3 ms·

>The only reason why the US is so extremely lax on firearms is because people keep blathering on about how guns are the last line of defense against a tyrannica

>The only reason why the US is so extremely lax on firearms is because people keep blathering on about how guns are the last line of defense against a tyrannical government No, it’s because the right to own firearms is very explicitly stated in our constitution and the constitution requires an extreme super majority to update. A 50%+1 majority is all that’s required to ban civilian ownership of guns in most parliamentary systems, not so in the US. The culture is downstream of the law.

phoghed 3mo ago
Or just a reinterpretation of a single line of the constitution.
- plagiarist 3mo ago
  Oh, SCOTUS doesn't radically reinterpret the Constitution in that direction. Or, perhaps maybe it does, but nobody's bought Clarence the right RV yet.
xethos 3mo ago
> the right to own firearms is very explicitly stated in our constitution The right to bear arms does not necessarily mean firearms. Arms doesn't necessarily even have to include firearms, and America is already pretty damn strict about certain armaments, such as sub-machine guns. Americans are allowed to have certain firearms, sometimes, in some places. I'm not sure how one squares that with the blanket statement from the American constitution that Americans have the right to bear arms, unless it's simply an impossibly poorly-informed citizenry
- kelnos 3mo ago
  You can personally interpret the US constitution however you want, I suppose, but the only interpretation that matters is that of the Supreme Court. And they have held over and over that 2A includes a right to many different kinds of firearms. I feel like you're the one who is poorly informed? (For the record, I am in favor of strong gun control laws, but your statement just ignores reality.)
- Spooky23 3mo ago
  The more… enthusiastic gun people among us think that the national firearms act (which strictly regulates automatic weapons) is an abomination. It’s unique in that it’s the only right that aligns with business marketing. Peddling fear, mostly to insecure men, has sold hundreds of millions of guns. The fetishized nature of modern gun culture killed, in addition to people, a lot of shooting sports and hunting.
  - deejaaymac 3mo ago
    What a strange take. I grew up in a small hunting town (I'm in my early 30s), where most high school boys (most girls didn't hunt, but some did) had a rifle and/or shotgun in their truck, mounted against the inside back of the cab where you could see it plain view. We had 0 homicides from guns in the 19 years I lived there, there was 1 suicide by gun that I know of. Many of us grew up hunting to feed our family. This is in Colorado. I shot my first pistol around the age of 5. I accidentally went to 7th grade with ammo in my pocket because we were hunting that morning. I went to the principal, he told me just to put the ammo in my locker. With that being said, you'd be hard pressed to find a group of townspeople more respectful of guns. It's not a gun problem, it's a culture problem. Not saying that there's not "insecure men" out there that are the victim of marketing, etc, but a lot of us grew up with guns and see them as a tool.
    - antonvs 3mo ago
      > see them as a tool. Yes, a tool for killing. You’re respectful of guns, but where’s your respect for life?
      - grosswait 3mo ago
        Respectful of liberty. A spear is also a tool for killing. Respect for life is not an expectation of the tool.
        marysol5 3mo ago
        Those damn commies have banned me from owning an ICBM
- modo_mario 3mo ago
  > and America is already pretty damn strict about certain armaments, such as sub-machine guns. Not one but you're really validating their slippery slope fears and claims there.
- redeeman 3mo ago
  and this is very clearly unconstitutional. "shall not be infringed" is very very plain and simple
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    Yep, alongside "Congress shall make no law" which says it's fine for anyone who isn't Congress to infringe your free speech, or for Congress to do it in any way that isn't making a law.
    - redeeman 3mo ago
      thats very very obviously not how it works or was intended. then they could just come up with "rules" that are not laws, and then rules say cannot have arms. all these insane and VERY OBVIOUS attempts to bypass the constitution should result in official doing it be put in jail FOREVER
      - inigyou 3mo ago
        Who's going to put them in jail? Their best friends?
        redeeman 3mo ago
        i didnt say i think its gonna happen, im saying it should happen
    - WarmWash 3mo ago
      The system does not work like that, hah. This is the kind of logic sovereign citizens use..."I'm traveling, not driving, so I don't need a license!" At the end of the day, judges have the ability to clear away silly logic like that, it's part of their job.
      - inigyou 3mo ago
        Yes, judges have the power to say the constitution is just toilet paper. That's why the constitution is currently just toilet paper. Including both the first and second amendments.
marysol5 3mo ago
>No, it’s because the right to own firearms is very explicitly stated in our constitution No it isn't, it says you have the ability to form a militia. Not wave a AR-15 in Walmart. It's lobbying by the NRA that has changed the definition.

phoghed 3mo ago

Or just a reinterpretation of a single line of the constitution.

plagiarist 3mo ago
Oh, SCOTUS doesn't radically reinterpret the Constitution in that direction. Or, perhaps maybe it does, but nobody's bought Clarence the right RV yet.

xethos 3mo ago

> the right to own firearms is very explicitly stated in our constitution The right to bear arms does not necessarily mean firearms. Arms doesn't necessarily even have to include firearms, and America is already pretty damn strict about certain armaments, such as sub-machine guns. Americans are allowed to have certain firearms, sometimes, in some places. I'm not sure how one squares that with the blanket statement from the American constitution that Americans have the right to bear arms, unless it's simply an impossibly poorly-informed citizenry

kelnos 3mo ago
You can personally interpret the US constitution however you want, I suppose, but the only interpretation that matters is that of the Supreme Court. And they have held over and over that 2A includes a right to many different kinds of firearms. I feel like you're the one who is poorly informed? (For the record, I am in favor of strong gun control laws, but your statement just ignores reality.)
Spooky23 3mo ago
The more… enthusiastic gun people among us think that the national firearms act (which strictly regulates automatic weapons) is an abomination. It’s unique in that it’s the only right that aligns with business marketing. Peddling fear, mostly to insecure men, has sold hundreds of millions of guns. The fetishized nature of modern gun culture killed, in addition to people, a lot of shooting sports and hunting.
- deejaaymac 3mo ago
  What a strange take. I grew up in a small hunting town (I'm in my early 30s), where most high school boys (most girls didn't hunt, but some did) had a rifle and/or shotgun in their truck, mounted against the inside back of the cab where you could see it plain view. We had 0 homicides from guns in the 19 years I lived there, there was 1 suicide by gun that I know of. Many of us grew up hunting to feed our family. This is in Colorado. I shot my first pistol around the age of 5. I accidentally went to 7th grade with ammo in my pocket because we were hunting that morning. I went to the principal, he told me just to put the ammo in my locker. With that being said, you'd be hard pressed to find a group of townspeople more respectful of guns. It's not a gun problem, it's a culture problem. Not saying that there's not "insecure men" out there that are the victim of marketing, etc, but a lot of us grew up with guns and see them as a tool.
  - antonvs 3mo ago
    > see them as a tool. Yes, a tool for killing. You’re respectful of guns, but where’s your respect for life?
    - grosswait 3mo ago
      Respectful of liberty. A spear is also a tool for killing. Respect for life is not an expectation of the tool.
      - marysol5 3mo ago
        Those damn commies have banned me from owning an ICBM
modo_mario 3mo ago
> and America is already pretty damn strict about certain armaments, such as sub-machine guns. Not one but you're really validating their slippery slope fears and claims there.
redeeman 3mo ago
and this is very clearly unconstitutional. "shall not be infringed" is very very plain and simple
- inigyou 3mo ago
  Yep, alongside "Congress shall make no law" which says it's fine for anyone who isn't Congress to infringe your free speech, or for Congress to do it in any way that isn't making a law.
  - redeeman 3mo ago
    thats very very obviously not how it works or was intended. then they could just come up with "rules" that are not laws, and then rules say cannot have arms. all these insane and VERY OBVIOUS attempts to bypass the constitution should result in official doing it be put in jail FOREVER
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      Who's going to put them in jail? Their best friends?
      - redeeman 3mo ago
        i didnt say i think its gonna happen, im saying it should happen
  - WarmWash 3mo ago
    The system does not work like that, hah. This is the kind of logic sovereign citizens use..."I'm traveling, not driving, so I don't need a license!" At the end of the day, judges have the ability to clear away silly logic like that, it's part of their job.
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      Yes, judges have the power to say the constitution is just toilet paper. That's why the constitution is currently just toilet paper. Including both the first and second amendments.

marysol5 3mo ago

>No, it’s because the right to own firearms is very explicitly stated in our constitution No it isn't, it says you have the ability to form a militia. Not wave a AR-15 in Walmart. It's lobbying by the NRA that has changed the definition.