The 2nd’s purpose is so the Fed can’t terrorize the States. It wasn’t envisioned as the people can terrorize each other. But if it wasn’t, the belief that an armed US populace could do more than mildly resist the US Armed Forces in the scenario of a tyranny/coup et al is stupid.
Even Trump and Q know the Armed Forces would just crush everyone.
Who would win:
Some malnourished farmers in southeast Asia or the US military?
Some goat herders with scraggly beards who hate cartoons or the US miltiary?
The entire might of the British Empire or some colony bois?
Where does it say states?
This has been proven wrong multiple times.But if it wasn’t, the belief that an armed US populace could do more than mildly resist the US Armed Forces in the scenario of a tyranny/coup et al is stupid.
Even Trump and Q know the Armed Forces would just crush everyone.
Entire might? We were fighting the C team most of that war. And without the French empire the answer is the British.
We would whup the Vietcong with today’s tech. We can see through walls and underground now.
Free State? Refers to the states directly. Why bearing arms is necessary. The Crux so to speak.
Last edited by enoch; April 08, 2021 at 10:19 AM.
States rights are superior to the constitution (SCOTUS is fake news) that’s why the usa needs to enforce gun control and tell states what to do. Just because a state can have militias and people can have guns doesn’t mean they can own guns.
Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII
Is the Taliban being whooped?
I'll rephrase: Where does it say that the state should be the one operating the militia? The freedom it speaks of cannot be ensured if the militia is subordinate to the state. It would then be no different than an army.Free State? Refers to the states directly. Why bearing arms is necessary. The Crux so to speak.
Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!
The misconception that the founders fashioned the government with the question, how can we protect the people from the tyranny of the state always amuses.
The various conventions etc were formed around the question of, how can we preserve the power of the States from a tyranny of federal government.
That a guy like Jefferson, who rewrote the Bible to take the miracles out and whose ideal government was an agrarian populace ruled over by a liberal I mean intellectual meritocracy, wanted an armed lower class is cute.
The founders weren’t concerned. Neither am I. As long as States rights are sacrosanct seems highly unlikely.
Why I think California should have the right to gun laws and Alabama to restrict abortion. Hell I think racist voting laws are even legit, I just don’t like that they don’t have the decency to admit what their goals are.
If Georgia named it the “keep the blacks and Mexicans and poor and urban from voting because Jesus Christ we are ed if we don’t get this done before 2022” law I would back it.
I suppose that is the crux of the issue; what constitutes an "assault" weapon?
I'm no expert in US law (far from it) but if you limit these weapons to a max magazine size, (and from what I understand they are already limited to semi-automatic), is it still an "assault weapon"?
So, I think for the sport shooting community it'd be this line in particular that would have them concerned.
ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines
There's no such thing as an "assault weapon"; that's a liberal weasel word.
well, what I mean is that it would probably help to have a bit of clarity on the issue.
assault weapons seems nebulous. What's the definition going to be?
I don't see a problem with regulation as such, but it needs to be clearly spelled out.
As an aide à l'enquête, here is a primary source for the executive measures pertaining to gun control the Biden administration would present for our consideration:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...alth-epidemic/
From which once extracts:
- The Justice Department, within 30 days, will issue a proposed [italics added] rule to help stop the proliferation of “ghost guns.”
- The Justice Department, within 60 days, will issue a proposed [italics added] rule to make clear when a device marketed as a stabilizing brace effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act.
- The Justice Department, within 60 days, will publish model [italics added] “red flag” legislation for states.
- The Administration is investing in evidence-based community violence interventions.
- The Justice Department will issue an annual report on firearms trafficking.
- The President will nominate David Chipman to serve as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
From the source cited supra, one notes:
In other words, it appears to be more a cri de cœur for Congress to act. Insofar as it is that, it is feckless.President Biden is reiterating his call for Congress to pass legislation [emphasis added] to reduce gun violence. Last month, a bipartisan coalition in the House passed two bills to close loopholes in the gun background check system. Congress should close those loopholes and go further, including by closing “boyfriend” and stalking loopholes that currently allow people found by the courts to be abusers to possess firearms, banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines, repealing gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability, and investing in evidence-based community violence interventions. Congress should also pass an appropriate national “red flag” law, as well as legislation incentivizing states to pass “red flag” laws of their own.
Last edited by skh1; April 08, 2021 at 11:47 PM. Reason: a bit of tidying up
"You know… the thing" - President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., vaguely alluding to the Declaration of Independence
Bryan Texas mass shooting, another young white male. So sad how prone to violence they are.
https://www.kbtx.com/2021/04/08/acti...ryan-business/
I don't think "liberals" came up with that term, and it doesn't seem too weasely given that it's mainly for referring to assault rifles that don't have a selector for automatic (usually the defining feature of an assault rifle) and calling them just "semi-auto rifles" seems a bit broad if the most technically accurate. Spoiler, technical definitions of guns are difficult and not common; see that most pistols are also technically rifles though we usually reserve that term for long guns.
They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.
The etymology of the term isn't relevant. In the context of the gun control debate, it is used as a weasel word.
I suppose you don't see the irony in arguing that the term semi-automatic rifles "seems a bit broad", but "assault weapons" (an intentionally open-ended, nonspecific phrase) doesn't. The latter is almost as bad as "weapons of war" (another favourite among liberals).and it doesn't seem too weasely given that it's mainly for referring to assault rifles that don't have a selector for automatic (usually the defining feature of an assault rifle) and calling them just "semi-auto rifles" seems a bit broad if the most technically accurate. Spoiler, technical definitions of guns are difficult and not common; see that most pistols are also technically rifles though we usually reserve that term for long guns.
The point about pistols serves only to prove that so-called "assault weapons" are not inherently more lethal than handguns. In fact, the data has persistently shown than handguns account for the overwhelming majority of firearm related deaths in the US (of which the majority are suicides).
.
Spot on oft ignored fact. Good guys with guns kill way way way more innocent people than bad guys with guns in the US. One of the strongest arguments for why gun ownership should be highly restricted as the demographics of the majority of people who commit gun violence in the US are not criminals and are mixed throughout all populations.
But Chicago. So silly. Good guys with guns are the problem. Really just guns I guess.