ya we tried this in places like Detroit ,Philadelphia, Los Angeles and others and it never works out. even after the most strict gun laws. Maybe it's not the guns that are the problem after all.
2
deleted
· 4 years ago
It's all the problems of a neo capitalistic society PLUS the guns. And any successful change of gun legislations need to be in effect nationwide.
Yes it is any arms. At the absolute bare minimum, any arms useful to maintaining the security of a free state. The constitution is a limitation on the government, not the people.
Well *regulated meant functional. Less "everybody's an infantryman" and more "everyone's guns are accessible and work".
Read the writings of the founders and it will be made pretty clear what they wanted.
"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..." -John Adams, 1788 A Defense of the Constitution of the Government of the USA, p.471
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..." -John Adams, 1788 A Defense of the Constitution of the Government of the USA, p.471
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."- Richard Henry Lee
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
Some places to start.
1
deleted
· 4 years ago
So you would not draw "any" line when it comes to what "arms" any citizen could legally "keep and bear"? And you're not a fan of adjusting shit some guys with funny hats said in the 18th century to fit the conditions of the 21st? Like you guys did with a couple other things? Like, great start, but why stay there?
A presidential candidate vowed confiscation and his party has not disavowed the statements.
San Francisco has declared a civil rights group to be a terrorist organization and the left is calling for their cities, states, or the feds to follow suit.
Almost daily there are calls to confiscate private property or criminalize people for exercising their rights.
There's people calling for the bill of rights to be destroyed, cut up, or "adjusted".
Remember, you're not paranoid when they're actually out to get you.
deleted
· 4 years ago
A one-digit candidate vowed confiscation of very specific types of guns, and other people demand stuff too. Yap, sounds like they're out to get you, so you need to be able to keep and bear _any_ type of arms. In a civilized country someone who believes shit like that would be a mere laughing stock, but in Triggerhappistan that makes you a literal loose cannon.
Never mistake an American for a civilized person.
One day shit will hit the fan, it always does. Whether that's two men kicking down your back door in 1998 or the PLA HALO jumping in 2047. Either way, you will either want a gun, or you will want to find a good guy who already has one.
▼
deleted
· 4 years ago
"Never mistake an American for a civilized person." - well, I just explicitly made clear that I don't.
Civil people are safe and boring. I much prefer the company of those who see "here there be monsters" and take it as a challenge than a warning. Civil people arrest others for wrong-speech, confiscate knives, and outlaw "scary" breeds of dogs.
Civil people are the first ones to starve when the shelves are empty, and the last ones to act when it's time to do or die.
I'll run with the wolves and savages, thank you very much.
▼
deleted
· 4 years ago
I guess as soon as your mother can't legally prevent you from doing it, you'll grow a neckbeard.
▼
deleted
· 4 years ago
A strict reading is absurd. No age requirements. No prior violent conviction exceptions.
That's addressed in the 5th Amendment "No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
The founders weren't stupid. Other rights even describe exactly what should be included in due process. A big reason not to play with the Bill of Rights.
▼
·
Edited 4 years ago
deleted
· 4 years ago
And so any laws preventing anyone from obtaining weaponized smallpox are unconstitutional. Including any suspected terrorist.
If someone wanted weaponized smallpox, had the knowledge and resources to acquire it, and broke into the facilities storing the materials (committing several class A felonies and maybe some capital crimes at the same time) is there really anything another piece of paper could do to stop them?
Or did you think smallpox was just on the ground someplace and the reason nobody's already tried to weaponize it is because it's illegal?
@grimreaper knows a little about bioweapons, let's get his input on the matter.
▼
deleted
· 4 years ago
And here we are again with textbook fascism: what do laws matter anyway? As long as a strongman can argue with something another group or individual strongmen set in stone for nobody to ever adjust? Constitution, bible, Mein Kampf, whatever.
News flash hun, fascists love more laws. The more invasive and restrictive the better. There is no point to outlaw civilian possession of bio-weapons because it's already illegal to raid the government facilities holding smallpox and already illegal to murder.
That's like outlawing spitting on your murder victim. What's the fucking point after somebody's already murdered?
You don't fuck with the Bill of Rights. Those are natural God-given rights. They are recognized by the founders, but bestowed by no man or earthly force.
Every compromise will only weaken our human rights. First they outlaw our arms, then they outlaw juries, speech, religion.
I'm not a fascist for wanting people to be able to fight back or believe in different things. That's the opposite of fascism.
▼
deleted
· 4 years ago
Anti murder laws have utterly failed to end murder. Why have them if they don't stop crime?
"Don't murder" is a good law.
"Especially don't murder with a shovel" is superfluous.
·
Edited 4 years ago
deleted
· 4 years ago
The big nations like China, Russia, the US, Great Britain, and France no doubt have bioweapons, weaponizing things like smallpox, ticks, or rabies to use as more covert weapons of mass destruction than a nuke. Just because it's illegal thanks to the Geneva Convention doesn't mean those nations aren't doing it already.
1
deleted
· 4 years ago
Fascists love laws that are not in accordance with all other nations, cause their nation is the only that really matters. Also, they like to ignore laws they don't think are suitable for them. And they like to pathetically announce how the laws they choose to respect are "god given" so any arguing is prohibited in the first place. Well, unless they themselves... you get the idea. Like you.
Every fascist I know of came into or maintained their power by adjusting the laws, legislating themselves into power by taking it away from the people.
You got any citations or examples? Or will you just fess up to using "fascist" to disparage anyone who dares to wrong-think against the infallible purity of the supreme people's law.
Sure as fuck none of them wanted people to be able to defend themselves.
▼
deleted
· 4 years ago
Thing about fascists before they come to power: they lie. So self-assessment is just not valid here. A great lot of your statements check boxes on "fascism", I have pointed that out many times, based on quotes. Victimize yourself as oppression by liberal supremacy? Check, yet again.
All right then. Say I really am a fascist (I'm not, but for the sake of argument). My dream is rise to the highest echelons of political power (it really isn't) and wipe out everyone who isn't a American Nationalist of Hispanic/Native American heritage (just like me).
I lie to the top, organize a putsch and everything just like the old days to seize power. Oh shit! The constitution says I have to respect the people's rights! All is lost! Except, we've already carved up the Bill of Rights. "People of Greater America! Hear my word! As in our youth the glorious powers that be took away obscenely dangerous weapons from the unqualified and unproven! Following their example, I will take away dangerous speech, deny the much abused right to privacy, and trials are only good for letting the guilty escape, so those are gone as well! You don't like it? Too bad, I'm the one with the guns! MAGAlites, execute the dissenters!".
▼
deleted
· 4 years ago
That checks an additional box... maybe you'd consider less sugar for breakfast?
Well *regulated meant functional. Less "everybody's an infantryman" and more "everyone's guns are accessible and work".
Read the writings of the founders and it will be made pretty clear what they wanted.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
Some places to start.
San Francisco has declared a civil rights group to be a terrorist organization and the left is calling for their cities, states, or the feds to follow suit.
Almost daily there are calls to confiscate private property or criminalize people for exercising their rights.
There's people calling for the bill of rights to be destroyed, cut up, or "adjusted".
Remember, you're not paranoid when they're actually out to get you.
One day shit will hit the fan, it always does. Whether that's two men kicking down your back door in 1998 or the PLA HALO jumping in 2047. Either way, you will either want a gun, or you will want to find a good guy who already has one.
Civil people are the first ones to starve when the shelves are empty, and the last ones to act when it's time to do or die.
I'll run with the wolves and savages, thank you very much.
The founders weren't stupid. Other rights even describe exactly what should be included in due process. A big reason not to play with the Bill of Rights.
Or did you think smallpox was just on the ground someplace and the reason nobody's already tried to weaponize it is because it's illegal?
@grimreaper knows a little about bioweapons, let's get his input on the matter.
That's like outlawing spitting on your murder victim. What's the fucking point after somebody's already murdered?
Every compromise will only weaken our human rights. First they outlaw our arms, then they outlaw juries, speech, religion.
I'm not a fascist for wanting people to be able to fight back or believe in different things. That's the opposite of fascism.
"Especially don't murder with a shovel" is superfluous.
You got any citations or examples? Or will you just fess up to using "fascist" to disparage anyone who dares to wrong-think against the infallible purity of the supreme people's law.
Sure as fuck none of them wanted people to be able to defend themselves.
I lie to the top, organize a putsch and everything just like the old days to seize power. Oh shit! The constitution says I have to respect the people's rights! All is lost! Except, we've already carved up the Bill of Rights. "People of Greater America! Hear my word! As in our youth the glorious powers that be took away obscenely dangerous weapons from the unqualified and unproven! Following their example, I will take away dangerous speech, deny the much abused right to privacy, and trials are only good for letting the guilty escape, so those are gone as well! You don't like it? Too bad, I'm the one with the guns! MAGAlites, execute the dissenters!".