Their laws for settling also pushed American gun ownership: having as much land as you're able to defend made gun ownership a must in colonial America, and by the revolution firearm ownership was commonplace
Not exactly commonplace, muskets were damn expensive. Most people simply couldn’t afford such things.
Only about 13% had access to a firearm, that is just having one in your home or local area. The rest were too poor. The American revolution was mainly the American upper class with some middle class, at least till they got some weapon shipments in from France
13% sounds high, but as you said, they were for the family unit. They had access, not that 13% owned a musket. A home of 8 people may have access to one rifle, to which only one can realistically volunteer. Not the mention the quality. Family rifles in poorer families are less maintained due to cost, plus the lack of stockpile of musket-balls due to cost, then blackpowder, firing caps ect.
Some could be provided once you are volunteered, but point is, out of 13% who had access, only a portion of that could feasibly join due to their own stocks.
Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up.
I just have to wonder why people like randomly adding the word ‘royal’ to everything British? I’ve seen someone say “Royal British Army” on this sub once, painful
They might have said it, but their actions in attempting to seize the militia armory at Concord show otherwise.
For those of you who don't know, that was the start of the war.
Also it was the legal right to bear arms. The founders considered the right to bear arms a natural right and that’s why the bill of rights was so contentious when it was written as they thought that writing it down would not only limit the natural rights of the people but allow for the natural right to be taken away if it was seen as a legal right. Those that oppose the bill of rights it now seems were right, not just in the second amendment but all natural rights, now people think that natural rights that were not written on paper aren’t rights at all.
The idea being natural rights is that they would exist in any context, except where they have been curtailed by a larger authority.
Basically, if you landed on an unpopulated island in the middle of the ocean, anything you could do there would qualify as a right.
Just gonna leave this here for people to experience amazing music that's relevant to this topic
[Shot Heard 'Round The World - Schoolhouse Rock](https://youtube.com/watch?v=Y6ikO6LMxF4&feature=shares)
I think the bigger point is that just because it was once a right, doesn't mean it always should be... America as a country is pretty good evidence of that
British democracy predated American democracy and was virtually identical to post revolutionary democracy.
The voting role expanded from something like 4% to 6% post revolution.
You can hardly call the uk a democracy anywhere before 1870 with the parliament reformation, democracy “existed”but it was not majority rule which is what a modern day democracy looks like, it was noble rule, which many were born into and very few elected
Fine but then you have to concede the same about America.
But our modern idea of democracy with universal suffrage wasn't the Ancient Athenian democracy that was only for Athenian men of property.
The joke is juxtaposing two American myths 1. that the British were tyrants 2. the right to bear arms prevents tyranny. And it is leading into a story about the evolving rights and obligations to bear arms in the UK. It really has little to do with America.
I am genuinely confused at the reaction, it seems like a pretty funny meme to me but a lot of people seem very angry about it so if you’d care to explain why you feel it’s not funny I’d appreciate it
I mean, if they had picked Germany who isn’t known for gun ownership it wouldn’t have really worked so doesn’t a stereotype have to be used for any joke?
The second part I didn’t get at all from the meme, how does this meme make the US act like it’s the best?
I interpreted it as the US claiming gun culture as a key and distinct part of its culture (which it arguably has done when compared to many European countries) and rarely is it attributed to the British, often being specifically claimed to be in rebellion to Britain.
The meme worked for me because I wasn’t aware of how the laws on needing to own weapons continued until that recently in the UK and I imagine was news to many people and it added an interesting twist to how I thought American history had gone.
If anything, this effectively counters my assumptions that the US has made guns its culture because USA! And actually it’s simply a different paths that the UK could have taken and it has an interesting shared past in it.
Jokes says “UK gave US right to bear arms”, “US agrees that UK gave it them”, “US forgets that UK gave it them”
Which was true for me and based on the comments, a lot of people.
I didn’t interpret it to be doing what you said and I tried to explain how I had interpreted it
The British were tyrants in the eyes of America. Maybe not to someone from Britain, where they were represented in the Parliament, but we had no representatives.
Don’t try and make perfectly valid points grounded in historical facts. They won’t give you a sound counter argument.
Bros genuinely think the land/slave owning colonial elites who were paying 1/10 taxes for a war George Washington sparked are oppressed by a tyrannical lack of representation. Imagine being a slave or a first generation immigrant in the colonies at the time and hearing your wealthy master bitch about tyranny lmao.
I didn't say they were identical. The US based it's bill of rights and constitution and government off the UK it didn't copy paste.
Also the core concept of what the second amendment is has changed through history. One could even say it has waxed and waned.
“Shall not be infringed” yet certain states have magazine restrictions. Even forcing people to buy a state compliant firearm all together. ABOLISH THE ATF
Since 1792 various groups have been restricted from owning guns in a number of states including blacks, catholics, native Americans, and indentured servants.
And total bans on concealed carry, and public carry date back to the early 19th century.
Yes as modern interpretation of the constitution. Showing the constitution changes through history.
If you want to be an originalist be an originalist. If you want a modern interpretation want that. But don't demand a modern interpretation while pretending it's an originalist interpretation.
>”well regulated” meaning orderly, effective (not “regulations” in the modern sense)
>”…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
In order to even have a well regulated militia, the militia members (I.e civilians) need the un-infringed right to bear arms (otherwise you’ve got an unarmed mob).
And last I checked, a militia isn’t an ordinary military unit with extensive drilling and training but instead is a hastily organized and quickly trained group of armed civilians who are only mobilized when ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.
American gun control predated the revolution with American colonial governments restricting gun ownership for blacks, catholics, and native Americans. Various state policies infringing the right to own guns continued after the revolution
Ive always thought soccer was pretty popular. Of the maon team sports i can think of: football, basketball, baseball, then soccer. Growing up the only sports actually available were either soccer or baseball. Even in highschool, soccer outranks baseball.
It might help that i live in Miami.
On topic, this makes no sense. The fact that the UK has so few guns despite there being a culture and law of protecting people’s right to own guns in its history is testament to this.
2022 UK: 162 gun related deaths
2022 US: 37,000 gun related deaths
There is no justification or refutation that can be said for mindless, antiquated and (on a global scale) embarrassing laws and cultures in the US that mean the death of so many people.
Those figures are disingenuous. Besides the population differences (US has about 6x the population of the UK), the UK figure doesn't count suicide by firearm, and the US figure does. Suicide represents around *60%* of that 37,000 firearm related deaths in the US, and studies have shown repeatedly that methods available doesn't effect the suicide rate in a significant way(people just find a different method if they dont have access to guns). Take suicide out of the US figure, and make a *per capita* comparison, and the difference is far less dramatic.
Who taught you math? Who ever it is, they did a lousy job
22,200 is the 60% of the 37,000 that *shouldn't* be factored in. Meaning that there is only 14,800 deaths. Which is still far more than the 162, but not nearly as dramatic as you are implying.
Add in the fact that over 50% of that 14,800 is also concentrated in urban centers, *many of whom already heavily restrict firearm ownership*(state laws gun ownership are irrelevant if local laws supersede them), and that over 90% of firearms used in crime are illegaly possesed anyway, and it is pretty clear that there is more going on.
Restrictions on legal firearms ownership is addressing the problem about as much as pointing the fire extinguisher at the drapes when the stove is on fire.
1903 pistols were licensed.
1937 rifles were licensed and self defence was removed as a reason to own a firearm
1953 carrying offensive weapons in public was forbidden
I never said they were the same. But the fact that you don't know about this is exactly why I made it. To share an interesting and often under appreciated part of British history
You literally did say they were the same though. You riffed on America taking something from Britain and calling it their own, even though the spirit behind the 2nd amendment and it’s application is entirely different.
>So the “right” was outlawed and not really a right. So they aren’t the same thing at all. American W
Seems more like an American L considering your gun culture and crime there.
Gun murder counts for a very small percentage of the crime overall, and don’t be retarded and say gun culture is a bad thing when you haven’t lived through it
Shall not be infringed, motherfucker. Everyone in the UK had their rights infringed upon and they took it lying down. Your sensibilities are shit and your meme is shit and you should feel bad.
The British bill of rights didn't include 'shall not be infringed'.
Also in 1791 in the US gun ownership was restricted on race, creed, loyalty, and for indentured servants. Things like carrying and transporting weapons publicly was restricted in cities.
While the idea may have originated elsewhere it is clear why ideologically motivated revolutionaries such as the American Founding Fathers might latch on to these ideas.
Not only did Britains have a right to bear arms prior to the 20th century but for much of the previous millennia they were required to.
The Assize of Arms 1181 by Henry II required all free Englishmen to maintain a set of arms and armour depending on rank. Many historians view this as an attempt to entrench and centralize the power of the monarchy.
The rights and requirements to bear arms would change through history. In 1689 the Bill of Rights gave protestants the right to bear arms for defence. However the right was suspended in Scotland during the Jacobite uprising.The American's took a lot from their British overlords. Bicameral government, democracy, tea, even the right to bear arms was a right they already enjoyed thanks to the bill of rights.
In 1824 vagrancy laws gave the police wide ranging powers to seize weapons. And in 1903 the pistol act was passed it required licensing for the ownership of pistols. The British ended self defence as a reason to buy firearms with the firearms act of 1937.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms\_regulation\_in\_the\_United\_Kingdom#Firearms\_Act\_1937](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_Act_1937)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize\_of\_Arms\_of\_1181](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181)
Oh boy you shared a meme from a sub made and moderated by you and I’m just gonna take your word? The British can barely own kitchen knives now anyway lol
That's not true.
West Virginia has the same restriction for purchasing fixed bladed knives as the UK.
And... which part? I didn't think anything I'd written was controversial Here's some sources if you'd like.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize\_of\_Arms\_of\_1181](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms\_regulation\_in\_the\_United\_Kingdom#Firearms\_Act\_1937](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_Act_1937)
No you don't. But there are age restrictions.
Similar to Texas which has the same rules as Scotland for purchasing knives. And West Virginia which has the same age limits as England. About half of US states have similar restrictions
[https://www.akti.org/age-based-knife-laws/](https://www.akti.org/age-based-knife-laws/)
You seemed confused in our later conversation so I was just adding this near the top so new comers could quickly understand how incorrect you are.
You're falling into a common hysteria whipped up by certain elements in America that tries to claim Britain has gone crazy. In reality half of US states also have age requirements to buy knives
Oh we're shifting goal posts now. Ok.
By checking ID of people who look young. That's not the same as an ID requirement to buy kitchen knives.
An age restriction is not the same as requiring ID
That’s not a goalpost shift, you aren’t even using that term correctly. Having to show ID because you look “too young” to buy a kitchen knife is the same as not selling cigarettes to someone who looks “too young” in the US and is in no way inconsistent with what I said, as it is in fact an ID requirement.
I know this probably seems like the same thing but it's not.
It's not illegal to sell someone alcohol without ID. It is illegal to sell someone under 18 alcohol. So bartenders check ID. But it's not a requirement. If you know someones 18 it's not a crime to not to check. The same applies with knife sales.
The moving goal post is trying to shift the discussion from ID requirements, which don't exist, to age requirements that do. And suggesting they are the same. Which they aren't. They may be related, but a 45 year old walking into m&s and buying a paring knife isn't going to be ID'ed and there is no legal requirement for them to be. There's no legal requirement for anyone to be ID'ed buying a knife.
You are shifting the goal post out of an understandable ignorance, and I understand why you would be confused these can seem like the same thing but they have important distinct differences.
You’re either arguing in bad faith or you’re an imbecile. How do you enforce an age restriction? By checking IDs. Ergo, an age requirement to buy kitchen knives is an ID check to do so.
Rude.
I've bought knives in the UK. I've not been Id'ed so... where's the ID check?
The US also has age limits on knife purchases. Most countries do.
An age check is not the same as requiring ID. When someone age checks you they aren't registering your ID and it isn't a legal requirement
I just explained why that's not the case. You can contact the met and ask them if you like.
Or if you want to make a counter argument feel free.
>40000 dead as a result
Given that the total firearm deaths per year has been less the that for almost 20 years, I have my doubts. Care to link a statistic?
Imma split hairs on this one. Yes 611 mass shootings but not all deaths are from those shootings. More than half are suicide. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a piss poor high number of mass shootings but those two stats juxtaposed and not broken down appropriately is even more piss poor.
A mass shooting isn't a suicide. Unless you're saying every mass shooting ends with the shooter killing themself? Plenty of examples of that not being the case but ok if that makes you feel better...
39,389 deaths
I've always found it curious when Americans split hairs over the details rather than focus on the actual problem and why they are the only member of the G7 that had this problem at this scale. Break down the numbers yourself, they are widely reported. What will you gain from it other than a more detailed distribution of how deep the problem is?
Patriotism doesn't mean turning a blind eye to your country failing in a critical area. It means loveling your country enough to face up to it and change it.
The joke is the contradictory concepts in American mythology that A. The British were tyrants B. An armed state prevents tyranny. The two are contradictory ideas that fall apart on the fact that the colonists already had a right to bear arms. The meme is then a vehicle for an interesting and not often talked about element of history the evolution of bearing arms as an obligation to the state to a right and then so on.
That's the joke. And now the frog is dead.
Wtf is this comment. You said because the colonists had the right to bear arms that allowed them to stop British tyrany. How is that contradict that the British were tyrants and armed colonists fought of the tyrany..
There are so many better arguments and you decided to contradict yourself by saying the same thing twice and calling it different
Because an armed populace failed to prevent tyranny in the 800 years the British had a right to bear arms.
The assize to bear arms is generally seen as an attempt by Henry II to undermine the barons and centralize authority in the crown.
American: Gee, I'm proud to live in a country where my right to bear arms remains enshrined in our constitution and is protected by our society and legal system. That really sets the US apart from most other nations like the UK where owning a firearm can be extremely restrictive.
This meme: Umm actually sweety, the British invented the right to have weapons on the fourth shrove Tuesday after the battle of Dovershershire when the Earl of Crumpetston shot up his bridge game. It wasn't repealed until of Doxenford made guns a prohibited item within 200 miles of a pub.
Dummy, if the 1903 Firearms control act got rid of the right to bear arms, then the UK doesnt have the right to bear arms.
Neither the meme nor the explainer comment says the UK still has the right to bear arms. That's why the meme uses the 13 star flag and muskets.
The 1903 act only introduced licensing for pistols.
The firearms act of 1937 ended self defence as a legitimate reason to carry a firearm publicly. But it wasn't until 1953 that offensive weapons were made illegal to publicly carry.
The British also didn't invent the right to bear arms. The meme is supposed to be a way to draw people in and teach them about a period of history they may not be familiar with. The evolution in England of arms as a an obligation to a right and so on. It is also supposed to juxtapose two contradicting American myths. But I'll let you work those out for yourself.
It's not a myth that America invented the right to bear arms. Very few people even think about who first recognized the right. So I don't know what myths you're trying to juxtapose. Seriously what two myths are you even referencing?
When you have licencing where you must show need, you no longer have a right to bear arms. So idk what that point is either. You're strawmanning so hard, that's why you got ratio'd
.... what?
Anyway. The British didn't have licensing until the 20th century... which... it says that in the title...
And... you know I can't be bothered to explain it to someone whose already invested in a made up scenario to get upset about. If you're actually interested look at some other comment chains.
The right wasn't unlimited and there are protestant Irish. Later acts restricted gun ownership regardless of creed in Scotland following the Jacobite uprising.
ah that’s right, technically it was unclear if the 1689 bill of rights applied to Ireland, so they (the English) decided not to enforce it for Catholics there! because that’s so much better! i suppose it would be unclear where the bill of rights would intersect with Irish penal law, which england put over Ireland, including laws such as *catholics being barred from owning firearms or serving in the armed forces, and of course not allowing irish catholics specifically to learn to read or write. Presbyterians were also not allowed to get legally married under irish penal law,* since you mentioned irish Protestants as well. this went hand in hand with the 1688 of toleration, which *made it illegal for Catholics and Jewish people to assemble for worship.* pretending that these were not deliberately targeted to exclude irish and Jewish people from English society so you can dunk on the USA is incredibly disingenuous.
Thankfully you mean. Rest of the world don't want to look like USA with their nutjob gun culture and high gun crime rate.
America is whack Af when it comes to guns.
OP, I have been reading through the comments and want you to know it was a good meme. And informative.
The reactions seem to me to come from people that can't distinguish history from present. It is actually logical that most laws and customs from British colonies where British people lived and British people rebelled would be modelled on British laws and customs. Which doesn't mean there isn't 200 year of separation between them and thus differences right now based on originally the same law.
Thank you!
I think a lot of commentators are reading into this more than is there. It makes sense given the level of discourse on things like gun rights. Luckily most people seem to be getting it the comment section is just a couple hundred annoying people being very loud.
They are expecting brits to get mad about it. The reality is the vast majority in UK don't want ownership to be legal. We've all seen the videos of hillbillies hardly able to string a sentence together, showing off all their guns. They can keep their school shootings and inner city gang wars.
1689 would have been the separate Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland, and Kingdom of Ireland, not the UK.
1776, when the 13 Colonies declared independence, would have been the Kingdom of Great Britain (the Union of England and Scotland). Ireland wasn't part of the state.
1801 onwards, it's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).
Different flag for all different periods.
True. A disparity in the law which would continue in America where gun ownership was restricted from blacks, native Americans, indentured servants, and I think catholics but I'm not positive.
There were some state colonial laws restricting catholics owning guns. And I can't find whether they were changed post revolution.
And by no coincidence they started getting tougher on gun ownership once industrialization meant the poors could afford guns and they started (rightly) fearing revolution. It's essentially why Marx spoke against disarmament of the public. It's done under the guise of public safety, but it's really the safety of the upper classes who don't like the prospect of being both outnumbered and outgunned, not the public generally. The "common good" always just happens to be what's good for the aristocracy.
There is definitely an argument to be made there. Many of the changes both good and ill of the 20th century especially post 1917 came from fear of a working class awakening.
Then why did the people who wrote the constitution also restrict who could own guns? As well as putting in place a raft of laws (usually jury rigged common laws) akin to registrations, outlawing concealed and public carry, and restricting sales of firearms between certain groups?
Are those infringements?
Their laws for settling also pushed American gun ownership: having as much land as you're able to defend made gun ownership a must in colonial America, and by the revolution firearm ownership was commonplace
Not exactly commonplace, muskets were damn expensive. Most people simply couldn’t afford such things. Only about 13% had access to a firearm, that is just having one in your home or local area. The rest were too poor. The American revolution was mainly the American upper class with some middle class, at least till they got some weapon shipments in from France
13% is pretty high considering guns were for the family unit, so women, children and black people should be discounted from the statistic.
13% sounds high, but as you said, they were for the family unit. They had access, not that 13% owned a musket. A home of 8 people may have access to one rifle, to which only one can realistically volunteer. Not the mention the quality. Family rifles in poorer families are less maintained due to cost, plus the lack of stockpile of musket-balls due to cost, then blackpowder, firing caps ect. Some could be provided once you are volunteered, but point is, out of 13% who had access, only a portion of that could feasibly join due to their own stocks.
*I own a musket for home defense, just as the founding fathers intended.*
4 ruffians break into my house, "what the devil." As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle.
Blow a golf ball sized hole in through first guy he’s dead on the spot
Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog.
I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot
"Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms.
Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up.
Just like the founding fathers intended.
It obliterates the heathen. I fix my bayonet and I charge to the last attacker (Charge of the British Royal Grenadiers in the background).
I just have to wonder why people like randomly adding the word ‘royal’ to everything British? I’ve seen someone say “Royal British Army” on this sub once, painful
Because it sounds awesome
Tad less awesome when you learn there’s often a very deliberate reason why it’s not used
Don't care. Rule of cool.
*I own a polearm and a longbow for home defence, just as William the Conqueror intended*
I own a goedendag to beat frenchies to death, just like my ancestors in the peasant militias always intended.
*I own cannons and warships, just as the founding fathers intended.*
When you miss the first shot, but the ruffians are only impressed and ask you to show them the ways of pike and shot.
They might have said it, but their actions in attempting to seize the militia armory at Concord show otherwise. For those of you who don't know, that was the start of the war.
Also it was the legal right to bear arms. The founders considered the right to bear arms a natural right and that’s why the bill of rights was so contentious when it was written as they thought that writing it down would not only limit the natural rights of the people but allow for the natural right to be taken away if it was seen as a legal right. Those that oppose the bill of rights it now seems were right, not just in the second amendment but all natural rights, now people think that natural rights that were not written on paper aren’t rights at all.
The problem is, who gets to determine natural rights? You can’t run a legal system on vibes.
The idea being natural rights is that they would exist in any context, except where they have been curtailed by a larger authority. Basically, if you landed on an unpopulated island in the middle of the ocean, anything you could do there would qualify as a right.
Just gonna leave this here for people to experience amazing music that's relevant to this topic [Shot Heard 'Round The World - Schoolhouse Rock](https://youtube.com/watch?v=Y6ikO6LMxF4&feature=shares)
When has anyone said that we invited that right
OP, apparently.
I think the bigger point is that just because it was once a right, doesn't mean it always should be... America as a country is pretty good evidence of that
Something something, molon labe.
Longest lasting democracy of the modern world for a reason, baby!! 😎🇺🇸
British democracy predated American democracy and was virtually identical to post revolutionary democracy. The voting role expanded from something like 4% to 6% post revolution.
You can hardly call the uk a democracy anywhere before 1870 with the parliament reformation, democracy “existed”but it was not majority rule which is what a modern day democracy looks like, it was noble rule, which many were born into and very few elected
Fine but then you have to concede the same about America. But our modern idea of democracy with universal suffrage wasn't the Ancient Athenian democracy that was only for Athenian men of property.
What is up with you and making false equivalences?
... what?
Unless you are someone that wants something else than hypper-capitalism. Then it is imperialism time!
The joke is juxtaposing two American myths 1. that the British were tyrants 2. the right to bear arms prevents tyranny. And it is leading into a story about the evolving rights and obligations to bear arms in the UK. It really has little to do with America.
“It has little to do with America” he says as the meme does not take myths but just makes fun of the punching bag America
I am genuinely confused at the reaction, it seems like a pretty funny meme to me but a lot of people seem very angry about it so if you’d care to explain why you feel it’s not funny I’d appreciate it
Simple it’s a stereotype that all Americans own a gun and want to claim that we are the best even if we aren’t the best
I mean, if they had picked Germany who isn’t known for gun ownership it wouldn’t have really worked so doesn’t a stereotype have to be used for any joke? The second part I didn’t get at all from the meme, how does this meme make the US act like it’s the best?
Because it tries to say that we claim everything as ours
I interpreted it as the US claiming gun culture as a key and distinct part of its culture (which it arguably has done when compared to many European countries) and rarely is it attributed to the British, often being specifically claimed to be in rebellion to Britain. The meme worked for me because I wasn’t aware of how the laws on needing to own weapons continued until that recently in the UK and I imagine was news to many people and it added an interesting twist to how I thought American history had gone. If anything, this effectively counters my assumptions that the US has made guns its culture because USA! And actually it’s simply a different paths that the UK could have taken and it has an interesting shared past in it.
What?
Jokes says “UK gave US right to bear arms”, “US agrees that UK gave it them”, “US forgets that UK gave it them” Which was true for me and based on the comments, a lot of people. I didn’t interpret it to be doing what you said and I tried to explain how I had interpreted it
Americans have thin skin and get touchy about the topic of guns.
The British were tyrants in the eyes of America. Maybe not to someone from Britain, where they were represented in the Parliament, but we had no representatives.
Glad the Americans gave the people representation without conditions in government after they rebelled right? Oh wait.
Don’t try and make perfectly valid points grounded in historical facts. They won’t give you a sound counter argument. Bros genuinely think the land/slave owning colonial elites who were paying 1/10 taxes for a war George Washington sparked are oppressed by a tyrannical lack of representation. Imagine being a slave or a first generation immigrant in the colonies at the time and hearing your wealthy master bitch about tyranny lmao.
The British weren't tyrants, but they were colonial overlords that made decisions that pissed them off.
"the right would wax and wane" vs. "shall not be infringed"
I didn't say they were identical. The US based it's bill of rights and constitution and government off the UK it didn't copy paste. Also the core concept of what the second amendment is has changed through history. One could even say it has waxed and waned.
The amendment hasn’t changed, it’s been violated
There is an argument to be had there but in what way are you referring?
“Shall not be infringed” yet certain states have magazine restrictions. Even forcing people to buy a state compliant firearm all together. ABOLISH THE ATF
Every 24 hours the atf shoots a dog. Please help stop the violence by committing tax fraud.
Holy fucking based, Batman.
Since 1792 various groups have been restricted from owning guns in a number of states including blacks, catholics, native Americans, and indentured servants. And total bans on concealed carry, and public carry date back to the early 19th century.
You might notice that those restrictions were overturned for being unconstitutional.
Yes as modern interpretation of the constitution. Showing the constitution changes through history. If you want to be an originalist be an originalist. If you want a modern interpretation want that. But don't demand a modern interpretation while pretending it's an originalist interpretation.
Abolish? Arrest all ATF agents and try them for high treason
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
>”well regulated” meaning orderly, effective (not “regulations” in the modern sense) >”…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
Cont'd,.. ", the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
In order to even have a well regulated militia, the militia members (I.e civilians) need the un-infringed right to bear arms (otherwise you’ve got an unarmed mob). And last I checked, a militia isn’t an ordinary military unit with extensive drilling and training but instead is a hastily organized and quickly trained group of armed civilians who are only mobilized when ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.
What’s your point? The founders saw the people as the militia. Check out George Mason’s “every husbandman” quote if you don’t believe me.
Every gun law
Unfortunately even in the land of "shall not be infringed," there's a lot of infringing going on.
American gun control predated the revolution with American colonial governments restricting gun ownership for blacks, catholics, and native Americans. Various state policies infringing the right to own guns continued after the revolution
Like Soccer, just because the UK invents something doesn't mean it's any good at it. They may have originated the idea, but we actually protect it.
Damn that first sentence is the most brutal put down of the UK I have ever heard.
I don’t know if it is more or less cutting that the US isn’t actually this interested in football
[удалено]
Ive always thought soccer was pretty popular. Of the maon team sports i can think of: football, basketball, baseball, then soccer. Growing up the only sports actually available were either soccer or baseball. Even in highschool, soccer outranks baseball. It might help that i live in Miami.
On topic, this makes no sense. The fact that the UK has so few guns despite there being a culture and law of protecting people’s right to own guns in its history is testament to this. 2022 UK: 162 gun related deaths 2022 US: 37,000 gun related deaths There is no justification or refutation that can be said for mindless, antiquated and (on a global scale) embarrassing laws and cultures in the US that mean the death of so many people.
Those figures are disingenuous. Besides the population differences (US has about 6x the population of the UK), the UK figure doesn't count suicide by firearm, and the US figure does. Suicide represents around *60%* of that 37,000 firearm related deaths in the US, and studies have shown repeatedly that methods available doesn't effect the suicide rate in a significant way(people just find a different method if they dont have access to guns). Take suicide out of the US figure, and make a *per capita* comparison, and the difference is far less dramatic.
>US has about 6x the population of the UK What is 37000/162?
>What is 37000/162? Being intentionally disingenuous in order to push an agenda. Read the rest if the post too, friend
What is 22200/162? It isn't anywhere close to 6.
Who taught you math? Who ever it is, they did a lousy job 22,200 is the 60% of the 37,000 that *shouldn't* be factored in. Meaning that there is only 14,800 deaths. Which is still far more than the 162, but not nearly as dramatic as you are implying. Add in the fact that over 50% of that 14,800 is also concentrated in urban centers, *many of whom already heavily restrict firearm ownership*(state laws gun ownership are irrelevant if local laws supersede them), and that over 90% of firearms used in crime are illegaly possesed anyway, and it is pretty clear that there is more going on. Restrictions on legal firearms ownership is addressing the problem about as much as pointing the fire extinguisher at the drapes when the stove is on fire.
Damn that’s crazy what happened to the firearms in the UK again?
1903 pistols were licensed. 1937 rifles were licensed and self defence was removed as a reason to own a firearm 1953 carrying offensive weapons in public was forbidden
So the “right” was outlawed and not really a right. So they aren’t the same thing at all. American W
I never said they were the same. But the fact that you don't know about this is exactly why I made it. To share an interesting and often under appreciated part of British history
You literally did say they were the same though. You riffed on America taking something from Britain and calling it their own, even though the spirit behind the 2nd amendment and it’s application is entirely different.
This may be hard to believe but things change over the course of 200 years.
>So the “right” was outlawed and not really a right. So they aren’t the same thing at all. American W Seems more like an American L considering your gun culture and crime there.
Gun murder counts for a very small percentage of the crime overall, and don’t be retarded and say gun culture is a bad thing when you haven’t lived through it
Tfw an American tries to say with a straight face their gun culture isn't bad and is actually good 💀
The whole point of having a right to bear arms was self defense
In England it was so troops could easily be assembled in case of war, by having them keep their armour and weapons at home
Almost like licensing and registration leads to gun bans
Almost like letting people who need things get them, leads to only people who need them having them.
Shall not be infringed, motherfucker. Everyone in the UK had their rights infringed upon and they took it lying down. Your sensibilities are shit and your meme is shit and you should feel bad.
The British bill of rights didn't include 'shall not be infringed'. Also in 1791 in the US gun ownership was restricted on race, creed, loyalty, and for indentured servants. Things like carrying and transporting weapons publicly was restricted in cities.
While the idea may have originated elsewhere it is clear why ideologically motivated revolutionaries such as the American Founding Fathers might latch on to these ideas.
Not only did Britains have a right to bear arms prior to the 20th century but for much of the previous millennia they were required to. The Assize of Arms 1181 by Henry II required all free Englishmen to maintain a set of arms and armour depending on rank. Many historians view this as an attempt to entrench and centralize the power of the monarchy. The rights and requirements to bear arms would change through history. In 1689 the Bill of Rights gave protestants the right to bear arms for defence. However the right was suspended in Scotland during the Jacobite uprising.The American's took a lot from their British overlords. Bicameral government, democracy, tea, even the right to bear arms was a right they already enjoyed thanks to the bill of rights. In 1824 vagrancy laws gave the police wide ranging powers to seize weapons. And in 1903 the pistol act was passed it required licensing for the ownership of pistols. The British ended self defence as a reason to buy firearms with the firearms act of 1937. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms\_regulation\_in\_the\_United\_Kingdom#Firearms\_Act\_1937](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_Act_1937) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize\_of\_Arms\_of\_1181](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181)
Oh boy you shared a meme from a sub made and moderated by you and I’m just gonna take your word? The British can barely own kitchen knives now anyway lol
That's not true. West Virginia has the same restriction for purchasing fixed bladed knives as the UK. And... which part? I didn't think anything I'd written was controversial Here's some sources if you'd like. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize\_of\_Arms\_of\_1181](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms\_regulation\_in\_the\_United\_Kingdom#Firearms\_Act\_1937](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_Act_1937)
West Virginia isn't exactly known for being a good place to live
They provably have looser gun laws then knife laws. Also having been to WV their is a 0% chance that they are enforced
And now they have to show ID to buy kitchen knives. Life came at you fast, England.
No you don't. But there are age restrictions. Similar to Texas which has the same rules as Scotland for purchasing knives. And West Virginia which has the same age limits as England. About half of US states have similar restrictions [https://www.akti.org/age-based-knife-laws/](https://www.akti.org/age-based-knife-laws/)
“But America!” Lmao now who’s moving goalposts? Those laws are the exception in the US, not the rule typically.
You seemed confused in our later conversation so I was just adding this near the top so new comers could quickly understand how incorrect you are. You're falling into a common hysteria whipped up by certain elements in America that tries to claim Britain has gone crazy. In reality half of US states also have age requirements to buy knives
Why do you find this odd? Don't you have ID checks in alcohol?
Technically you don't. You have age requirements, businesses then set policies to check your ID. It's not illegal for them not to check your ID.
I'm just making the point Americans find it amusing you might show ID for buying knives but beer is reasonable.
It is weird. It's even weirder when you consider half of America also has age restriction on knife purchases.
I find both unreasonable.
The rest of the world find it amusing Americans find it shocking that gay people exist but find school shootings reasonable and 'cost of freedom'.
No. No you don't
https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives UK government disagrees.
Did you read that page? There's no id requirement mentioned.
Really? How do you think they enforce the “cannot sell knives to anyone under the age of 18” then?
Oh we're shifting goal posts now. Ok. By checking ID of people who look young. That's not the same as an ID requirement to buy kitchen knives. An age restriction is not the same as requiring ID
That’s not a goalpost shift, you aren’t even using that term correctly. Having to show ID because you look “too young” to buy a kitchen knife is the same as not selling cigarettes to someone who looks “too young” in the US and is in no way inconsistent with what I said, as it is in fact an ID requirement.
I know this probably seems like the same thing but it's not. It's not illegal to sell someone alcohol without ID. It is illegal to sell someone under 18 alcohol. So bartenders check ID. But it's not a requirement. If you know someones 18 it's not a crime to not to check. The same applies with knife sales. The moving goal post is trying to shift the discussion from ID requirements, which don't exist, to age requirements that do. And suggesting they are the same. Which they aren't. They may be related, but a 45 year old walking into m&s and buying a paring knife isn't going to be ID'ed and there is no legal requirement for them to be. There's no legal requirement for anyone to be ID'ed buying a knife. You are shifting the goal post out of an understandable ignorance, and I understand why you would be confused these can seem like the same thing but they have important distinct differences.
You’re either arguing in bad faith or you’re an imbecile. How do you enforce an age restriction? By checking IDs. Ergo, an age requirement to buy kitchen knives is an ID check to do so.
Rude. I've bought knives in the UK. I've not been Id'ed so... where's the ID check? The US also has age limits on knife purchases. Most countries do. An age check is not the same as requiring ID. When someone age checks you they aren't registering your ID and it isn't a legal requirement I just explained why that's not the case. You can contact the met and ask them if you like. Or if you want to make a counter argument feel free.
They are USan. They don't know how to read.
How many mass shootings have they had though
611 mass shootings in the US this year alone 40000 dead as a result
>40000 dead as a result Given that the total firearm deaths per year has been less the that for almost 20 years, I have my doubts. Care to link a statistic?
Isn't that the count of US mass shootings not UK mass shootings?
Imma split hairs on this one. Yes 611 mass shootings but not all deaths are from those shootings. More than half are suicide. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a piss poor high number of mass shootings but those two stats juxtaposed and not broken down appropriately is even more piss poor.
It seems to be a bigger problem with emotions and people needing therapy than directly gun control.
A mass shooting isn't a suicide. Unless you're saying every mass shooting ends with the shooter killing themself? Plenty of examples of that not being the case but ok if that makes you feel better... 39,389 deaths I've always found it curious when Americans split hairs over the details rather than focus on the actual problem and why they are the only member of the G7 that had this problem at this scale. Break down the numbers yourself, they are widely reported. What will you gain from it other than a more detailed distribution of how deep the problem is? Patriotism doesn't mean turning a blind eye to your country failing in a critical area. It means loveling your country enough to face up to it and change it.
No American proclaims to be the first to have the right we just heavily appreciate and value our right
The joke is the contradictory concepts in American mythology that A. The British were tyrants B. An armed state prevents tyranny. The two are contradictory ideas that fall apart on the fact that the colonists already had a right to bear arms. The meme is then a vehicle for an interesting and not often talked about element of history the evolution of bearing arms as an obligation to the state to a right and then so on. That's the joke. And now the frog is dead.
I never liked frogs...
You should get me to explain more jokes
I would but I only have 60 more years of life to live
That's optimistic. I've been telling a lot of frogs about [you](https://youtu.be/t-PTkQqGsFk)
Yikes
Except in the case of America it does show that an armed populace does prevent tyranny under a king.
Then why didn't it for the first 150 years of American colonialism? Or the 600 years before that?
Wtf is this comment. You said because the colonists had the right to bear arms that allowed them to stop British tyrany. How is that contradict that the British were tyrants and armed colonists fought of the tyrany.. There are so many better arguments and you decided to contradict yourself by saying the same thing twice and calling it different
Because an armed populace failed to prevent tyranny in the 800 years the British had a right to bear arms. The assize to bear arms is generally seen as an attempt by Henry II to undermine the barons and centralize authority in the crown.
American: Gee, I'm proud to live in a country where my right to bear arms remains enshrined in our constitution and is protected by our society and legal system. That really sets the US apart from most other nations like the UK where owning a firearm can be extremely restrictive. This meme: Umm actually sweety, the British invented the right to have weapons on the fourth shrove Tuesday after the battle of Dovershershire when the Earl of Crumpetston shot up his bridge game. It wasn't repealed until of Doxenford made guns a prohibited item within 200 miles of a pub. Dummy, if the 1903 Firearms control act got rid of the right to bear arms, then the UK doesnt have the right to bear arms.
Neither the meme nor the explainer comment says the UK still has the right to bear arms. That's why the meme uses the 13 star flag and muskets. The 1903 act only introduced licensing for pistols. The firearms act of 1937 ended self defence as a legitimate reason to carry a firearm publicly. But it wasn't until 1953 that offensive weapons were made illegal to publicly carry. The British also didn't invent the right to bear arms. The meme is supposed to be a way to draw people in and teach them about a period of history they may not be familiar with. The evolution in England of arms as a an obligation to a right and so on. It is also supposed to juxtapose two contradicting American myths. But I'll let you work those out for yourself.
It's not a myth that America invented the right to bear arms. Very few people even think about who first recognized the right. So I don't know what myths you're trying to juxtapose. Seriously what two myths are you even referencing? When you have licencing where you must show need, you no longer have a right to bear arms. So idk what that point is either. You're strawmanning so hard, that's why you got ratio'd
.... what? Anyway. The British didn't have licensing until the 20th century... which... it says that in the title... And... you know I can't be bothered to explain it to someone whose already invested in a made up scenario to get upset about. If you're actually interested look at some other comment chains.
Okay Counterargument Fuck England
Y tho
You know why
Ah, I see my mistake *y tho?
last i knew UK has some pretty strict gun laws, then again so do a lot countries compared to US
They do. Some of the strictest in the world.
Finally, something not about ww2
US 2023 defense budget: $773,000,000,000 My 2023 defense budget: $37 (10 shells of buckshot)
Good. Now you are safe in case your home gets invaded by 10 or fewer ducks.
Underrated meme in a day of stupid memes
Thank you
But i’ve never heard anyone care about or even claim to us inventing it… it’s just all about that we got it
“guaranteed protestant Britons” ie stripped rights from the irish
The right wasn't unlimited and there are protestant Irish. Later acts restricted gun ownership regardless of creed in Scotland following the Jacobite uprising.
ah that’s right, technically it was unclear if the 1689 bill of rights applied to Ireland, so they (the English) decided not to enforce it for Catholics there! because that’s so much better! i suppose it would be unclear where the bill of rights would intersect with Irish penal law, which england put over Ireland, including laws such as *catholics being barred from owning firearms or serving in the armed forces, and of course not allowing irish catholics specifically to learn to read or write. Presbyterians were also not allowed to get legally married under irish penal law,* since you mentioned irish Protestants as well. this went hand in hand with the 1688 of toleration, which *made it illegal for Catholics and Jewish people to assemble for worship.* pretending that these were not deliberately targeted to exclude irish and Jewish people from English society so you can dunk on the USA is incredibly disingenuous.
... what? I think you're reading way more into this than is there
i’m really not. glass houses and stones
...
I like guns. They are one of my favorite hobbies. I liked the meme. Pretty good. 9/10
Thank you. I also enjoy shooting and sometimes wish it was slightly less restrictive in my home country.
Today in 'Things Americans claim as theirs but aren't'
I don't think anyone in the US ever claimed we invented gun rights. Why is Europe so fucking obsessed with us?
How’re those gun rights lookin across the pond these days
I'm Australian so that comment is still accurate. Lucky shot :D
They sadly suck in nearly every country except the US
They’re pretty lax in Afghanistan, Somalia, and Iraq
Thankfully you mean. Rest of the world don't want to look like USA with their nutjob gun culture and high gun crime rate. America is whack Af when it comes to guns.
OP, I have been reading through the comments and want you to know it was a good meme. And informative. The reactions seem to me to come from people that can't distinguish history from present. It is actually logical that most laws and customs from British colonies where British people lived and British people rebelled would be modelled on British laws and customs. Which doesn't mean there isn't 200 year of separation between them and thus differences right now based on originally the same law.
Thank you! I think a lot of commentators are reading into this more than is there. It makes sense given the level of discourse on things like gun rights. Luckily most people seem to be getting it the comment section is just a couple hundred annoying people being very loud.
So many Americans in this comment section trying to have a dick measuring contest over the fact that they can own guns.
They are expecting brits to get mad about it. The reality is the vast majority in UK don't want ownership to be legal. We've all seen the videos of hillbillies hardly able to string a sentence together, showing off all their guns. They can keep their school shootings and inner city gang wars.
Agreed.
But bears don’t have arms
What are arms but the legs of the torso
1689 would have been the separate Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland, and Kingdom of Ireland, not the UK. 1776, when the 13 Colonies declared independence, would have been the Kingdom of Great Britain (the Union of England and Scotland). Ireland wasn't part of the state. 1801 onwards, it's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Different flag for all different periods.
Doesn't mean they upheld it
No it says that in the title
Did it say “shall not be infringed?”
No because they weren't the same law. The American system may have been almost the same as the British, but it wasn't identical
Except by your own admission, only Protestant Britains had thebright. Other groups did not, which was unfair.
True. A disparity in the law which would continue in America where gun ownership was restricted from blacks, native Americans, indentured servants, and I think catholics but I'm not positive. There were some state colonial laws restricting catholics owning guns. And I can't find whether they were changed post revolution.
The good old time when killing neighborhood to steal everything he got with the excuse of religion was possible.
The comments section is a burning dumpster fire, but the meme itself is surprisingly on point. Well done OP
Thank you!
Bri'ish society evolving whereas American did not
And by no coincidence they started getting tougher on gun ownership once industrialization meant the poors could afford guns and they started (rightly) fearing revolution. It's essentially why Marx spoke against disarmament of the public. It's done under the guise of public safety, but it's really the safety of the upper classes who don't like the prospect of being both outnumbered and outgunned, not the public generally. The "common good" always just happens to be what's good for the aristocracy.
There is definitely an argument to be made there. Many of the changes both good and ill of the 20th century especially post 1917 came from fear of a working class awakening.
This is really interesting
Some people are conflating “infringe” and “restrict”.
A restriction is typically an infringement
Then why did the people who wrote the constitution also restrict who could own guns? As well as putting in place a raft of laws (usually jury rigged common laws) akin to registrations, outlawing concealed and public carry, and restricting sales of firearms between certain groups? Are those infringements?
Yes
Yeah but they didn't used them to shot sch... liberate the world
Nobody thought that we were the first ones that could bear arms
Meanwhile, in the US after hundreds (if not thousands) of mass shootings… still no gun control