We need to stop pushing the narrative that guns are only for Republicans. The second amendment is for everyone, and everyone should be fighting to protect it.
While I agree, you might be missing the value here. This poster is exceptionally good agitprop to dunk on a short sighted chud uncle or father. Possibly strong enough to make them think for at least a few seconds about their stupid and dangerous opinions.
Fair enough, though going after the 2nd isn’t going to help us find common ground and that’s what we need if we’re ever going to unite and fight the real enemy. It’s a huge wedge issue and part of the reason some people’s entire political thought process is “own the libs”.
I would contend guns are the perfect unifier for left and right people groups. I don’t know anyone that doesn’t stand in agreement that our governing body needs to be well aware that the people are armed against them.
And we the people need to know we are unified to prevent a governing body from splitting the room and taking advantage of us.
As a Democrat and a gun owner/lover I fully agree.
I am always perplexed at how many of my fellow Dems and Progressives will tout the issues with big gov or totalitarian govs and then also think that there should be sweeping restrictions on guns.
I don’t live in the states, but I’d feel a lot more comfortable if no-one could just buy a gun. Republicans nor democrats. The US hasn’t exactly shown that the second amendment has bigger upsides than the HUMONGOUS downsides.
You can’t “just buy a gun”. Most states require permits, and the feds require a background check…
I don’t think people should ever give up a right. But let’s say the second amendment doesn’t make sense anymore. The constitution contains detailed instructions on how to change it. Liberals, though, advocate for ignoring or reinterpreting it. That’s dangerous. If we let the government do that to one right, what’s to stop them from doing that to all of them? Especially if we can’t shoot them for it.
What parts of the US? And are guns the only concern? How about the right coded stabbings? Hit by a car where cars aren’t supposed to be? Assaulted by a drunk? Assaulted by an immigrant? Assaulted by a local? Considerably higher in the EU.
You avoided some big logical gaps to make your statement.
The reality is more like global leading countries are safer than others. You are just focused factoid that ignores a whole lot of others things.
It’s actually not. It’s for organized militias to arm themselves for military or defencive purposes for the safety of protecting the republic, not for that 40yo drug addict to own a Glock so he can kill his wife in a domestic argument.
It’s remarkable how little Americans actually understand the 2A. And even that, they openly let fascism run rampant over their country. “I need my guns to protect my family!” while his family gets picked up by ICE.
Militias at the time of the revolution weren’t organized. They were groups of farmers that could be called up to fight off an invasion when needed in place of a professional army. The 2nd was also intended to function as a check on state power. All of this is detailed in the federalist papers, written by the same authors as the constitution.
Militias at the time of the revolution weren’t organized.
Militias are organized, else it’s just an angry crowd.
AFAIK it’s more about being abled to form already armed militia rather than procure weapons to arm the militia currently owning one pitchfork to share.
They’re organized when they’re needed, by calling up and organizing a bunch of locals. These people weren’t part of a national guard or anything, they weren’t trained, they didn’t have contracts. The founders intended for those locals to provide their own weapons.
Cool. So nothing you said is an admission for regular civilians to have unfettered and unregulated access to firearms at all times. The 2nd Amendment is not for regular civilians to have access to firearms.
Thanks for proving my point.
They were groups of farmers that could be called up to fight off an invasion when needed in place of a professional army.
But when those farmers were called up, they would then be armed. Those farmers were not armed before conscription. So your “right to bear arms” is only in emergency situations and not every day life.
Thanks for clearing that up for all the Americans reading this.
when those farmers were called up, they would then be armed
I agree with you except on this point. The second amendment says “keep and bear arms”. And through reading probate inventories of 1774, 54% of male estates included at least one gun. There was a lot of casual firearm ownership in the colonies.
I don’t keep saying “Farmers”. The person I replied to said Farmers were given guns to defend the Republic in the event of defending it. Which is what the second amendment is based on.
Once again, a dumbass American further proves they don’t even understand their own constitution.
As a 40yo drug addict with a glock I find your interpretation of the second amendment in disagreement with legal precedent and your reduction of domestic abuse to a crass and arguably classist stereotype somewhat problematic.
We need to stop pushing the narrative that guns are only for Republicans. The second amendment is for everyone, and everyone should be fighting to protect it.
While I agree, you might be missing the value here. This poster is exceptionally good agitprop to dunk on a short sighted chud uncle or father. Possibly strong enough to make them think for at least a few seconds about their stupid and dangerous opinions.
Fair enough, though going after the 2nd isn’t going to help us find common ground and that’s what we need if we’re ever going to unite and fight the real enemy. It’s a huge wedge issue and part of the reason some people’s entire political thought process is “own the libs”.
I would contend guns are the perfect unifier for left and right people groups. I don’t know anyone that doesn’t stand in agreement that our governing body needs to be well aware that the people are armed against them.
And we the people need to know we are unified to prevent a governing body from splitting the room and taking advantage of us.
As a Democrat and a gun owner/lover I fully agree.
I am always perplexed at how many of my fellow Dems and Progressives will tout the issues with big gov or totalitarian govs and then also think that there should be sweeping restrictions on guns.
Minority communities LOVE guns too.
I don’t live in the states, but I’d feel a lot more comfortable if no-one could just buy a gun. Republicans nor democrats. The US hasn’t exactly shown that the second amendment has bigger upsides than the HUMONGOUS downsides.
You can’t “just buy a gun”. Most states require permits, and the feds require a background check…
I don’t think people should ever give up a right. But let’s say the second amendment doesn’t make sense anymore. The constitution contains detailed instructions on how to change it. Liberals, though, advocate for ignoring or reinterpreting it. That’s dangerous. If we let the government do that to one right, what’s to stop them from doing that to all of them? Especially if we can’t shoot them for it.
I feel less safe in countries where I am not allow the ability to defend myself.
I get that you feel that way emotionally, but statistically it’s nonsense. Your chances of being shot in the US are 22 times higher than in the EU.
What parts of the US? And are guns the only concern? How about the right coded stabbings? Hit by a car where cars aren’t supposed to be? Assaulted by a drunk? Assaulted by an immigrant? Assaulted by a local? Considerably higher in the EU.
You avoided some big logical gaps to make your statement.
The reality is more like global leading countries are safer than others. You are just focused factoid that ignores a whole lot of others things.
Yes!
It’s actually not. It’s for organized militias to arm themselves for military or defencive purposes for the safety of protecting the republic, not for that 40yo drug addict to own a Glock so he can kill his wife in a domestic argument.
It’s remarkable how little Americans actually understand the 2A. And even that, they openly let fascism run rampant over their country. “I need my guns to protect my family!” while his family gets picked up by ICE.
Militias at the time of the revolution weren’t organized. They were groups of farmers that could be called up to fight off an invasion when needed in place of a professional army. The 2nd was also intended to function as a check on state power. All of this is detailed in the federalist papers, written by the same authors as the constitution.
Militias are organized, else it’s just an angry crowd.
AFAIK it’s more about being abled to form already armed militia rather than procure weapons to arm the militia currently owning one pitchfork to share.
They’re organized when they’re needed, by calling up and organizing a bunch of locals. These people weren’t part of a national guard or anything, they weren’t trained, they didn’t have contracts. The founders intended for those locals to provide their own weapons.
Just calling people into a group with a unified purpose and sense of responsibility reads as “organizing” to me.
Getting a group of people to put up posters or fliers is organizing. It doesn’t need cards or logos or process.
Cool. So nothing you said is an admission for regular civilians to have unfettered and unregulated access to firearms at all times. The 2nd Amendment is not for regular civilians to have access to firearms.
Thanks for proving my point.
But when those farmers were called up, they would then be armed. Those farmers were not armed before conscription. So your “right to bear arms” is only in emergency situations and not every day life.
Thanks for clearing that up for all the Americans reading this.
I agree with you except on this point. The second amendment says “keep and bear arms”. And through reading probate inventories of 1774, 54% of male estates included at least one gun. There was a lot of casual firearm ownership in the colonies.
You are disingenuous.
I don’t have to say that, the federalist papers said that.
“We may someday hand you a gun” isn’t a right to bear arms lmao
“We may someday hand you a gun” isn’t a right to bear arms lmao
If you understand your constitution, finish the amendment. I dare you to look it up and write out the rest of it after “the right to bear arms”.
“Shall not be infringed”. Which is the opposite of “you can have a gun only when we hand you one.”
A lot of people owned their own personal guns.
And you keep saying farmers as if it was a specific group of the population. Like 90% of the population was farmers then.
At this point I would venture to say your argument is just wrong.
I don’t keep saying “Farmers”. The person I replied to said Farmers were given guns to defend the Republic in the event of defending it. Which is what the second amendment is based on.
Once again, a dumbass American further proves they don’t even understand their own constitution.
I did.not say they were given guns. I said they were given the right to bear arms in case they were called up to join a militia.
You said they were given guns, and I said that doesn’t count as a right to bear arms.
Wait wait wait… You aren’t American and you are trying to argue our own political system to us?
This is amazing - probably the best bot/NPC I’ve ever come across.
At least someone understands things. Sad that everyone else can’t seem to grasp the point.
deleted by creator
As a 40yo drug addict with a glock I find your interpretation of the second amendment in disagreement with legal precedent and your reduction of domestic abuse to a crass and arguably classist stereotype somewhat problematic.
Your legal precendent doesn’t actually exist within the wording of the constitution.
Yeah no shit that’s how precedent works.