40 ms·
Since 1791, the right to be armed has been considered a fundamental human right in the US, on the same level as freedom of speech and religion. You're fighting
by Ajedi32 10mo ago
Since 1791, the right to be armed has been considered a fundamental human right in the US, on the same level as freedom of speech and religion. You're fighting an uphill battle by trying to argue we should take away people's fundamental human rights in the name of public safety. To many, it's essentially no different from if you were trying to argue we should take away people's rights to free speech because some people use that right to promote violence.
Whether you think that makes the gun situation "hopeless" depends on whether you think there are other ways to reduce violence without taking away the rights of law abiding citizens.
- WhyOhWhyQ 10mo agoThe more fundamental human right is the right to not be blasted by an angry teenager who's been reading crazy things on the internet. In the hierarchy of human rights, that once has precedence.
- Ajedi32 10mo agoSo we should take away people's rights to "read crazy things on the internet" then, right? Because the right to not be killed is more important. Do you see the problem with that sort of thinking?
- WhyOhWhyQ 10mo agoYou can misread what I wrote and argue against all that strawman all day if you like. You haven't even represented the true content of the 2nd amendment so there's nothing to talk about here. The 2nd amendment is about militias, not "give everyone and their toddler access to massive fire power at all times". "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." Tell me where that says guns should be available to deranged person who wants one. Everyone should get a hand gun, a rifle, and a shotgun, and make it double.
- Ajedi32 10mo agoI didn't misread, you're missing the point. I'm saying your argument for infringing on the second amendment is equally valid for infringing on the first. (Which is to say, not very valid at all.)
- WhyOhWhyQ 10mo agoYou did misread my post. My argument does not say that at all, and I cannot see how it possibly could. My argument is that reducing the number of guns would reduce the number of gun deaths.
- Anonbrit 10mo agoThat's simply not true. That's a very modern interpretation of the second amendment. The /NRA/ lobbied for some of the first gun control laws in SanFran, because the Black Panthers were open carrying. Even in the days of the 'wild west' there were plenty of towns and cities with enforced gun control ordinances.
- Ajedi32 10mo agoJust as we have anti-defamation laws despite freedom of speech being a constitutionally protected right, you can have gun control laws despite carrying guns being a constitutionally protected right. I don't think that makes what I said untrue. Such laws (in both cases) are kept on a very short leash, both from a legal and a cultural perspective.