The mass shooting last month in Maine — perpetrated by an Army reservist allowed to keep his guns reportedly bought days before he underwent psychiatric evaluations due to his erratic behavio…
Firstly, Its in the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution. Secondly, it is my opinion that District of Columbia v. Heller is bad law and needs to be looked at again with a modern and ethical perspective (You as an individual are not a well regulated militia). Other countries dont have nearly as many preventable problems with firearms as the US does, but we are unwilling to discuss the problem in good faith because of a single line.
Your comprehension of the English language is as far reaching as your grasp of 2A rights.
I will try to spell it out simply. The Second AMENDMENT to the Constitution was part of a package known as the Bill of Rights which was passed after the Constitution was ratified as citizens were upset that basic freedoms weren’t enshrined in the Constitution. The First AMENDMENT to the constitution was the right to free speech which was important to Americans. Funny enough they thought gun rights were important as the next AMENDMENT to the Constitution featured the right to bear arms. There were many other AMENDMENTS guaranteed with the Bill of Rights but these were the first two.
Amendment change or modify the Constitution and are considered part of that governing document when ratified.
Millions of 2A supporters will not compromise on any of those rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
First, attacking the person, not the proposition. I feel like I hit a nerve, so that started off well.
Next paragraph, I don’t know who to thank for that, chatGPT Wikipedia. The location in the documents is not the issue at hand, other than "well actually"ing someone on the internet.
But that last line… And the part I take issue with.
How many 2A supporters can say with a straight face that a flintlock musket and modern weapon are even remotely comparable. The intent of these modern tools is to commit harm to your fellow man, which they do with much more efficiency than they did in the past. If the founders had the ability to see into the future, I’m confident they would have phrased the 2A differently.
Furthermore, if fear of a tyrannical government is your excuse to not take a moment of reflection on our relationship to the 2A, then you must be naive as you think I am… Revolution or whatever you want to call it does not work that way anymore. The last 60ish years of asymmetric conflict the US has been involved in should be a good enough example of that. (Best get used to dystopias, your in one)
Lastly, the part that is most frustrating is that this is a partially solved problem in countries that took action like Switzerland and Australia (that took very different paths to get to where they are today, but I want to focus on Aus). In 1996, Australia, in the wake of the worst mass shooting in their countries history, they collectively decided that the number of arms in the country was too damn high and did something about it. [Ref]
All that I propose is a good faith attempt at serious federal regulation with a focus on their current need as tools, ethics and actual results/consequences. Unfortunately, as long as the NRA exists, America will collectively sit on its hands and this all comes off as wishful thinking.
Firstly, Its in the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution. Secondly, it is my opinion that District of Columbia v. Heller is bad law and needs to be looked at again with a modern and ethical perspective (You as an individual are not a well regulated militia). Other countries dont have nearly as many preventable problems with firearms as the US does, but we are unwilling to discuss the problem in good faith because of a single line.
Your comprehension of the English language is as far reaching as your grasp of 2A rights.
I will try to spell it out simply. The Second AMENDMENT to the Constitution was part of a package known as the Bill of Rights which was passed after the Constitution was ratified as citizens were upset that basic freedoms weren’t enshrined in the Constitution. The First AMENDMENT to the constitution was the right to free speech which was important to Americans. Funny enough they thought gun rights were important as the next AMENDMENT to the Constitution featured the right to bear arms. There were many other AMENDMENTS guaranteed with the Bill of Rights but these were the first two.
Amendment change or modify the Constitution and are considered part of that governing document when ratified.
Millions of 2A supporters will not compromise on any of those rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
First, attacking the person, not the proposition. I feel like I hit a nerve, so that started off well.
Next paragraph, I don’t know who to thank for that, chatGPT Wikipedia. The location in the documents is not the issue at hand, other than "well actually"ing someone on the internet.
But that last line… And the part I take issue with.
How many 2A supporters can say with a straight face that a flintlock musket and modern weapon are even remotely comparable. The intent of these modern tools is to commit harm to your fellow man, which they do with much more efficiency than they did in the past. If the founders had the ability to see into the future, I’m confident they would have phrased the 2A differently.
Furthermore, if fear of a tyrannical government is your excuse to not take a moment of reflection on our relationship to the 2A, then you must be naive as you think I am… Revolution or whatever you want to call it does not work that way anymore. The last 60ish years of asymmetric conflict the US has been involved in should be a good enough example of that. (Best get used to dystopias, your in one)
Lastly, the part that is most frustrating is that this is a partially solved problem in countries that took action like Switzerland and Australia (that took very different paths to get to where they are today, but I want to focus on Aus). In 1996, Australia, in the wake of the worst mass shooting in their countries history, they collectively decided that the number of arms in the country was too damn high and did something about it. [Ref]
All that I propose is a good faith attempt at serious federal regulation with a focus on their current need as tools, ethics and actual results/consequences. Unfortunately, as long as the NRA exists, America will collectively sit on its hands and this all comes off as wishful thinking.