A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down Maryland’s handgun licensing law, finding that its requirements, which include submitting fingerprints for a background check and taking a four-hour firearms safety course, are unconstitutionally restrictive.
In a 2-1 ruling, judges on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond said they considered the case in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that “effected a sea change in Second Amendment law.”
The underlying lawsuit was filed in 2016 as a challenge to a Maryland law requiring people to obtain a special license before purchasing a handgun. The law, which was passed in 2013 in the aftermath of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, laid out a series of necessary steps for would-be gun purchasers: completing four hours of safety training that includes firing one live round, submitting fingerprints and passing a background check, being 21 and residing in Maryland.
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, said he was disappointed in the circuit court’s ruling and will “continue to fight for this law.” He said his administration is reviewing the ruling and considering its options.
Jesus. Those requirements are not a lot to ask.
It’s easier than voting in some places.
You have to take a 4-hour course to vote?
you have to stand in a 6 hour line in direct sunlight at 100° Temps where food and water is forbidden to vote here in Georgia.
That’s a feature, not a bug.
Who pays for the 4-hour course?
The person who pays for the gun.
In Maryland? It looks like the course is free but the instructors generally charge $25 for the cert.
deleted by creator
In most states with similar systems the person applying.
deleted by creator
They also are part of States Rights
That’s basically the requirements in my state for a cpl, but requiring that just to purchase a gun seems a bit much.
To purchase a lethal weapon, fingerprints for a background check and a four hour training course is too much? I’m pretty sure a commercial pilot license requires more than 4 hours of training.
Just a regular drivers license requires more than that, and we pretty much require those to live (because the system is fucked up, but still…) and their purpose is not to kill.
One of these things is guaranteed in the constitution and one isn’t.
Sure, but that’s a different claim than the one you made.
It’s really not. Firearms are allowed by the constitution and therefore only minimal restrictions are allowed. Fingerprints and permits are far from minimal, and background checks are already a federal requirement. The fact it’s hard to be a pilot isn’t really relevant.
I was not the one to claim that “That’s basically the requirements in my state for a cpl”. If it isn’t really relevant, I’m not sure why you brought it up.
They were pointing out the difference between “required to purchase a firearm” and “required to carry a concealed firearm on your person in public.”
Then join the National Guard, local police force, or military. Because when that was written that’s what the Militia was for. There is no town militia waiting to get called out anymore which means it should be defunct. Instead we ignore half the dang thing and pretend we’re all the militia when in reality if Canada invaded tomorrow the Army would be pleading with civilians to get out of the way, not recruiting meal team six.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No where dies it say militia members only.
See there you go. Missing half the dang Amendment.
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.
You cannot argue an uninfringed right to personal ownership without also arguing that we need universal conscription and continuing training for all able bodied adults. And if you can’t fulfill that duty then you don’t get guns.
And the right is explicitly granted to the people, a well regulated militia is irrelevant to the existence of the right. Now you could argue the first phrase grants the right to conscription to the government I suppose, but no one is really making that argument. The right is explicitly given to the people, not people that are conscripted or subject to it, the constitution and amendments are very good about being explicit when they are limiting the scope of a power or right to a subgroup and that isn’t the case here.
Why is that a bit much? You should have to know how to properly use and store a deadly weapon, shouldn’t you? There is no way to be a responsible gun owner without education.
There is no way to be a responsible gun owner without education.
Here it comes, the talking points.
Take note, they will try to push this nonsense to make it mandatory that everyone pay for classes in order to purchase a firearm.
They want it to be seen as objective fact that you can’t be a responsible gun owner without paying for classes so they can suppress gun ownership and eventually ban it.
SeaJ, be honest. Do you think civilian gun ownership should be banned? His answer to this is a big fat yes, and taking the ‘more reasonable’ approach of requiring paid classes is just a stepping stone to reach his end goal.
Take note, they will try to push this nonsense to make it mandatory that everyone pay for classes in order to purchase a firearm.
Classes should be free.
Who is this they you are constantly referring to?
SeaJ, be honest. Do you think civilian gun ownership should be banned? His answer to this is a big fat yes, and taking the ‘more reasonable’ approach of requiring paid classes is just a stepping stone to reach his end goal.
Hopefully you won that argument you completely made up. No. I do not wish to see gun ownership be completely illegal. However, safety classes should be required, have background checks (system needs to be open to the public) and wait periods, and there should be safe storage laws. That is about it. No magazine capacity limits or ‘assault’ weapons bans.
Sorry that I prefer not to have people who do not know what the fuck they are doing to be carrying around very deadly weapons. Responsible gun owners are all fine being educated and storing their shit properly. It sounds like you do not fall into that category.
So before 2013 there were no responsible gun owners?
What? Does your brain function? Do you think people weren’t driving cars safely before driver’s licenses were required? Of course there were responsible gun owners, but there were also more irresponsible gun owners because being responsible wasn’t a requirement.
If I put a height requirment for a roller-coaster, does that imply that before no one above that height rode it? Obviously not. It only means that after fewer people below it will, because before there was nothing stopping them.
any requirement is way too much, the constitution isn’t to restrict us, we the people,but rather the government.
Yeah… No. It’s meant for both. You do know we had slavery (and still do) in the constitution, right? It’s restricted a ton of people’s rights. That said, the 9th amendment should protect most. The 2nd amendment does not apply anymore, since we don’t require conscripted militias to protect the nation while we have a standing professional army.
Im all for gun rights, but it has to have reasonable limits. Firing one round is honestly not enough in my opinion. You should have to prove competency with firing and maintaining your firearm, as well as proper safe methods for storing and transporting it.
the problem is people like yourself don’t just stop at “common sense limitations”
people like yourself
Please, tell me what my desired limitations are?
Ridiculous. Throwing out 250+ years of settled law because of a radical Supreme Court with two bullshit appointments.
The earliest hand gun licensing systems weren’t implemented until the just before the Civil War in the South (for the exact reasons you’d think the South would do that).
Aka racism…gun laws like this are designed to keep minorities from obtaining protection.
True. Before that you needed to have a certain job. Purposive open carry laws. The other gun law at the time was breach of peace, which is what you’d have been charged with for open carrying. The idea that guns cannot be regulated is a modern invention by people who want Americans to kill each other, and who don’t give a fuck about rights.
Seriously. People had to register their guns since the country was founded. There were also safe storage laws and bans on concealed and open carry.
Source? Pre '64 there wasn’t even mandated serialization of commerical sold firearms so a registration system would have been difficult to implement.
His ass is his source.
I guess my ass writes early American law…
https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364
Literally none of what that opinion piece says shows any laws. The first one being registration…it wasn’t gun registration it was basically a draft registration. You posted up some opinion piece from an anti gun nut and said “see it’s true”… what’s worse is dude uses his own book as a source…
You literally had to hand in your guns when you came into town. Don’t need numbers when the sheriff is keeping them in a safe with ownership tags on them.
https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364
Not difficult at all since there were a lot fewer people and most people knew each other. Because the militia was supposed to be our main defense, being a part of it meant your guns had to be inspected to be well-regulated.
We did quickly move away from the militia focused model though when there was a big loss against Natives due to terribly coordinated militias.
That law is about ensuring the militia’s guns were of adequate quality to fight. If they came to your house and found you didn’t have a good fighting gun at hand you’d get in trouble. I’m not sure that’s the parallel you want it to be.
It’s exactly the parallel it should be. Because there is no militia anymore. That doesn’t mean you ignore half the amendment. It means no one qualifies for the second amendment anymore.
Did you actually read your “source”? The article claims a lot but offers no substantiation to many of the claims.
And after we moved away from militias, people stopped acting like the 2nd amendment applies to anything, right? If a militia isn’t required anymore, the basis for the 2nd amendment is gone, so it doesn’t apply.
I wish logic was used by people more often…
I have to say, the US looks crazier and crazier by the day. It’s not just the guns, it’s pretty much everything these days.
You’re literally right it does look crazier, but that is almost entirely because of how our mass media and cancerous 24/hr news cycle work.
If you turn your TV off and go outside, reality does not match what you see on TV, or worse, read on the internet.
The “crazy” is generally confined and limited to fringe elements that get 1000x the attention and signal boosting than normal people do.
I heard gunshots when I was walking my dog last night.
I hear them all the time… It’s deer hunting season.
Nah it’s still crazy outside, unless you live in the middle of nowhere where nothing happens.
phew, we dodged dodging a bullet there
I just have one question for anyone who’s here and thought this was a good law. What mass shooting would this have prevented? Thank you.
Quite a few actually. State background checks are actually more effective than the NICS system.
But this theory of gun laws must have existed for 200 years is ridiculous too. We could be stopping more shootings by making private sales illegal. We could stop many more by restricting to bolt action and revolvers. Both of which aren’t going to pass the test simply because technology has advanced since then.
Quite a few actually. State background checks are actually more effective than the NICS system.
So the solution is just to actually enforce existing gun laws?
But this theory of gun laws must have existed for 200 years is ridiculous too.
Not entirely sure what you’re saying here, but I think you’re saying that laws have to change with technology. And I agree. Nobody should privately own a nuclear weapon, ballistic missile, etc. That’s just insane.
But, there is a balance. For now at least, it’s still a fact that a dedicated group of rebels with just semi-automatic weapons can wreak havoc on an organized military. Scale that up to a much larger part of the population and you’re actually looking at a population that can overthrow a tyrannical government if necessary. So we have to ask what “societal sacrifices” are we willing to make in order to make sure we can prevent a dictator from taking over?
And if you’re going to hem and haw about “there is no compromise” or some bullshit like that… then answer this question. If it is abhorrent to even suggest that the right to own firearms is more important than 100% safety from mass shootings, then surely you support a complete surveillance state right? You probably have no idea just how easy it is to make explosives in America. It’s frighteningly easy. Growing up, my friends and I made fuel air bombs and made liquid barium nitrate to create homebrew thermate out in the country. We were doing that just for fun as dumb teenagers with a knack for engineering and chemistry. Someone who’s dedicated could do far, far worse.
So, if you think that preventing any violence due to guns is more important than having the tools to overthrow a dictator… How far are you willing to go to stop all other forms of violence? 24/7 monitoring of all purchases made by Americans? Monitoring all of their conversations? Eager to hear your ideals and solutions.
I mean, Maggoty answered your question fairly, and then you changed what you asked him and moved the goal posts. That seems a bit dishonest to me.
a bit dishonest
I’m sorry, but the only dishonesty here is admitting that current gun laws would stop many mass shootings if they were just fucking enforced while trying not to say it out loud and then using that to try and justify more legislation that does nothing.
Sounds like a budgetary and enforcement issue. Not something that needs more legislation.
Moving the goal posts after you ask a question, then lying about it, is not dishonet?
Pull the other foot, please!
No way to stop this says only country where this regularly happens.
We absolutely can stop this. Democrat leadership just doesn’t fucking want to, for the same reason Republican leadership doesn’t want to actually ban all abortion. It’s a wedge issue. Solving this issue means it’s harder for them to drum up voter support.
I want to stop this, but anyone who thinks the solutions is laws like this doesn’t actually care. You WILL NOT stop gun violence with these kinds of laws. We need to tackle the reasons behind the violence and put in place some actual fucking security at places that are common targets. If someone can shoot up a school, they can also bomb it, gas it, whatever. But you don’t want to hear that, do you? You don’t actually give a fuck about innocent children dying. You just want to virtue signal on the internet so you can show your friends how you “totally OWNED this debate”.
Grow up. Put some actual thought into how these issues can be solved instead of barfing out a thing you heard before.
we need to tackle the reasons behind the violence
except for the reason being the prevelancy and availability of deadly firearms with no barriers to entry, that is a special reason that is forbidden to be discussed because everyone has a fantasy about being able to take on the US military in a one man coup.
they can also bomb it or gas it
and yet they don’t
you don’t give a fuck about innocent children dying, do you?
what the hell kind of statement is that? You should edit that comment out and apologize as it’s completely uncalled for.
you just want to virtue signal on the internet
yes, as the internet is a series of signals, both electromagnetic and orthographic all any of us can do is signal things on the internet. It’s not like I can physically do anything online, it being a virtual medium. How would you suggest I communicate without signaling anything, and how do you recommend behaving if not according to the virtues that I personally hold?
you can show your friends
I assure you I show none of my irl friends my comment history- do you?
grow up… put some thought into these issues
Says the guy who accused me of not caring about children dying?!?!
Bombings were much more common than mass shootings, and much deadlier, until they declined in popularity about 20 years ago. There are still random bombings, (and tons of bomb threats) they just don’t get nearly as much media attention.
Where firearms are heavily restricted, bombings are much more common.
2001-
2003edit typo: 2013Deaths by guns: 406,500
Deaths by all other forms of terrorism: 3,380
Now show us mass shootings.
And clarify what areas you’re talking about, because it certainly isn’t the US, and it certainly isn’t global.
Mass Shootings is a propaganda statistic devised to reduce numbers. Why do I care if 3 people got shot instead of 2? It doesn’t make those 2 people any less shot.
At least two thirds of them according to this paper https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-021-00330-0
Maybe I’m missing something, but what exactly in this bill would prevent people with a history of domestic violence from obtaining firearms? Isn’t it already illegal for someone convicted of that crime from owning a firearm in Maryland?
If the background checks are somehow not preventing people from owning firearms who are already legally barred from doing so, then the problem is the background check process. Why the fuck do so many leftists keep on refusing to acknowledge that the problem is how consistently background checks are done? It’s fucking insane.
Because you refuse to acknowledge that making guns available to idiots causes death.
He’s one of the idiots.
What other right do we put behind fingerprinting and coursework. Do you lose your right to remain silent if you don’t take a fucking course? No, the federal courts are bringing this right in line with the others.
Exercising your first amendment rights doesn’t kill in most instances. In instances that it can, such as inciting violence, it stops being protected speech
It doesn’t even have to be fatal. If it incites panic or causes misuse of emergency services, it’s a crime baby.
And just like with 1A rights we have laws that limit those effects of 2A rights, just as it should be. Just as you can’t go around inciting panic with your words, you can’t legally brandish a firearm in public to incite panic. ETC.
The difference being shouting “FIRE” in a theatre only remotely might kill people, while pulling a gun will much more likely lead to death. Also, the laws against shouting “FIRE” have proven far more effective than anything with guns.
You cannot compare the 2nd Amendment with any other law. It doesn’t have any rational justification behind it.
You can absolutely shout fire in a theater. That example was used as an example of protected speech.
The second has rational judgement, you just don’t like it because you think govs can’t turn into destructive forces…
No, shouting fire in a theatre (when there is no fire) is explicitly not protected speech. Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio. At least, depending on the actual consequence - if people die rushing out the theatre and it is apparent you were lying, then you’re not going to be protected.
Correct, if people are harmed. But you can shout fire in a theater, as it’s protected speech.
Sorry bro, you’ve read some of the latest bullshit that sounds clever but is actually a load of malarkey.
You can shout fire in a theater if there is a fire. (or reason to suspect there is one)
If there isn’t a fire, you do not get to hide behind 1st amendment protections.
Yes you can, that was the whole damn point of bringing it up…
Why are you pulling a gun?
Owning guns doesn’t kill in most instances either.
Exactly. If you murder someone, you will also not be protected by the right to keep and bear arms. In general, instigating harm against others is never covered by rights.
Now if only we could implement some sort of way to maybe check if someone has some disqualifying action in their past so we can make sure that right is adequately protected without risk of further harm. Maybe we could have like a check in the person’s background and make sure they know how to use it properly so we know they aren’t falling into the wrong hands.
Nope, that won’t work. Sigh. Looks like there’s “no way to prevent this.” Crazy that this is the “only nation where this regularly happens.”
Are you assuming that someone who knows they are not allowed to carry would go through a BG check and Finger prints…in order to be told they can’t carry? Really??? That’s the logic you’re going with?
Are you assuming they’d stay away from buying guns if there wasn’t a verification system? That the honor system would work here?
You losing your protection for having a gun does nothing to help the person that you killed with it.
Yet we don’t license speech on the grounds that inciting violence isn’t protected.
Owning guns does not guarantee gun violence. Most of the time it seems to be gross negligence.
We license people to drive, yet look at how many bad drivers there are.
This is a callous stance, but I think the left needs to shut the fuck up about guns. All it does is galvanize the right wing and drive them straight to the polls. Gun regulation does not win elections and there are so many more pressing problems. Fact of the matter is gun violence, while tragic, statistically isn’t something worthy of losing elections over. Climate change, education, healthcare, all are higher stakes issues with far more lives at risk.
Edit: down vote all you want, the elections will still be lost and the supreme court will continue to be irreparably stacked against you. I don’t know how much more evidence you need that the left needs tactics, guile, and strategy. The Right is playing chess while the left is making a sandwich. They aren’t even playing the same game.
You nailed it, if the left put political capital into things that would actually curb the violence, and left the guns alone, they would sweep elections constantly.
Exactly. And most of the left usually argues that gun violence is a mental health issue anyway. Which means if we tackled the bigger issues you’d see a marked decline in gun violence without passing a single gun related law. Gun violence is a symptom. Let’s fight the disease.
President Trump removed the restrictions the prevented the mentally ill from buying guns.
Kinda proves my point actually. Winning elections is the overall goal that must be addressed first. When we lose, we literally regress.
We no longer need a well regulated militia, we have a permanent standing army capable of answering any threat, anywhere in the world within 24 hours.
Might be time for an update on the ole constitution, the problems of 1780 aren’t really the problems we have today.
Maybe if we still had a more militia like system we wouldn’t be engaged in an eternal state of war in countries across the globe. The Founding Father’s critiques of standing armies were made because they didn’t want to become what they overthrew.
Sure, and we can debate the merits of that all day. Fact is that right now the US’ primary export is force, our primary industry is war, and far behind that is literally anything else.
I would love if we cut the size of the military to admit a tenth of it’s current size, and spent all of that money on social programs.
As it happens, that would probably cripple the American economy for decades.
But if you can figure out how to uncouple the US from it’s military industrial complex, going to a Swiss militia style home defense network wouldn’t be a bad idea. Give everyone a rifle, require they train with it so many hours a year, call it good.
The Constitution is not a sacrosanct document, we’ve major changes before, including repealing amendments. We shouldn’t be afraid of changing it if it’s doing more harm than good. The President and Vice President are elected differently now, the 3/5ths compromise was repealed by the 14th Amendment, and 18th Amendment, enacting Prohibition, was struck down by the 21st.
It’s my belief that the reason nobody has seriously tried to change the Constitution to remove or modify the 2nd amendment is that they know it’s currently impossible. Changing the Constitution requires a serious amount of working together and agreement between the state and federal governments, and that just doesn’t exist right now.
That’s why some states are trying to pass unconstitutional laws, it’s easier to do that and get away with it at least for a little bit than it is to change the construction.
The second amendment also doesn’t create a well regulated militia.
What use is a militia of morbidly obese men who can’t even demonstrate basic firearm safety, whose entire contribution is “have gun”?
I don’t know why we’re suppose to politely play along with the hero fantasies of people who wouldn’t even wear masks in a pandemic but insist they’d lay down their lives to liberate people from the fascists that they enthusiastically voted for.
The well regulated militia that’s referenced in the amendment is the army. That’s what the amendment is meant to protect us from.
You think the second amendment is to protect us from what it calls “necessary to the security of a free State”?
You might want to go read it again.
Yes, you need a military to defend your country from other countries. And yes, it’s to protect us from an oppressive government. Remember the revolutionary war lil buddy?
Oh, so your interpretation is just mind-bendingly stupid. Got it.
Aw someone realized they are wrong
If a government does any oppressing, it’s almost always done with its military, not in spite of it.
No shit. That’s what the second amendment is for
Wait, so you’re arguing that the second amendment is designed for arming an oppressive military?
Article I Section 8 part 12 discusses the army. Parts 15 and 16 discuss the militia. They are two separate and distinct entities.
Constitutionally, “militia” refers to the obligations of every American person to provide the security of the state, individual and collectively.
Exactly! It’s not like we put our Voting Rights behind IDs and fees and make people lose that right if they’re in prison!
I’m no expert, but it’s my understanding that you need ID and have to pay fees for guns outside of the gunshow loophole.
Voting isn’t actually a constitutional right like owning firearms is. There are protections about equality when it comes to voting, but not much about voting itself. States are generally given the right to decide who can vote and how they vote.
Yeah. It’s too bad we are stuck with this albatross of 2A making it impossible to put reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. Clearly that was a mistake.
You are wrong, and it’s good that we have such strong protections on our inherent rights to effective self defense.
Fortunately, there’s nothing you can do about it as well.
The longer guns continue being a problem, the likelier we get to electing the legislative body needed to pass a new amendment canceling the 2A in its entirety. The longer it stands, the harder it gets to pass the compromise measures needed to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people, and so the problem keeps getting worse.
Can’t wait for only billionaires and their armed thugs to be the only ones able to defend themselves
laughs in actual civilised country
You gunfuckers are hilarious.
Looks around
Gestures broadly
You’re the type of guy that says “well I just did a thing”
Unenumeration of a once recognized right, wouldn’t give congress the authority to inhibit people from practicing that right.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. -9th Amendment
You should really read up about the amendment process. It’s not something that Congress can do by itself, it requires 75% of the 50 states to ratify it after the initial hurdles. It’s not going to happen, because there will always be at least 13+ states that will vote to keep the 2nd Amendment, and that’s a good thing. You should be happy that our rights are safe, because it’s pretty fuckin’ hard to get new rights, you know they don’t just hand out new ones regularly.
A different Supreme Court could redecide settled law just like Roe v Wade. If 2A needs to die to keep guns out of dangerous hands, then it needs to die. The absolute refusal to compromise means eventually they’ll lose everything. Okay.
I don’t have a problem with responsible gun ownership. You’d think they’d make some compromises to soften the resolve of the anti-gun crowd. I wouldn’t be with them if we had sane laws, but here we all are.
The problem is that US law is ridiculously and unnecessarily convoluted. There’s Federal law, which is supposed to be comprehensive but intentionally has holes in it that State law is supposed to flesh out for themselves. However Federal law overrules state law, meaning that State law can only ever fit inside Federal law.
This leads to Federal law being lazily written, such that it covers a far wider breadth than it was ever intended. Meanwhile, when States try to write their own laws to fill in the gap, they get overruled by Federal law.
If you have a Federal legislative body - Congress, the people who are supposed to write laws - in perpetual turmoil, and a Supreme Court that is politically stacked, then you can easily invent case law to twist whatever legislation was written decades or centuries ago into whatever you desire.
And all of this glosses over the fact that US law is written in horrible language. I dread to think the fit that a modern grammatical spell checker would go through if you copy/pasted the law into it, with how the sentence structure is drawn on with commas and bullshit. If Clippy were still around, he would’ve been bent so far out of shape he could hack a Nintendo Switch. Yet, because it’s at the Federal level, which is detracted further from the people, there isn’t enough of a public incentive to have it written plainly so that everyone could understand it.
You don’t get a vote on laws, you get a vote on “representatives” who vote on laws
on your behalfbased on their financial backers.
Astounding how the “well regulated” part of the second amendment is simply washed away by gun zealots.
You are wrong, and it’s good that we have such strong protections on our inherent rights to effective self defense.
“Good” how? Because it makes your pee pee tingly? Americans are less safe from criminals, tyrants and the monthly “legal gun owner opening fire on a crowd” than anyone in comparable countries.
Fortunately, there’s nothing you can do about it as well.
Make buying a gun without proper checks and training a felony, remove the guns as evidence of a crime, try those responsible in a court and if they’re convicted, congratulations, you’re now a felon who has been shown due process then stripped of their rights.
Or just stop voting Republican. Personally, I don’t care if “responsible gun owners” want to die in a hail of bullets after shooting at innocent people, just because it was democratically decided that the “responsible” part shouldn’t be voluntary.
After all, would we even notice a difference? Legal gun owners are already responsible for 80% of mass shootings.
Why are you bringing your weird penis thoughts into a discussion about the constitutional rights of US citizens? Keep that to yourself, because it’s gross.
It’s fascinating what causes you to clutch your pearls and what doesn’t.
It’s just a tell about your psychological viewpoint when you immediately associate penises with guns and try to use that as a form of insult.
Sounds like you’re as much a psychologist as you are a militia.
Stupid take based on lies.
Well regulated militia.
deleted by creator
But the right to bear arms is in no way in line with the others. Freedom of speech makes sense. Equal treatment of all citizens by the government does also. The right to play with guns is in no way comparable to this.
Please answer me this: why should you have the right to play with guns, with few if any restrictions, when it is clear that everyone having such a right directly leads to death? Why is your right to have fun more important than other peoples’ lives?
Edit: Why is it that no one can justify why they should have guns?? Did you trade your balls in to buy your gun?
People need to realize that the 2A is simply obsolete. It’s irrelevant talking about original intention when that is totally irrelevant to the modern world. It’s an inevitability that the 2A goes away. The only question is how it removed.
Australia have done pretty well with it all. Pay people money for their guns, then fine people if they still have them outside the law.
Handguns in particular are completely unnecessary. They don’t shoot very accurately, they only exist to perpetuate violence between people.
The problem is that you’ve got no way of keeping guns outside the law in the US right now. The government can run a gun buyback program, but they can’t stop the sale of new guns as long as the 2nd amendment remains part of the US constitution. Following Australia’s lead without criminalizing most gun ownership just turns any gun buyback program into a government-sponsored trade in of older models for a down payment on newer ones.
There are ways, it just requires Federal law makers to actually have balls. Unfortunately, Federal law is woefully insufficient - whether it be in writing legislation or Supreme Court rulings. States can’t make effective laws, because poorly written Federal laws and a politically stacked Supreme Court can easily circumvent them.
Even more unfortunately, it’s most likely that conservatives will unravel Federal law, but only for their benefit. They’ve already been practising their “Convention of the States”. Furthermore, state governments are predominantly Republican, in a disproportionate misrepresentation of the US population.
And that last part is the key problem: we have a “representative” democracy. We vote for someone to go to Washington and make/vote on laws on our behalf. This made sense 100 years ago, when it took forever to travel and communicate. Now, technology gives us the ability to communicate with almost anyone else in the world instantly. We need a direct democracy, where everyone gets to have their say, as much as they want to.
Furthermore, people shouldn’t just have the opportunity to vote on what kind of laws should be made, but on the individual fleshed out law itself, and also in review of laws both before they’re enacted and after they’ve had some time to play out. Disinformation campaigns have proven effective for very occassional votes, but they cannot be maintained indefinately. We need to make it hard to manipulate voting.
We need to go back to thinking about democracy in such a way as to make it bullet proof. If you look at the UK, they vote with pencils - all because there is the remote possibility of replacing a pen with one that has disappearing ink. That’s the kind of abject paranoia we need to be implementing.
If you look at the UK, they vote with pencils - all because there is the remote possibility of replacing a pen with one that has disappearing ink.
lol no. Voting with pencils is because they’re cheap, abundant, don’t leak, don’t smudge when folding the ballot paper. It’s recommendation, not a law No nonsense about disappearing ink.
Source: Am from UK and have voted with a pen (blue, black, green and red ink) and a pencil.
Check yourself.
You can bring your own pen to vote in the UK, that’s fine. However the utensil they provide is always a pencil, for the exact reason I gave.
I’m also in the UK, and I normally use Pilot Frixion pens.
Edit: Argos use pens. Pens are cheaper than pencils.
What other right lets you mutilate a room full of children beyond recognition or execute your abused partner on a whim?
There’s few things that upset “responsible gun owners” more then the idea that they might actually have to be responsible.
If gun owners were an issue…the 500 million firearms in civ hands means you’d know about it.
It’s the pro-gun crowd that insist no systems are enacted to separate “idiots” and “domestic terrorists” from “responsible gun owners”, so you’re either going to have to take responsibility for them or finally agree to changes that single them out.
Maybe if you can’t come to an agreement with the rest of the country, you could come to some kind of agreement with the mass shooters instead?
They want to shoot children, the pro-gun community has children, and the pro-gun community believes that some children should be shot if it means maintaining the current gun laws.
That should settle things down until you’ve finished building your mental health utopia where its safe to give a gun to any man, woman or child, at any time, because you’ve completely cured violent impulses forever.
If gun owners were an issue…the 500 million firearms in civ hands means you’d know about it.
We do know about it. The entire world knows about it. That’s literally what this whole conversation is about.
It’s the pro-gun crowd that insist no systems are enacted to separate “idiots” and “domestic terrorists” from “responsible gun owners”, so you’re either going to have to take responsibility for them or finally agree to changes that single them out.
Yes, please in your Almighty wisdom tell us how you would enact this?
Maybe if you can’t come to an agreement with the rest of the country, you could come to some kind of agreement with the mass shooters instead?
The rest of the country? You do realize that people who are gun owners are the majority right? There are way more people who own them, then not. Mass shootings are a recent phenomenon, not something that has been happening for forever and it’s all the guns fault. We’ve been armed for a long time, hell kids used to bring their rifles to school so they could go hunt afterwards, and this was less than 40 years ago that kids were doing this.
They want to shoot children, the pro-gun community has children, and the pro-gun community believes that some children should be shot if it means maintaining the current gun laws.
Ah yes here it comes the tried and true method of dehumanizing your opponent…you think an AWB will stop school shootings…and because I don’t think it will and that we need to focus on why they happen and solve that, you slam down the “ok with kids being shot”…how original.
That should settle things down until you’ve finished building your mental health utopia where its safe to give a gun to any man, woman or child, at any time, because you’ve completely cured violent impulses forever.
You know the thing that bothers me most about you anti-2a types?..you automatically assume you’re debating a white right wing republican…
My wishlist of how to heavily curb all violence in this country starts with:
Single payer
Ending the war on drugs
Ending for profit prisons
Ending qualified immunity
Paying teachers more
Building more schools and hiring more teachers so class sizes can get back down to like 10-15 kids a classroom vs 30+
Making sure everyone has safety nets in place (think ubi)
Making sure all kids are heavily protected by these safety nets, so they don’t turn to gangs
I’ve got more but this is a good start.
We do know about it. The entire world knows about it. That’s literally what this whole conversation is about.
No…no you don’t…2/3rds of our gun deaths are suicides…the remaining 3rd has around 85% as gang/drug violence, then domestic violence and then police killing people and self defense… the last tiny bit is mass shootings… it’s basically a rounding error it’s so small.
Yes, please in your Almighty wisdom tell us how you would enact this?
Most mass shooters have a history of domestic violence, but the pro-gun community opposes disarming domestic abusers.
Most mass shooters have a history of red flags, but the pro-gun community opposes disarming people with red flags.
But really, you seem to have misunderstood whose problem this is to solve. It’s not the people who support gun control doing all the mass shootings, its legal gun owners (or the children of legal gun owners).
If you want me to solve it, I’m more than happy to, bur you’re not going to like it.
The rest of the country? You do realize that people who are gun owners are the majority right?
The majority of Americans support stricter gun legislation. basically any time they’re asked.
Mass shootings are a recent phenomenon, not something that has been happening for forever and it’s all the guns fault
You mean the last 20 years, during which you’ve let the problem spiral further and further out of control, despite insisting that you have the answers?
That percentage also won’t be going down as all the children you sold out graduate and have to face sending their own children off to play mass-shooting roulette.
We’ve been armed for a long time, hell kids used to bring their rifles to school so they could go hunt afterwards, and this was less than 40 years ago that kids were doing this.
Then jump in your time machine and fuck off back there, because that America no longer exists.
If you think you can rebuild it, go right ahead. Until then, gun legislation isn’t even remotely close to handling the America of today and needs to be addressed immediately.
Ah yes here it comes the tried and true method of dehumanizing your opponent…you think an AWB will stop school shootings
Oh no, you’re mistaking me for a politician tip-toeing around a death cult. I’d ban all semi-automatic firearms from being privately owned, because they’re the weapons of choice for criminals and terrorists.
It’s not even remotely close to worth it. All the pro-gun promises turned out to be lies and fantasies.
because I don’t think it will and that we need to focus on why they happen and solve that, you slam down the “ok with kids being shot”…how original.
How many innocent lives are your gun laws worth then? Because we’ve got the numbers and you’ve done nothing, so I just assumed it was more than that.
My wishlist of how to heavily curb all violence in this country starts with
Damn, looks like you’ve got a fuckload of work ahead of you before it’s safe to sell guns to people again. Better get started.
2/3rds of our gun deaths are suicides
Means reduction has worked for every form of suicide it’s targeted.
the remaining 3rd has around 85% as gang/drug violence
The they get their guns from the magic gun fairy, or did they steal then from “responsible gun owners” who left their guns poorly secured?
Or did they just buy one because “haven’t been convicted of a felony yet” is a trivial bar to clear? Or maybe they just bought one privately without a background check at all, because that’s a feature that pro-gun cultists insist on?
then domestic violence
Which again, the gun lobby doesn’t consider grounds for disarming someone.
the last tiny bit is mass shootings… it’s basically a rounding error it’s so small.
Weren’t you objecting to the “okay with kids being shot” label just a few sentences ago? Because calling murdered people a “rounding error” sounds exactly like someone who is okay with kids getting shot.
As long as they’re not yours apparently.
That percentage also won’t be going down as all the children you sold out graduate and have to face sending their own children off to play mass-shooting roulette.
Your mass shooter drills, where you scare the living hell out of every child in America, are backfiring on you. In their teens, these kids are learning that they don’t have to be defenseless targets. They are learning that they can, indeed, fight back. By the time they are 18-21, these kids are buying guns, so they never have to feel like they did when you barricaded them in a room and told them to pretend someone was trying to kill them.
Yeah they’re not going to fall for “standing up to us makes us stronger so you should stop”, nor “this is why 5 year olds need guns”. You’re just another gun owner living in a fantasy world.
They’re fully aware of who is responsible for arming school shooters and exactly those people respond to being told “you need to stop arming school shooters”.
