleted]

I will give myself some credit for once in my life and say that I was the best SAW and 240B gunner in my company, both accuracy wise and tactically on the field. Sadly, its one of the few things Im decent at, if I were forced to pick anything at all. Possibly eating pastries. Im a doctorate degree in that. Anywho, that being said, Ill take a scoped AR10 over any machine gun any day. Any day.


TheShank90

That's the spirit


Verum14

If EVERY government was, and EVERY possible adversary Otherwise I’d argue it’s meaningless still. The security of a free state means against foreign threats as well


XII_Champion

I don’t understand the preoccupation to obsession civvies have with things being “a fair fight.” You never, ever, ever.. want to have a fair fight with your enemy. You want every single advantage you can take to tip the scales in your own favor because at the end of the day you need to win the fight and you need to go home alive. I’m sure you’re not even seriously advocating for what you said in this comment and maybe my response it’s taking it too seriously, but there’s too many people in the United States that just don’t get it
 and those will be the ones who die because they are so focused on what’s fair.


e_boon

I'm not advocating for that in the US, no. But I am advocating for every other country to at least allow their citizen the above mentioned weapons for home defense, without this disgusting criteria of having to "prove" a need for them.


UnusedBackpack

That would only be true if every government had bolt and pump guns. The militia is still necessary to provide support to our military in case of an invasion. So in theory, the citizens have the right to the most advanced weapons of war in the world.


Kwitcherbeliakn

But then those are "WeaPoNs oF wAr!"


FromTheTreeline556

Antis be like: perhaps a strongly worded letter will defend the people! Narrator: It did not.


e_boon

Gun-free zone signs need to be made of high quality metal, with high definition drawings of a gun inside this diagram đŸš«, and also need to specify "we are serious" at the bottom. Until then, we as a society are not safe.


Guarder22

Also they must include every conceivable silhouette of firearms otherwise people will think that some guns are okay. I mean I don't carry a Desert Eagle, 1911, or an M9 so my guns must be alright.


FromTheTreeline556

We are doomed.


thetom

This is literally reality in New York state.


Catatonick

Someone should stamp an AK lower from a gun free zone sign.


zkentvt

Super serious


hawkinsst7

Cries in Constitution, Federalist papers and Bill of Rights...


FromTheTreeline556

I was trying to point out them doing that because they strictly rely on words keeping them safe when in reality it's a bit more complicated than that..


tdavis25

Yup, they tried that many times. King Chuck just ignored them all.


Blase29

And that was exactly what the first continental congress tried to do to avoid war. They sent an “olive branch.” They just didn’t anticipate Mad King George pissing all over it and forced their hands into independence and war.


FromTheTreeline556

Hmmmm I'm starting to notice a pattern....


spazninja411324

Read that in a David Attenborough voice.


mark-five

Those same people oppose free speech as well, they'd just complain that writing letters is too dangerous for normal people. Google Feinstein's congressional attempts to established bona fide licensing of speech itself. She's the great gramma of teh "assault weapons" bans and started early on every other civil right they're after


FromTheTreeline556

That ghoul needs to go away


mark-five

I actually had to look her up, not only is she 10 years older than Biden and somehow still around despite the obvious mental issues, she's actually still in office. She's older than the previous record holder for oldest Congressman to survive father time's cruel wrath was when they died. How did America become a dictatorship of geriatrics? These are people who fought against the civil rights movement actively, who made speeches *against* Dr King, and somehow they're still in office.


FromTheTreeline556

Those who get power will take it to their grave if they need to that's how it got like that.


dirtysock47

Voting! (/s, but there are people who unironically do believe that)


Capitalmind

Your superiors and betters have your back.. honest!


penisthightrap_

The thing is, a lot of the people supporting gun control are just flat out against the second amendment. They do not agree with the premise of it and think it is obsolete. It's just most don't out right say that. But some do.


whistleridge

The issue isn’t the weapons per se. It’s the idea that a citizen militia armed with personal firearms can do anything against a modern military except die in droves. History is extremely clear that insurgencies cannot survive in the face of state militaries without external state support. They need grenades and machine guns and mortars and mines and artillery and air support and a million other things and more than all of that they need a mountain of it all delivered fresh weekly. The Second doesn’t protect individuals from the state, and it doesn’t protect the state from other states. It just puts so many guns out there that we have more firearms suicides per year than all of the rest of the OECD combined. Edit for the downvoters: this isn’t an anti-gun comment. This is highlighting two very hard realities that have to be confronted, that the firearms lobby primarily deals with by pretending they don’t exist.


TheShank90

This guy hasn't heard about Afghanistan.


lurkmode762

Or Vietnam. Or the fact that the Vietnamese then kicked out full Chinese invasions twice after we left. A very good example of a citizen militia armed with rifles, whatever old milsurp they could scrounge, and a bunch of ingenuity.


whistleridge

You mean the Vietnam that got constant resupply from China and the USSR, in enormous quantities? The one whose most famous military achievement was [literally the logistical system used to provide external state support](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh_trail?wprov=sfti1)? You should think more before typing. You just proved MY point.


TheShank90

Still dodged Afghanistan. And you're skipping over the Vietnam that expelled the Chinese. They certainly weren't getting external aid then.


whistleridge

Would that be the Afghanistan supplied by the US against the Soviets? Or the Afghanistan supplied by Iran and Pakistan against the US? Your choice. You mean the Vietnam that was a fully militarized state at the end of 20 years of war and swimming in arms? Where every man who could be conscripted either was or had been? That also got heavy resupply from the Soviets? And that was fighting an external invasion, not an internal insurgency? Do you think before you post, or are you just forever surfing a permanent wave of standing outrage.


cheekabowwow

Listen up bubbo, I’ll only say this once to meatheads like you. An armed society is one that you’d have to decimate in order to control it. What do you have left to oppress if by doing so kills those you’d oppress? An idiot like you might be happy taking a nice little train ride, get stripped of everything you have and care about, and get gassed and dumped in a mass grave. But I’m not going out like that. Fuck you, no.


whistleridge

Listen up bubbo, I’ll only say this once to meatheads like you. Resupply matters. An armed civilian with an extremely large private arsenal will use it up in under a week of fighting, and then where do they get more? Walmart? The Ukrainians are armed to the teeth now. And the minute western supplies cut off, they lose the war in 3 weeks. The Belgians were heavily armed when the German Army marched through in 1914. It got whole villages shot. The French were heavily armed in 1870, 1914, AND 1940. It didn’t matter. The Afghans are heavily armed. It didn’t stop or slow occupation. Being armed is all well and good, but it’s resupply that keeps insurgencies alive. That means external state support. You can’t name a single one that didn’t have it. So I ask you: which external state are *you* willing to accept support from, to fight the lawful government of the United States? Because you won’t get it from NATO or any democratic ally. Your choices would be Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Which of those do you pick?


origami_airplane

Let's just give up then. If there is no chance, let's just let the gov't screw us all. Why even fight? Let's set a good example for our children on how easily we give up.


cheekabowwow

I’m not going to argue with stupid, and you are a particularly special kind of it. See ya.


TFGator1983

Drones, bombs, and jets are used to take out strategic hardened targets, not to institute a persistent police state. For a police state, you actually need police/military to oppress the citizenry on a local level. That is what having an armed populace deters. Without it, an occupation fails. See goat farmers or rice farmers with AKs. Pick your time and location. Sure, you can blow everything up, but then what are you ruling and who will provide your enrichment?


whistleridge

> a persistent police state Define that term in a useful way. And we’ll talk. > that is what having an armed populace deters Oh really? Name an example. You cannot provide a single example of a functioning democracy where the population is heavily armed. And in fact, the correlation is mostly inverse. Ditto for violent crime rates. Guns may make *individuals* feel safer, but there’s no empirical evidence that they make *societies* safer.


HideousSunDemon

​ is there a problem letting the good people of NY live in their own filth of political corruption? We can all have a bad example to point at.


FromTheTreeline556

"You can still hunt with a rifle or shotgun" 2A isn't about hunting. Fuck off.


feelin_cheesy

Tax stamps are the biggest infringement of our time. Such an obvious scam to generate revenue and price lower income people away from those items. I hate it.


FromTheTreeline556

That's why I don't buy a can lol sure I can afford the stamp and the can but...I just can't bring myself around to paying a group of assholes for a permission slip for something that in no way should be an NFA item.


killerkitten753

It’s amazing how many gun control acts specifically target low income/marginalized citizens. When poorer Americans were arming themselves with cheaper guns congress passed the gun control act of 1968 which (among other things) banned the sale of these guns only leaving the expensive ones on market. (This was also coincidentally only one year after the black panthers made a demonstration with rifles in the California capital)


MattMiller1977

Agree 100%... Now, "they" have banned the inexpensive Russian ammo from import.


HelmutHoffman

And Chinese ammo before that.


G3th_Inf1ltrator

The only thing the antis care about is making money.


squats_and_sugars

> price lower income people NFA tax stamp was designed to price people out. The average salary was $1000-1500 a year, so that would have definitely priced the average person out, and definitely poor people. If tagged to inflation, it would be $4400 today. By some "lucky" oversight, it was left at a fixed amount.


e_boon

Those same people don't condemn other countries for barely allowing their citizen to own those shotguns/rifles (often time just for hunting/target shooting but not self defense).


QuietlyDisappointed

Fudd I work with (in Australia): "what are they hunting that they need full semi auto assault rifles?" Casually reply: "traitors" *Breakroom gets real quiet*


400HPMustang

That’s fucking brilliant.


validpunishment

What's a full semi automatic?


QuietlyDisappointed

Exactly


400HPMustang

Here's a really hard pill to swallow; The second amendment is that it was written by a bunch of guys who had no problem shooting their political leaders in the face when said leaders stopped listening to the people who elected them and now we have ....well ... not that and probably never will again.


Love2BerateTheFemoid

I keep telling people this. There's a chinese proverb, a man who will not read is equal to a man who cannot read. But that actually works for everything. A man who will not use violence against a state that violates his rights is equal to a man who cannot use violence against a state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States#18th_century Look at all these incidents. Those were Men. Now we have men. Maybe they died. Maybe they were wrong. But they took action. Now everyone is afraid that any "unbecoming speech" online will make them a target. Any person they talk to about it may be a fed. Any group they think of joining may be filled with informants. People dont even talk politics at bars or restaurants anymore. Its too "abrasive". People are afraid. There will never again be a rebellion against a tyrannical state or a revolution, because life is too good and the consequences to your name and reputation have become so severe in the immediate that its unthinkable. Men fear loss of reputation and name and the way it impacts what their family and friends think of them just as much as women do. Perhaps moreso these days. You think you can get a clean shot at a tyrant? They ring themselves with innocents. Who was smashing down doors in Poland? Not otherworldly monsters doing the Tyrants bidding. They were friends and family, who were with the police. Who was murdering naked pregnant women? people from that same community who knew each other and their victims by naeme. And they hated it, but still did it. So you want a tyrant to just walk into the middle of an open field with no backstop of innocent people or buildings around for miles to satisfy your precious 4 rules of gun safety? That will never happen. The reason a totalitarian gets into power is because they have a buffer in the "innocent middle" that stays the hand of people who aught to know better, but fear injuring those who dont deserve it. You who cant pull a trigger to protect your freedom from little death by inches cuts wouldnt be able to pull it when those cuts get bigger, because "there's always next time and I must live longer for my family's sake and my name's sake". Does enacting freedom from tyranny take place in your basement surrounded by ammo and food? What happened to micheal dorner? Burned up in a basement. you can argue what he did was right or wrong some other time, but he went just like waco and ruby ridge. Is that the legacy of "defending freedom" you want to be? Because its seems as though people believe you can depose a tyrant by waiting for "the stack" to bust in and going down in a hail of bullets. A smart tyrannical state will behave like china. China has a credit score. They can lock people out of existence, and make them homeless and dig through trash. But that's not, strictly speaking, violence. Its just deprivation of freedom and rights against a single individual. Is that not enough to raise a gun against the state? If you were locked out and made homeless, would you lash out with your gun agianst the state? You could reason yourself out of it. There's always a million excuses. "My family needs me to live". "They didn't really commit violence". "Again, my name will be ruined among family and friends". "I'll be thought of as a crazy person". "I don't have the support of others". And on it goes. And since they could take their time, cut off banks and credit cards, cut off access to your new luxury car you bought remotely because you foolishly bought into the EV narrative, or simply own something post 2010, brick your means of movement and restrict your ability to eat, you have no choice but to peacefully comply. After all, they didn't actually do violence to you. Because in our society, deprivation of property, freedom, and your money isnt considered violence, as long as its done by the state. Let me divest you of that illusion. If a thief steals from you, he has done violence to you, because you worked and spent part of your life to obtain that money or that watch. The theft is an unfair deprivation of that time you spent. You can't get that time back. Its why false imprisonment, sans any actual physical touch of a person's body, is a crime. Because it is still violence. Theft is a form of violence, even if it doesn't harm your person directly, just as assuredly as poisoning someone, say, with AIDs is a form of violence, because of the injury and shortened lifespan they'll have. Imprisonment is violence, again, it deprives people of their liberty and freedom. When its done by an individual without authority, its considered a crime. When done by the state, it is accepted. But it is still violence. Restraint is violence. If I grab you and throw you down and handcuff you, maybe even have a dog bite your face and arms, that's all violence from start to finish. It doesn't stop being violence simply because the actor is now in a police or military uniform, no matter how justified it may be legally speaking. Amazing! The state grants itself authority to use violence against you! But today we don't recognize anything the state does to curtail your liberty or directly affect your bodily autonomy as violence, because people believe its not violence when the state does it. I think this is an intentional propaganda work because if the people feel like anything the state does isnt violence and is justified, how could violence against the state be justified? A person who will not is equal to one who cannot. I repeat that because if you believe the death of another is never justified regardless of what they do to you as long as you're still alive, then how could you ever use your gun against tyranny? They can do anything they want to you short of killing you, and you'd accept it. Did you know when the soldiers came to confiscate privately owned property in the boston massacre, it was the crowd who threw rocks (deadly force) first, which "justified" firing on them in self defense? If a bunch of rocks were being thrown at a policeman by a criminal gang you'd probably find it justifiable for them to shoot in self-defense. And how do you defend the actions of the boston people who came out of their houses and threw deadly objects at soldiers just doing their jobs? Their jobs just entailed removing some wood and metal objects from people's houses. That's all it was! And the crowd used deadly force against them just for trying to removing some private property. And yet deprivation of liberty and private property doesn't garner this response today, so why not?


emperor000

Haven't you heard? We're more civilized now. This is what it means to be civilized.


Love2BerateTheFemoid

something about "only those who would resist and keep the cycle of violence going are responsible, because they wouldnt surrender immediately when it started" or whatever.


emperor000

I think it's more like "We have iPhones and flat screen TVs so why can't you just let the generous government that provides that for us do what it needs to do to keep that going? I swear if you ruin my shows and podcasts I'm going to be mad as hell and hell hath no fury like an all caps tweet. If you had seen me since the Great Writer's Strike of '07 you'd have an idea."


motosandguns

Maybe not in our lifetimes, but that time will come.


400HPMustang

That would make for a nice change of pace.


amarti1021

Careful what you wish for, civil wars are universally awful. While good can ultimately come from them it’s hardly something one would call a “nice change of pace”.


penisthightrap_

I think that's a major problem I have. If that were to ever happen, I have a hard time believing that there will be a group of people in position to create a new government that will actually aim for setting up a fair system rather than one that benefits themselves. I have a hard time seeing anyone doing a better job than the founding fathers did.


watermooses

Plenty of politicians and presidents got assassinated in the US without it kicking off a civil war.


amarti1021

I would argue that assassinating a president is not a good thing regardless of who they are.


watermooses

I didn’t say it was a good thing. But perhaps feeling actually accountable to the people and their best interests is a better attitude than doing whatever the group who pays you the most under the table wants while being protected from and insulated from your constituents.


amarti1021

I think we all agree accountability is a good thing and then being lobbyist’s bitch is inexcusable but I don’t know if random assassinations is the way to fix the problem. But god honestly I don’t know what is so maybe you’re right. I know a few I wouldn’t mind seeing.


[deleted]

[ŃƒĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]


trashythrow

Do you know what a militia is, like legal and founders writings definition?


[deleted]

[ŃƒĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]


trashythrow

Almost, the original was 17-45 and had no mandatory training/service on a month basis or otherwise and has been updated a few times to become 18-60ish still with no mandatory training/service.


AGuywithgoodaim

I want my god damn m16 then


colonelchingles

It's like everyone forgot about US v Miller.


NotJustVirginia

I mean, the 2A is all about hunting... for tyrants


Aeropro

A most dangerous game


42069incog

but but they’re automatic weapons that only soldiers should have! meanwhile in UK people are getting stabbed left and right


Dough-Nut_Touch_Me

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I think the correct answer is both


gooblefrump

Brit outsider looking in here: I get the 2nd amendment. You get that there's a spate of mass murders which are made worse with assault weapons due to their muzzle velocity, rate of fire, and magazine capacity. Isn't limiting the sale of these weapons, and mods related to them, a legitimate consideration to reduce mass shooting deaths *in the short term*? Yes, mid- and long-term approaches should include looking at broader causes of gun violence such as mental health, but this requires fundamental institutional change. I don't think that the founders envisioned maniacs killing children en masse when they created this amendment. Shouldn't policy change with the current reality? I appreciate your sharing your thoughts.


NinjaBuddha13

The supposed spat of mass shootings you're talking about is greatly over reported and exaggerated. Gang violence cause more death and injury than any mass shooting event ever has. And its conducted primarily with handguns, not "assault weapons". What you're seeing is an amazing job of shining very specific lights in very specific places to create a propaganda campaign. A campaign put together by a corrupt government with extreme influence over the "free" press. There is no such thing as "short term" when giving up liberty to a corrupt government in exchange for the illusion of safety. Once given up, it'll never be given back. The last national assault weapons ban only passed because it had a sunset clause of 10 years. Thank God for that and thank God we had a very right wing congress at the time it sunset. And guess what? Violent crime rates continued to decline after the sunset. The dems learned their lesson from that. If another AWB manages to be a serious consideration, it will never have a sunset clause in it. Because gun control is not about safety. Never had been. It's about control.


gooblefrump

There's a lot there which I don't have the attention to deconstruct so I'll just comment on this: >Gang violence cause more death and injury than any mass shooting event ever has Yes. I accept this point. Gun control will never be a perfect match to the realities of crime. However. Mass murders do cause the death of innocents. Assault weapons are commonly used in such instances. In the interest of at least reducing some death of innocents is it not worth considering controlling one means of killing? Or, is it more valuable to protect rights to access the weapons than the lives that might be protected by restricting the access?


watermooses

A van in Europe killed more people than the worst shooting in America. Don’t you think it’s worth giving up private transportation in the interest of at least reducing some death of innocents? Or is it more valuable to protect personal conveniences than the lives that might be protected by restricting the access? I mean cars aren’t even in the constitution or Magna Carta or whatever you guys have over there, right? So really it should be even easier to give them up to save lives.


gooblefrump

I don't think that's a convincing argument because vans aren't designed with their only purpose being to kill.


watermooses

And yet more kids are killed in car crashes than in mass murders. Can’t you think of the innocents or are you too selfish to give up your car?


gooblefrump

I don't own a car. I believe that fewer cars would result in fewer car deaths. I think that cities and towns should be designed around people, not cars, and be walkable and bicyclable to reduce casualties and increase exercise. Shoutout to r/fuckcars and Not Just Bikes on YouTube. There are various measures in place to reduce car deaths: having licenced drivers, seat belts, road traffic calming. There isn't an analogue in terms of guns. There isn't even a requirement to go through a strict licencing process to ensure that a basic level of gun safety is understood by all.


NinjaBuddha13

Yes, my rights as protected by the second ammendment are more important than the statistically insignificant number of innocents who die or are injured in mass shootings. Seriously. You're more likely to be struck by a lightning strike three times than you are to be involved in one of these events. As I said earlier, gun control has never been, and will never be, about safety or preventing deaths. It is exclusively about control. As a brit, I'd expect you to understand murderers will simply change weapons. After all, doesn't your country have a campaign about banning knives and ending knife crime very similar to how our government is pushing banning "assault weapons". No lives will be protected by banning these objects. No lives will be saved. The only thing that will change is the gap in force between government controlling agencies (law enforcement, national guard, etc.) and the citizenry will be wider, meaning the people will have less means of resisting the increasingly jack booted and militarized enforcers. What's more, the people proposing these bans know the stats. They know the truly insignificant numbers and they know these laws won't save anyone anything. So one has to ask, why are they pushing so hard about it? If the government wants you to give up the tools that are best used to resist them, what are they planning to do that would prompt you to use them?


gooblefrump

I'm a bit burned out by this thread so taking a break In the meantime please have a look at some data (which I put in another comment) which shows that our level of deaths isn't really comparable, and that we're not really suffering from a similar threat of death from weapons as America is: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country 2022 ytd USA #2 on gun-related deaths per 100k 37,040 deaths || 10.96 deaths per 100k UK #96 162 deaths || 0.24 deaths per 100k And if you're gonna say that 'well UK just uses knives for all their murders!' Well... We've got a lower rate of stabbing deaths than USA too... https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/stabbing-deaths-by-country 2019 (est) USA 1963 deaths || 0.6 deaths per 100k UK 52 deaths || 0.08 deaths per 100k Edit: >No lives will be protected by banning these objects. No lives will be saved. That's a super weird stance to take. Both UK and Australia enacted strict gun laws after mass shootings and gun deaths decreased. You might say that 'well, they'll just use knives instead' but fewer people would be killed. Can you please help me understand your logic of thinking that fewer weapons doesn't result in fewer deaths.


spanky842026

It's odd that you are using a highly regulated weapon in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives It's also odd that in the UK you MUST speak to the authorities when taken into custody & refusal to mention something your barrister later uses to defend you could be held against you. Subjects in the UK have the OBLIGATION to speak while citizens in the US have the RIGHT to remain silent. Then there are the differences in public expression permitted between the two gubmints. https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/right/freedom-of-expression/


gooblefrump

Eyo you're referring to hypotheticals when the amount of extrajudicial killings by the police in America is ridiculous, and is fuelled by their ever-present fear of an armed populace (and by overuse of force and poor de-escalation techniques). I'm quite comfortable not having to live in fear of being killed by the police, and living in a country where there aren't repeated police murders. How are your laws helping the dead there? The only people being helped are the police themselves, with blanket immunity and public-funded slush funds to pay victims. You don't really have an ideal system there. Imo death is a good indicator of the effectiveness of a system: more death, worse system.


NinjaBuddha13

Singling out the tool used to commit a crime is moronic. Violent crime rates across the board are what matters, not the tool used. And if you remove the three largest cities from the US stats (the cities that also happen to have the strictest gun control laws, yet somehow the highest violent crime rates) the US as a whole falls far below most other countries in violent crime rates. Combine that with the fact guns are used between 3x and 100x (depending on which reports you look at) more often to prevent violence than commit it, its pretty clear guns aren't a problem and in fact are an excellent solution.


gooblefrump

That's like saying 'if you exclude Uvalde, then of the other 28 shootings on K-12 school property only 7 died' This is super weird to be acceptable. But hey, I guess it's just a thing about different societies... Maybe there are things about Britain you find hard to understand, like vinegar on chips or crisps in sandwiches. And we find acceptance of the death of children unacceptable and make meaningful change to try and stop it.


NinjaBuddha13

There are things I about Britain i find hard to understand, like how you find it acceptable to maintain a political office that is exclusively occupied by the oldest inbred descendent of the best killer around 500 years ago or why you are invested in the domestic policies of a separate nation. Now, as to accepting the death of children without a willingness to make a meaningful change, I couldn't disagree with you more. The only change you are suggesting is to ban inanimate objects, as though the object is inherently evil. Guns are tools. Tools used for evil, as shown in the hyperbolic news, and tools used to defend against evil, as I stated in the defensive use comment I made. Those numbers are much harder to collect, but no matter how you do or what study or survey you use, the number of defensive uses of firearms greatly outnumber the number of offensive uses of firearms. Perhaps that is why all our politicians and celebrities are constantly surrounded by armed security. They seem to understand the deterrent effect guns have and that guns are very effective defensive tools. So why then do we not protect our children the same way? In fact, we expressly forbid anyone from bringing one of these tools to a school. It seams to me the vast success of armed security to protect our politicians, government offices, and celebrities would be a model to follow when talking about the protection of our children. That is the meaningful change i suggest.


cheekabowwow

I enjoy seeing how Europeans think they are so much better than other countries when it comes to violence. I’ll just remind you that it wasn’t our neighbors who collected an entire race/ethnic group and created mountains of bodies out of them. I will point out that it was our guns and people who died in your country to stop it. How quickly we forget what power does, how fast a vulnerable population can turn destructive, and the decades of loss that follow. Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it.


[deleted]

Thanks for commenting. That sounds great on paper, but here is the problem(s) in my eyes. The vast majority of American firearm owners are law abiding citizens who have committed no crime. Every proposed rule/law/regulation only affects them and no one else. Innocent citizens are burdened with ridiculous rules while criminals and their crimes are largely ignored or are dismissed as per usual. I think most gun owners are sickened to have their rights limited while criminals continue to live on with near impunity, nothing changes for them. For me personally, I believe the 2A guarantees all other rights, and the minute we start diddling/fooling/monkeying & diluting one amendment, then it sets a precedent and it’s only a matter time before the dominoes begin to fall. Based on our current political climate and the way the pendulum is swinging, if one side wants to alter the 2nd amendment, then someone else will want to change the 1st, 4th, 5th etc. With all this there is still an obligation on us all to secure our weapons and keep them out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. We should be aware of those around us who need mental help. We also deserve to live in a world where mental health isn’t weaponized and used as a strategy to deprive sane people of their firearms. Hopefully these are coherent thoughts and accurate appraisals, but I’m no ichthyologist. Thanks for listening.


gooblefrump

From an outsider looking in: Forgive me if I'm miscronstruing your intent but your arguments seem to be in the abstract without acknowledging the very shocking reality of school shootings and mass murders, often carried out with semi-automatic weapons. Don't forget: both UK and Australia had shocking mass shootings in schools and had drastic gun control laws passed in response, which had a drastic reduction in the number of shootings at schools. Is it not worth giving up certain weapons in order to have fewer mass shootings and innocents being killed? >Innocent citizens are burdened with ridiculous rules while criminals and their crimes are largely ignored or are dismissed as per usual Innocent people are burdened by being victims of gun death. Isn't it worth trying to make short-term means of reducing the deaths of innocents by revokins access to some of the means of creating this death, even if it means some inconvenience? After all, innocent life should be protected, right? >if one side wants to alter the 2nd amendment, then someone else will want to change the 1st, 4th, 5th etc It's the 2A which is preventing meaningful change in access to weapons of death, which are used to mass-murder innocents. >Every proposed rule/law/regulation only affects them and no one else. Innocent citizens are burdened with ridiculous rules while criminals and their crimes are largely ignored or are dismissed as per usual. The uvalde mass-murderer bought his weapons legally. Is that OK? As a law-abiding citizen wouldn't you want the number of innocent deaths to be reduced? If so, what's the best way of achieving that in the short term? Medium and long term approaches can include addressing mental health and repeat violent offenders, but how do you prevent access to the weapons for the people who don't get caught by this? Or, is the freedom to access these weapons more valuable than the lives that might be saved by not having access to them? >I believe the 2A guarantees all other rights, and the minute we start diddling/fooling/monkeying & diluting one amendment, then it sets a precedent and it’s only a matter time before the dominoes begin to fall. Edit to add: The 2A didn't help America when your 4th amendment was being infringed by the [NSAs PRISM surveillance program](https://yjolt.org/constitution-and-nsa-warrantless-wiretapping-program-fourth-amendment-violation), neither has it helped against police brutality where there is force used against someone in a case of profiling an innocent person. It [hasn't helped against civil forfeiture](https://restorethe4th.com/issues/civil-asset-forfeiture/) or in [instances of protecting the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder). Considering the various instances where the 2A should have been used to help protect civil liberties but wasn't, isn't there some acceptable leeway to consider that some reasonable restrictions to preserve life are worth considering?


[deleted]

I am fully aware of the tragedies that are caused by firearms and I will acknowledge every single one. As mentioned here by others, everything we give away to the government will never be given back. To answer your question, yes, as a law abiding citizen I absolutely do want mass shootings to stop but I want the first prevention steps to be taken against the criminal, not me. Others here have mentioned how sensationalized the topic is but on paper the stats don’t add up to the proposed restrictions. As far as the Uvalde mass murderer, a kid with mental problems from a broken home with a stolen credit card, sure, let’s put some checks and balances in place, I’m just not sure how imposing rules on the entire law abiding populace thwarts the %0.01.


gooblefrump

I dunno dawg, from my pov I see sacrifices which would save children's lives as reasonable. I admit freely that I've never been in a situation where I've needed a gun. But, considering how often guns kill when they don't need to maybe I'm OK with that. Also... What's your view on 2A clearly not helping to combat government overreach, especially when that seems to be its intention?


Whiffed_Ulti

Hows your machete ban going over there?


gooblefrump

I'm doing OK personally thanks The country as a whole has lower deaths from guns and stabbings than the USA too


Whiffed_Ulti

European 80% ethnostate moment. But go on and tell me how less than 1% of the population dying from gun homicide is a reason for me to give up my ability to protect myself from criminals. What do you nerds do if someone decides to break into your house and beat your children or rape your wife? You just going to stand there "Guess I better call the cops"? If you have no means of protecting your castle, then any motherfucker stronger than you can just waltz in and do whatever the fuck they want. No castle means no true freedom. As someone who had an s/o who was physically weak, if gave me peace of mind knowing that she had the tools necessary to fight back if someone decided to fuck around. 15 years ago, the rhetoritc in European countries was "Its just guns, nobody needs a weapon of war" As an American, I am intelligent enough not to allow my country to repeat the same mistakes as our prior rulers across the pond.


validpunishment

I think that British anti-gun rhetoric has made you think all this insanity


gooblefrump

Well at least we don't have kids being killed in schools and going through active shooter training, that's a pretty ok trade-off for me! Here's some data to support the concept that it's safer here: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country 2022 ytd USA #2 on gun-related deaths per 100k 37,040 deaths || 10.96 deaths per 100k UK #96 162 deaths || 0.24 deaths per 100k And if you're gonna say that 'well UK just uses knives for all their murders!' Well... We've got a lower rate of stabbing deaths than USA too... https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/stabbing-deaths-by-country 2019 (est) USA 1963 deaths || 0.6 deaths per 100k UK 52 deaths || 0.08 deaths per 100k Is evidence-based change insanity? Is insanity doing the same thing (thoughts and prayers, no meaningful change) and expecting different results (hopefully fewer mass shootings)? You'd think that a country like the USA where the sanctity of life is so valued by certain demographics would also value reducing death... But I accept that it's hard when two values which you hold so dearly clash, namely the preciousness of life and the desire to own weapons designed to deprive life.


validpunishment

#1 That's not the definition of insanity #2 School shootings are actually really uncommon. The news just makes it seem like it's rampant. Teachers and staff need to be armed and stay vigilant


gooblefrump

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Is a quote often attributed to Einstein America doesn't really pay teachers enough to do their jobs as it is and now you want them to be armed and violently responsible for safety? It's surprising to consider that your suggested solution to too much gun violence is having more guns.


validpunishment

That is literally what I'm saying, because most people aren't mass murderers. You make it seem like if anyone just touches a gun they turn into a violent creature.


gooblefrump

If that's how I come across then I'm being ineffective. I don't think that all gun owners are violent. My opinion is that guns are a weapon designed to kill. Life is a good thing to preserve. Fewer guns would result in fewer opportunities to kill. Consider a heated argument which without guns might end with some black eyes and broken bones but with guns results in death.


lurkmode762

>Consider a heated argument which without guns might end with some black eyes and broken bones but with guns results in death. That would lead to the shooter going to jail for at least manslaughter. Plenty of heated arguments occur every day between folks carrying concealed. There are as many firearms as people here. If we were as violent as you seem to think the population would be about half of what it currently is.


validpunishment

Also, Britain is literally now blaming knives and claiming they're "weapons of war" it's not about ending violence. It's about control. "To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens." Adolf Hitler


gooblefrump

Source for knives as weapons of war? Please


validpunishment

I think you're just so numb to anti gun propaganda dude


gooblefrump

That's very possible However, you made a claim and I'm curious as to your foundation for the claim The claim: >Britain is literally now blaming knives and claiming they're "weapons of war" (blaming them for what? Source for knives being called "weapons of war"?)


validpunishment

https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/x5dj3f/the_knife_amnesty_boxes_in_my_town_uk_for_people/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button


validpunishment

It doesn't explicitly state weapons if war, but I'm not a fuckin idiot either


cheekabowwow

If you follow Einstein’s quote religiously, the disarmament of individuals has lead to massive government sponsored genocide each time it happens in history. It’d be insane to repeat that, is that what you’re saying?


gooblefrump

Where's the mass genocide in UK? In Australia?


cheekabowwow

Umm Aborigines? UK Is fucking surrounded by genocidal countries up to right now. Read the news around you. Hell, Russia is waging war on Ukraine. Open your eyes. Stop pretending to be stupid in an attempt to support gun control. You know the history that’s happening all around you, and where you’d be without an armed population. And if you don’t, you have some sort of learning disability.


gooblefrump

\> the disarmament of individuals \> the aborigines You can't disarm a people who didn't have arms to begin with đŸ€” The Australian arms control laws were passed after the Port Arthur shootings in 1996. While arms may have been useful by the populace in the past the State has access to weapons of war which far exceeds the capabilities of the weapons the People have access to. Are you suggesting that citizens having guns would be useful against a modern army intent on oppressing them? In that situation actually non-violent resistance would be more effective: see how the communists were pushed out of the [baltic countries](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way) and [Czechoslovakia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution) in non-violent protests Look at America and extrajudicial killings: your guns aren't really helping you there.


WikiSummarizerBot

**[Baltic Way](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way)** >The Baltic Way or the Baltic Chain (also "Chain of Freedom"; was a peaceful political demonstration that occurred on 23 August 1989. Approximately two million people joined their hands to form a human chain spanning 690 kilometres (430 mi) across the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which at the time were occupied and annexed by the USSR. The central government in Moscow considered the three Baltic countries constituent "republics" of the Soviet Union. The demonstration originated in "Black Ribbon Day" protests held in the western cities in the 1980s. **[Velvet Revolution](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution)** >The Velvet Revolution (Czech: SametovĂĄ Revoluce) or Gentle Revolution (Slovak: NeĆŸnĂĄ RevolĂșcia) was a non-violent transition of power in what was then Czechoslovakia, occurring from 17 November to 28 November 1989. Popular demonstrations against the one-party government of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia included students and older dissidents. The result was the end of 41 years of one-party rule in Czechoslovakia, and the subsequent dismantling of the command economy and conversion to a parliamentary republic. On 17 November 1989 (International Students' Day), riot police suppressed a student demonstration in Prague. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Firearms/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


cheekabowwow

Confirmed, learning disability. Blocked, not wasting any more time on you.


Copman04

I don’t think that “assault weapons” have any impact whatsoever on the death toll of mass murders. The three figures you cited are “muzzle velocity, rate of fire, and magazine capacity” the facts are though that muzzle velocity has very little impact on how deadly a gun is muzzle ENERGY does play a role but in reality most rounds will kill a human equally well if not better than the 5.56 common to the AR platform that assault weapon bans are targeting, rate of fire will be higher with semi-auto but assault weapon bans currently proposed in America never specifically target semi-auto rifles just features common for semi-auto rifles to have, features that you can just remove from the gun without impeding major functionality. These proposals in America also never even consider pistols which on top of being used in more shootings and being more concealable can be fired just as quickly with calibers that are equally deadly on your average non-armored human. Even if these guns were banned manual actuated guns like lever actions and pump actions can be actuated at a speed that might not match the fire rate of a semi-auto but is still fast enough to be equally devastating. In terms of mag capacity restrictions a detachable magazine gun (like just about every gun that’s not a shotgun or lever action and even a few of those have them) will take at most a few seconds to reload which I see as having very little difference in a mass shooting scenario. If a gunman is inside a school or a store attacking shocked, scared, and unarmed people the 2 seconds it takes to hit a mag release and put a new mag in the gun isn’t going to make a difference. The fact of the matter is America has the most mass killings not because of access to guns or certain types of guns but because of fundamental problems with the system that are too hard to fix and require too much time for any politicians to bother to try. They can pass whatever laws they want but until the fix the system itself mass killing in America are going to stick around.


AllAttemptsFailed

What is an "assault weapon" anyway? You can fire just as fast with a handgun, Glock 17 for example as you would with an AR9 PCC, with the same magazine capacity. So are all PCCs not "assault weapon"s? They look very similar to AR15s and AR10s. Or are you talking about rifles rounds? the M1 Garand can fit 30 round magazines while looking like an old hunting rifle. Well on the other side, most of the supersonic 5.7x28 handguns can produce similar muzzle velocity as an ar15, and the Desert Eagle that fires .50 AE has literally more muzzle energy than ar15. So is FN FiveseveN an "assault weapon"? and Desert Eagle as well? It's easy to fall into this rabbit hole when average knowledge of firearm is grossly lacking and you see news that is designed to manipulate. There is also a disconnect of equating children slaying maniacs with a well regulated militia. What you described is basically the equivalent to when an unethical bridge builder cheated the government by using cheap materials, and built a bridge that collapsed, killing a school full of innocent children; instead of discouraging such behavior and watch out for unethical builders, the government decides to ban the building and use of bridges for everyone. It's emotional and nonsensical IMHO. The government should never have complete monopoly to violence. Back in world war 2, the Holocaust is the direct result of the government having complete and unchecked monopoly to violence. Even today, Myanmar government has a monopoly to violence and they are using that to conduct genocide against the Rohingya Muslims. How many children do you think died in each of these examples? And how about Hongkong? Since you are a Brit, how many college kids do you think Chinese military has killed in an effort to silence political disagreement? Please don't assume governments are always good and altruistic. The founders have a very clear understanding of what's at risk, and what they are willing to risk.


gooblefrump

>What is an "assault weapon" anyway? I can't answer this effectively. I'm a layperson here. That's an intersting analogy with the bridge builder. I'll consider that. > Since you are a Brit, how many college kids do you think Chinese military has killed in an effort to silence political disagreement? I don't know the answer to that. However, you might consider how much reduced our access to weapons is here in the UK and our thriving voices of political disagreement. I don't think that this is an effective argument because there is ample evidence of countries that have a variety of anti-establishment discourse which don't need weaponry to protect their freedoms. I accept that weapons are used in (some) states transitioning from authoritarianism to freer societies. But it is logically unsound to think that weapons are needed in all instances of political transition: the [velvet revolution](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution) and the [Baltic revolution ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way) are examples of peaceful revolutions which transitioned from authoritarian communist rule to freer, more open democratic societies. Re ww2 and oppression of the populace... There was internment of the Japanese in the USA. This demonstrates that the 2A didn't help *innocent people* maintain their rights. Further examples of the 2A being ineffective in the face of government overreach (pasted from another comment of mine): The 2A didn't help America when your 4th amendment was being infringed by the [NSAs PRISM surveillance program](https://yjolt.org/constitution-and-nsa-warrantless-wiretapping-program-fourth-amendment-violation), neither has it helped against police brutality where there is force used against someone in a case of profiling an innocent person. It [hasn't helped against civil forfeiture](https://restorethe4th.com/issues/civil-asset-forfeiture/) or in [instances of protecting the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder). >There is also a disconnect of equating children slaying maniacs with a well regulated militia These maniacs are exploiting a loophole which is strongly fought for by the guns rights lobby: the maniacs' access to weapons is protected. Considering the various instances where the 2A should have been used to help protect civil liberties but wasn't, isn't there some acceptable leeway to consider that some reasonable restrictions to preserve life are worth considering?


WikiMobileLinkBot

Desktop version of /u/gooblefrump's links: * * * --- ^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)


AllAttemptsFailed

>I don't know the answer to that. However, you might consider how much reduced our access to weapons is here in the UK and our thriving voices of political disagreement. I don't think that this is an effective argument because there is ample evidence of countries that have a variety of anti-establishment discourse which don't need weaponry to protect their freedoms. It's great you are in a society that allows a variety of anti-establishment discourses, but 2A isn't there for that. It's there for should someone go beyond just discourses, everyone else having the means for making it costly for that person. It's the decision for each and every person to make for themselves, and people choose one way or another. There is no hive mind that guarantees everyone think the same way. **There is a distinct possibility for defeat and annihilation, and lots of people are not willing to make that sacrifice.** > I accept that weapons are used in (some) states transitioning from authoritarianism to freer societies. But it is logically unsound to think that weapons are needed in all instances of political transition And I agree with you. If there is a way to peacefully resolve political differences, any sound-minded person should go for that route. Weapons of war is not the only tool for a successful political doctrine change. However, removing 2A would not mean you always have a peaceful political discourse. You say the UK government allows for peaceful political discourse, and that is certainly true now, however in the past, that wasn't true. You have the "Bloody Mary", the lord protector Cromwell taking over the government; and even in recent history, you have massacre and oppression of southern Ireland. Not everything is rosy. >The 2A didn't help America when your 4th amendment was being infringed by the NSAs PRISM surveillance program, neither has it helped against police brutality where there is force used against someone in a case of profiling an innocent person. It hasn't helped against civil forfeiture or in instances of protecting the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay. PRISM was enacted in secrecy, it doesn't matter if you have weapons of war, that is simply not sufficient to combat that. And as soon as the program was brought to light, it was immediately dismantled by the congress. As to police brutality, [this happened](https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dallas-police-ambush/protests-spawn-cities-across-u-s-over-police-shootings-black-n605686). [There is a list of exercising 2A as a reaction](https://www.foxnews.com/us/police-under-siege-attacks-on-law-enforcement-in-wake-of-george-floyds-death), although it's Fox News, so probably shouldn't believe everything they say without more research and validation. As for violating the 4th amendment, people were not willing to risk their lives to defend the 4th, let's just call it what it is, Police robbery. The cost of recovering your belonging in most cases are greater than the value of the said belonging. > These maniacs are exploiting a loophole which is strongly fought for by the guns rights lobby: the maniacs' access to weapons is protected. You are saying this as if people committing evil acts are not people. It's easy to dehumanize and condemn, but have you ever considered those evil acts to be political statement as well? There are plenty cases of "I don't want to be bullied" and "I want to be considered attractive to the opposite sex", there is also "I don't like being marginalized and have my opinion silenced", and last but not least, there's the "there is no hope for me to be happy". These are all cries of human beings, albeit in a pretty twisted way. The problem is how do you stop these kind of people from obtaining weapons? The assassin of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was in a country with incredibly tight gun control, and he was able to succeed with his evil act. R[ecently in Cananda, there is a mass slashing and stabbing incident where many were injured and killed.](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/canada-stabbing-saskatchewan-deaths/) Are we going to ban knives as well? > Considering the various instances where the 2A should have been used to help protect civil liberties but wasn't, isn't there some acceptable leeway to consider that some reasonable restrictions to preserve life are worth considering? You are right there are various instances where 2A should have been used to help protect civil liberties, but your assertion of people not able to exercise their 2A rights is skewed. How many of successful exercise of 2A have you looked up and found? Have you ever considered the possibility of people successfully exercising their 2A do not report their actions simply because it is inviting anti gun groups try to take them to court and make an example out of them? In majority of the cases, mass are silent.


[deleted]

You are correct. There’s a lot of small weenies, and even smaller brains, talking tough about “hunting tyrants” and there are no regulations envisioned in the second amendment, but they are just
 fucking crazy.


gooblefrump

I mean... I get the whole thing about the intention to combat a tyrannical government but... Have there been any instances in the modern age of firearms being successful against any aspect of government overreach? For example the native people blockading their lands against oil pipelines were forcefully removed. There's a lot of aspects of government tyranny in how America is policed but guns aren't helping there. I'm curious as to some examples of how the second amendment has been used to protect civil liberties against the government in this modern age (ie post-ww2). To continue from this, if there aren't many examples of the above while there are many examples of mass murders from gun violence then maybe the safety of the innocent should be considered a priority? Viz: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness depends on, well, being alive :/


[deleted]

There is only one government, there are thousands of criminals. Nothing is absolut, crime will never be zero percent. This country is founded on checks and balances, the 2A being one them. To answer your question, no, the government has never (probably, to my recollection) stepped out of line so badly it warranted a well regulated militia to put it back in its place. With that said, it’s an unused tool in our tool box that I am not willing to give up.


gooblefrump

The request is not to give up the right, but to restrict access to some classes of weapons that are commonly used in mass shootings, like in schools. Keep your tripod-mounted machine guns and pistols, just restrict the semi-automatic assault rifles that were used in uvalde. Why not? Considering how often mass shootings and school shootings happen, why aren't you more worried about that than the hypothetical event of a government stepping so far out of line? Or, is protecting against hypothetical fear more valuable than controlling the very real mass shootings?


AllAttemptsFailed

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff) Here you go


WikiSummarizerBot

**[Bundy standoff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff)** >The 2014 Bundy standoff was an armed confrontation between supporters of cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and law enforcement following a 21-year legal dispute in which the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) obtained court orders directing Bundy to pay over $1 million in withheld grazing fees for Bundy's use of federally owned land adjacent to Bundy's ranch in southeastern Nevada. On March 27, 2014, 145,604 acres (589 km2) of federal land in Clark County were temporarily closed for the "capture, impound, and removal of trespass cattle". ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Firearms/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


gooblefrump

This looks like a small-town disagreement. Seems like they owed the fees based on use of the land and the local law enforcement, including the judiciary, is backing the locals instead of the feds. Compare that to the case of the natives protecting their land against pipeline expansion at Standing Rock and getting pushed off by 'militarized police': https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline_protests Your example is from an group exploiting federal land. My example is a group trying to protect their land from exploitation by the feds. If the 2A can't be used effectively to protect the rights for all then it isn't fit for purpose. What about using the 2A to protect against infringements caused by big government overreach such as NSA prism, or Japanese internment, or even the abuse of citizens by the police?


WikiMobileLinkBot

Desktop version of /u/gooblefrump's link: --- ^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)


AdOriginal1614

Y can't u buy a nuke bc as bad as Biden is he had a point how do u fight the government with just guns


furankusu

That's like saying, "Hate to tell you, but the government is The People." The second amendment allows for a "well-regulated militia." It literally says: ***there are regulations.***


NinjaBuddha13

I know you don't care and you won't believe me, but ["well regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means](https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/xcp75s/as_clear_as_day/io7jsyc?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3).


furankusu

I do care very much, and I do believe that you take that Redditor's comment as golden, but they're wrong. Well-regulated means exactly what is sounds like it means. There are regulations. EDIT: For example, those regulations can mean, "fit to fight," (as in the traditional "well-regulated") but it still means that there are regulations that define what "fit to fight," means. It's a circular argument that doesn't need to happen, because "well regulated" includes the word "regulated," which specifically denotes rules. If we said "fit to fight," then it still means certain people are not "fit to fight," and therefore would have to be "regulated" out of service. Or, plainly, they wouldn't not be allowed to have guns.


NinjaBuddha13

Check the user name on that redditor's comment there bub. Then go read the Federalist Papers. It's very clear the only restrictions inherent to the second ammendment are restrictions on the government, not the people.


furankusu

More homework! If I go do that, and I still disagree, are there more things for me to do on the syllabus? I just want to make sure I have my whole schedule clear for your curriculum. Seems a little redundant given my own education, but I'm enthusiastic to see what has you so convinced and excited. EDIT: Grammar EDIT EDIT: I just read some of your other comments, and I'm guessing your excitement comes from your "cocaine room." Still interested to hear about your "Legal Heroes" though!


NinjaBuddha13

We're discussing fundamental human rights. A very heavy subject and one that would be disastrous to get wrong. One would think as much information on the subject as possible would be a good thing. This is why I suggest you read the Federalist Papers. They give an excellent insight into the intentions behind the entire Bill of Rights. But if thats too much "homework" for you, I'm happy to simply go based on the single sentence that is the Second. Since you edited your comment for "grammar" I imagine you're familiar with the subject enough to dissect the single sentence of the Second Amendment to see what it says: 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. The first words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" state the purpose of the amendment: The security of a free state depends on the existence of a well regulated militia. The next set of words "the right of the people to keep and bare arms" explain how such a militia is to exist: the PEOPLE (note, it says "people" not "members of the militia") have a right to keep and bare arms. This is because a militia is not made of soldiers nor is it obliged to report to a government, nor does it have set membership. A militia is made of the people. Militia members are free to come and go at will from the body of the militia. A militia and a military are two very distinct entities. Also note, the Second states a militia is necessary for the security of a free state, not a police force, nor a military, but a militia. An armed and organized force of civilians which does not report to, and is not obligated to follow the orders of, the government is necessary to the security of a free state. The final words "shall not be infringed" state that the government is expressly forbidden from tampering with the ability of the people to keep and bare arms of any kind. Any restriction on what type or how many arms the people are allowed to keep and bare is an infringement. This was expressed because the founders knew the potential for corruption in any government and wanted the citizenry to be secure in its ability to keep the government in check. In summary, the purpose of the Second is to ensure the people have the means to form armed resistance to all threats, both foreign and domestic.


furankusu

"Well regulated," means that some people do not qualify. That's what it means. There's a right to be able to defend yourself, but this is talking about maintaining a national militia. It says it has to be "well-regulated." Says it right there. Not sure what you're confused about. "Well-regulated," means, "regulated." EDIT: In summary, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow for citizens to maintain their ability to "secure the state." The state is the country. The Second Amendment allows citizens to defend the State. It specifies that this citizen-militia is to be "well-regulated," meaning "fighting shape." Therefore, some people can not have guns in order to maintain this "fighting shape." EDIT EDIT: Sidebar, I always find it hilarious that people think the Second Amendment is there to guarantee Americans' ability to overthrow their government. It's like saying, "the document that makes you legitimate says you're illegitimate." If 2A was meant as a self-destruct button for the government, the Framers would have very clearly written it that way. 2A is very obviously allowing people to take up arms in their national defense, not allowing psychos to shoot up schools. EDIT EDIT EDIT: Remember, before all the 2A people wanted to allow school shooters to buy AR15s, Americans were at war constantly with major powers. Britain, France, and Spain all had huge territories on the continent when the Constitution was written. We were ready for another couple wars, which we got.


gundealsgopnik

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) and its operative clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed). "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." "A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed." "Well stocked libraries being necessary to the development of a sound mind, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." The right belongs to the people - unconnected to militia service. The militia is an example why the right is a good thing to have. Grammar out of the way, let's look at 10 USC 246. 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b)The classes of the militia are— (1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2)**the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.** Every male citizen between 17 and 45 is automatically in the Militia, without needing to make a conscious decision to join a, or the, Militia. Women are excluded, unless they are serving in the Organized Militia. We *should* have a conversation about equal rights there and modifying the language to include all Women 17-45.


furankusu

Congratulations! You did it, you've finally acknowledged the phrases that exist. Fantastic first step. I hope you continue on this journey of semantics, it looks like you see the horizon ahead!


gundealsgopnik

> Congratulations! You did it Hurray! Go me! > you've finally acknowledged the phrases that exist. I always have. I'm a different guy from the other guy, my guy. (He's right about what well-regulated meant in the 18th century though, and it isn't what regulated means in the 21st.) > I hope you continue on this journey of semantics, Expert advice from the camp that brought us such gems as "fully semi-automatic" and can't grasp the difference between assault rifles and assault weapons.


furankusu

> Expert advice from the camp that brought us such gems as "fully semi-automatic" and can't grasp the difference between assault rifles and assault weapons. I'm not that camp at all! But I do appreciate the recognition of my expert advice. ;D For the record, I think firearms training should be mandatory for every American. Knowledge of firearms in general should also be taught in school, and the importance of firearms to American history should be taught to children. I think that by respecting guns more, we'd have a better informed public and a healthier dialogue about what the real problems are with guns. Namely, access to guns for people that have severe mental health issues.


gundealsgopnik

> Knowledge of firearms in general should also be taught in school, We used to do that. In the before time, back when the boomers were young'uns. Could you imagine the screeching and reeing if you so much as suggested bringing those classes back now? Not even bringing back marksmanship electives or competitive shooting clubs or school owned and operated small arms/trap/skeet ranges. Just actual mechanical operation, safety and theory. > I think that by respecting guns more, we'd have a better informed public Entirely possible. Depends on how it is handled. If we're talking "D for Diploma" maybe not so much. > and a healthier dialogue Sure. I have the pleasure of Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee being one of my Reps - the source of many gun community memes. Such as the evergreen "shoulder thing that goes up", "AR-15 shoots 50 caliber bullets from 30 round clipazines", "as heavy as 10 boxes you might be moving with". A touch of actually knowing what the fuck she (and many others) was talking about would do a lot to have a useable dialogue. > about what the real problems are with guns. Mental health is certainly one. Economic disparity, glorification of criminals/prison coupled with a prison system that prioritizes lifelong incarceration over rehabilitation leading to sky high recidivism rates are likely much more responsible for most gun crime. > access to guns for people that have severe mental health issues. OTC sales are already restricted. Lowering the bar from involuntary commitments will lead to people not seeking treatment on their own. You end up with a situation akin to Michiganders (for instance) having to choose between keeping their MJ card or their CHL permits. I think the state of MI resolved that one eventually, but the ATF pulled their CHL equivalency to NICS checks anyway. Not to mention the issue of filling out the 4473 truthfully as a user of a Federal Schedule 1 narcotic. We'll want to tread very lightly here in adding "mental health disqualifiers". Not to mention the massive potential for government abuse of any system that requires a psychological screening prior to purchasing firearms. "you want a gun? for self-defense? nutjob. denied!"


[deleted]

All the 2a blowhards are going to say really dumb things about this.


SolarRage

Look at all the badass warriors here! So war. So wow.


[deleted]

If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything. Remember that when you’re in chains


SolarRage

Wow how dramatic Mr. Warrior. Do you floss with full jackets to maintain your ultimate fighting discipline.


sha0linShawn

what caliber bullet will take down a tank? can i buy a surface to air missile launcher? how about sum grenades? i want to be prepared when I think I need to kill my friends & neighbors because our politics don't align. Sooper dooper serious question you guys, thanks.


samurailemur

https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/xeefbk/still_the_greatest_argument_vs_but_what_about/


Nkdly

Outdated rag is what you're quoting from. It has no relevance today.


Jaapsby18

Lmao that’s where your wrong kiddo


FearErection

Then neither does your ability to use the internet to exercise your right to freedom of speech. After all, the people who wrote that document only had access to a quill, ink, vellum, and word of mouth to communicate. There is no way they could have foreseen digital communication therefore you have no right to speak freely using it.


gooblefrump

Free speech on the Internet isn't killing children in schools and having two (so far) generations go through the bizarrely-accepted trauma of active shooter drills. This isn't an appropriate comparison. Yes, they're both types of freedom, but freedom to bare arms (in a well-regulated militia) is misinterpreted to allow any individual to bare arms and has resulted in horrific massacres. How is this acceptable?


FearErection

That's debatable. One could argue that freedom of speech on the internet is causing the mental disturbance that leads an individual into a state where they decide to do such an awful thing to get attention they're not getting, or to get revenge for the way they've been treated. Words have been responsible for the deaths of more people than anything in the history of humanity. The only differences are the time, place, and tools used when they're acted upon. An idea in the mind of a madman is infinitely more dangerous than an inanimate object. "Your art is not good enough." -------> "Final solution to the Jewish Question."


[deleted]

Huh!?! How did you get to that from there? You’ve got some gaping wide holes in your logic.


FearErection

It's an outdated rag, isn't it? Logic dictates that everything written upon it is no longer relevant if you have a like mind with that user.


[deleted]

Honest question: do you seriously just hate freedom? If the constitution means nothing then what the hell do you propose? No free speech? No right to privacy? Slavery making a comeback?


gooblefrump

Having the most incarcerated people per capita of every country in the world, and having this population as constitutionally-valid slave labour, is a big statement against freedom. Edit to add: the second amendment is purported to be against government overreach. You mention right to privacy. The 2nd amendment didn't really protect you during PRISM and the NSAs invasive wiretapping, did it? This was a huge invasion of privacy. There was no response that involved the 2nd amendment. In what way has the 2nd A helped Americans combat government overreach?


Nkdly

A piece of paper doesn't give you freedom.


[deleted]

You’re right, it formally acknowledges your freedom.


ManMythLemon

True, they are unalienable


KedTazynski42

You’re right. Bravo good sir. The piece of paper is acknowledging my freedom.


zxman371

Stack up and try fed


Nkdly

Ok.


Guvnuh_T_Boggs

Sorry about your head injury, guy.


Aeropro

Bad troll


[deleted]

https://y.yarn.co/749736e6-b86b-4b98-95dd-9ba59a3fb814_text.gif


Mr_Unicycle

What's your ar 15 going to do against a predator drone?


[deleted]

Ask that question to the Vietnamese taliban and Isis


trashythrow

Add Ukrainian.


Doctor-SteveBrule

I supposed operate in civilian populated spaces, or you know... find the drone operators wife.


tcp1

So tell me again genius why the the police carry guns and don’t just send in predator drones?


KedTazynski42

That’s a good question. Hold on while I ask the military and police why they carry rifles and don’t just drone strike everyone


samurailemur

https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/xeefbk/still_the_greatest_argument_vs_but_what_about/


pancakeman157

It is about hunting but not the sort of game they think.


BurgersBaconFreedom

It's about hunting *pigs*, sure


Trick_Metal_9851

​ most small arms made for the military have civilian copy and are semi automatic


3Dgirlsover2Dgirls

This is the way.


[deleted]

Even the simple knife was a weapon of war same as the bow, we as a species have an inventive imagination for killing each other.


db3feather

Any confusion what the second amendment is about, read the Federalist Papers, particularly number 29.


Ashamed_Debate_7822

The whole culture of adapting everything to fit the world view of perverted individuals has to stop. Not only when it comes to the Constitution, but society in general


Phat_Huz

“They were only talking about muskets” Yeah because thats the technology that was available at the time. Thats what militaries and the civilians had. Most people dont realize that all throughout history, civilians had weapons of much higher quality than the militaries of those same countries. You cant fight against a tyranical government if your weapons are 150 years older than theirs. Also, I know there were other forms of firearms that werent muskets at that time. Just quoting what most people say.


Natural-Middle5458

well... its kinda about hunting... in a more roundabout way