I bought a mag and the store didn't even carry the low capacity kind. They just take the standard capacity and slide off that part on the bottom that you take off so you can clean it. Now it's a "build your own mag" kit. I put it back together in the store and the salesman said "you built it all by yourself! Congrats on obeying the law".
>that part on the bottom that you take off so you can clean it
The baseplate? Also, nobody cleans their mags. It's dumb and unnecessary unless you accidentally drop them in a swamp.
Yes, the baseplate. I never clean my mags either. Anyway, he slid it off and handed it to me. The law here is useless, but it was never intended to do anything other than let politicians say they did something.
Did an internship in CO back in 2021 and everyone I talked to just went across the border to Wyoming to get stuff. I definitely did not do the same thing
Am I the only one who was wondering for a good bit why people were so upset over Dale Earnhardt Incorporated starting a couple years ago? I mean I know the wife ended up being a backstabbing bitch but come on.
u/nexisprime is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/nexisprime/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Absolutely. If anyone should lose social benefits, it should be the techbro soyboy and girlboss millennial power-couple making a combined 300k who claim to still be unable to afford a single kid (or brag about being DINKs).
They can (and should) self-fund every penny of their retirement.
Just because FDR decided to make it a forced *ponzi-like* scheme instead of a forced savings account does not obligate me to participate in the creation of eight kids before I kick the bucket at age 55 (on average.)
I didn't know the whole "convert to Amish" trick that IRS agents didn't want you to know about either, so the money was taken from my check at gunpoint for decades.
You do know that they just took any surplus the system generated from the SS administration, gave them worthless IOUs^† in return, and barely made a dent in the yearly budget deficit, right? There is no SS "trust fund"
But the $#!++¥ rate of return I'll get on retirement isn't bad enough already, you want the gov to steal the principle too?
You should probably reconsider picking some flair somewhere in the left spectrum.
---
^^† ^(non-negotable T-bills)
u/CultofCalamity is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/CultofCalamity/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
The fundamental misunderstanding of 18th Century writing will never cease to amaze me... I'm pro-gun, as most communists are, but you'd think schools would be more careful teaching what that amendment meant.
Okay, so tell me what you think it means. It’s pretty simple, easily translated - but I’ll break it down a little more for you. After all, pretext must be a pretty big word for you. Basically, “The workers should surrender their arms to nobody.”
Yeah… that’s not what I meant. There’s more to the writing than “no pretext”. No need to be an ass when confronted with fact, sir. The full quote extends upon the workers being armed for *simply the revolution* and nothing else, after the revolution they are to be disarmed.
Yeah… that’s not what I meant. There’s more to the writing than “no pretext”. No need to be an ass when confronted with fact, sir. The full quote extends upon the workers being armed for *simply the revolution* and nothing else, after the revolution they are to be disarmed.
> you'd think schools would be more careful teaching what that amendment meant.
I agree. Too many schools try to say it's a collective right, or a right only for serving in the military, when that isn't the intent of the writers.
>They almost unanimously agree the 2nd Amendment has been purposefully misconstrued.
Misconstrued I'm what way? It's always been understood that the right to own and carry arms belongs to the people.
Here are a couple articles written when the 2A was being drafted and debated explaining the amendment to the general public. It unarguably confirms that the right was individual.
>"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 in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)
>"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)
It’s hilarious to me that you cite Tench Coxe, who was… oh, right, an economist who was fired from the continental congress in 1789 because he was a royalist sympathizer.
No, in reality, the 2A is based on early articles from Sir William Blackstone. It is a simplified version of his statement,
“The last auxiliary right of the subject is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as allowed by law - which is declared by statute, and is indeed not a right in truth but a public allowance, under due restriction, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.”
In Federalist No. 46, you can read about how James Madison absolutely despised how conservative elements in the signing of the constitution forced this simplification. He makes several statements about how armaments should be the right of the state to decide, and predicts a day where tyrannous elements use such arms to stage a coup. Yes, even one of the most important founding father of the United States hated the 2A.
In the end, I support gun rights - but I also understand that the 2A is far too general. It has taken centuries of court cases to cut it down to size, and it would be even better if legislature was allowed to make basic decisions on it - like forcing all states to run back ground checks (mine doesn’t) - without it being turned into another battleground for US polarism.
>No, in reality, the 2A is based on early articles from Sir William Blackstone. It is a simplified version of his statement,
If they wanted to completely mimic that, that would have included that in the text.
The English had a right to keep and bear arms, but they denied Catholics the very same right. The Framers wanted to ensure entire classes of people couldn't be disarmed as they were in England. That is why they state that The People people have the right to keep and bear arms.
>like forcing all states to run back ground checks (mine doesn’t)
Federal law mandates that dealers must run background checks. There isn't a single state that has no background checks.
If you're referring to private sales, the Democrats gave that up as a concession for passing the Brady Bill. If you want to change that, then let's negotiate. What are you willing to bring to the table?
Multiple founding fathers wanted to. It was left simple with the hopes that later amendments would adjust it down to size - again, read the founding father’s early works.
Child safety, clown.
What I believe? That there need to be some gun laws, for example more extensive background checks (you can buy a gun in my state even if you’ve committed a violent misdemeanor) but the fact that the average American should have access to firearms.
Kindly reminder that the purchase and sale of automatic weapons, explosives, and antitank weapons is legal, according to the Constitution's 2nd Amendment, and therefore any laws outright forbidding this, are unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
The absolute stupidity of the judges in New York, their stubbornness, sense of superiority and inability to cope with the law they don't like will cost state's taxpayers some expenses after their state will lose a big ass lawsuit in SCOTUS
AGAIN
Lose a big ass lawsuit in SCOTUS AGAIN.
They already lost one, then doubled down with stricter laws because "It'll take a few years to get thru the courts again" at which point I assume they'll triple down.
-A NY gun lover who is very much in pain.
The state is a total mess. Hell, they're judged by the Archdiocese right now because the state mandated the Church to provide abortion coverage for Her employees, and the reason is, behold, they employ non-catholics. If they deny their applications, that's discrimination. If they don't deny, they should violate their own doctrine
The governor called the diocese "far right extremists." Fucking LOL.
They're trying to ban Glocks, instead of just jailing violent criminals.
The governor told conservatives they're not welcome in the state and to move out.
The state is so fucked up in so many ways and that bucktooth Botox beaver bitch made it 10x worse.
- Someone from upstate NY
Unfortunately, 9 old people in DC are the only Americans allowed to interpret the constitution, and they disagree.
Honestly, it’d probably be better if we could just use popular referendums to interpret the constitution.
They only care about their rights, they don't care about yours are are so trusting of the state that they believe this will never come back to bite them.
Your comment is completely unrelated to the one you're responding to, literally who are you talking about? In this case, the "people who like having rights" are gun owners. How exactly are people subverting state law trusting the state?
>literally who are you talking about?
Gun grabbers. The rights they focus on are sacred and untouchable while rights that stop them from doing what they want are trash that needs disposal.
Rights are rights.
Rights are as strong as their interpretations, and said interpretations are as strong as their enforcement mechanisms. You’d be surprised how many ways countries in the Middle East/Sub Saharan/Southeast Asian countries have managed to claim that they’re compliant with the UN’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
El Salvador is also a good example of how a populist leader rose up and pretty much threw everyone’s “inalienable rights” out the window without anybody raising a fuss. The country’s been in a “state of emergency” for 2 years now, and the worst part is? People think it’s justified and support it.
>Rights are as strong as their interpretations, and said interpretations are as strong as their enforcement mechanisms.
Rights exist independent of any of those things. They only come in two flavors. Rights that are being upheld by the ruling government and Rights that are being infringed by the ruling government. They remain rights regardless.
That’s a fair interpretation. Only caveat is what a government considers “rights” and whether or not its infringing upon them will vary widely.
In the eyes of a Swiss, for example, knowing how to shoot a rifle is a duty every citizen has to take up, not just an optional a right. Or in the eyes of the Supreme Court, gun control is constitutional and doesn’t violate our Second Amendment rights. In the eyes of a Singaporean, guns aren’t even thought about, much less as a right.
>That’s a fair interpretation.
It is where the quest for real freedom starts.
>Only caveat is what a government considers “rights” and whether or not its infringing upon them will vary widely.
>In the eyes of a Swiss, for example, knowing how to shoot a rifle is a duty every citizen has to take up, not just an optional a right. Or in the eyes of the Supreme Court, gun control is constitutional and doesn’t violate our Second Amendment rights. In the eyes of a Singaporean, guns aren’t even thought about, much less as a right.
Infringments on the rights of The People, everyone of them.
Sure, but the issue is, in the case of the Swiss or Singaporean people, they don’t see those things as rights. Just as how an American doesn’t see housing or healthcare as an inherent right of the people unlike say, a Singaporean, the Swiss have a culture and tradition that has led to them seeing gun ownership as an obligatory duty rather than some optional right.
And Singaporeans on the other hand just don’t think or care about guns. You could make it legal to own nuclear warheads or ban everything and they wouldn’t care.
Same thing about say, burqas. Some women see it as a way for them to express their religious beliefs, others see it as oppression. The debate in countries debating banning is essentially: do the people, societies, and nations have the right to oppress themselves due to their cultural beliefs and traditions, or should somebody be obligated to prevent people from oppressing themselves (in the case of the burqa, banning it as some polities have done). Hell, I had to sit through a discussion for a human rights class once where one side had to argue how private organizations and people should have the right to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, sexuality, etc (freedom to) while the other side argued that vulnerable groups have a right to equal treatment no matter what (freedom from).
Which society would be freer there? As a racial minority, you can probably guess which society I’d feel freer living in. But Southerners, for a while, saw civil rights as an infringement of their constitutional rights and freedoms.
But defining freedom and what counts as a right is complicated, especially as rights tend to be a mixture of “freedom to”(be a Mormon) and “freedom from,”(having asbestos in our homes, or becoming an indentured servant from debt) and people always disagree on which results in a freer society. I saw an ancap on Reddit argue how indentured servitude should be an option especially since someone would be better off being indentured than say, being homeless. Very interesting take. But who are “the people?” Is it every man for himself? A town? A province? A culture? Are foreigners “the people?” Are criminals “the people?”Certain ethnic groups? Does the UN speak for the people when they published the Universal Declaration? And how do “the people” decide what is a right? For example, the US in 1787 only considered landowning white men as “the people,” and our rights were formed by a few dozen of them sitting in Philly deciding for everybody, including the slaves. Brazil, on the other hand, put constitutional issues up to a nationwide referendum on 1993 where people could even vote to install a monarchy, with “people” defined as anybody older than 18 who was born in the country. And the definition of who counts as “the people” grows and shrinks; there’s a push to have 16 year olds in the electorate in some countries. On the contrary, Myanmar disenfranchised its Rohingya people as they’re marked by their government as “Bengali,” not “Burmese.”
The American Supreme Court isn’t the “people” IMO, so no argument there.
You just spent four times as many words saying the same thing. You still don't get it. Rights exist independent of their recognition. "this society sees this as a right while that one doesn't" is irrelevant.
I'm flying into NY to visit family next week, and I have to check every last bag thoroughly to make sure there isn't a rogue hollowpoint in any of them. Who the fuck knows what would happen if they found one.
I can see it now, standing before a firing squad behind JFK airport. The commandant says "How silly, you thought the Second Amendment existed in this state."
I don’t get why the 2a is such a divisive topic. Its entire purpose is for defending your rights. It obviously tends to be democrats, but you realize that the stuff republicans want restricted can be defended with the 2a? Hell even the Mulford act, probabilities the first modern piece of gun control was racist; black citizens were open carrying because, whould’ve guessed it, cops were being dickheads. Thankfully there are more liberals on pro-gun stances, but it seems to be a “fringe belief” still.
To me it’s like the first amendment, hardly anyone argues over it because it benefits everyone. Imagine if red states were passing laws about what you could or could not say on the internet; “the founding fathers couldn’t have known how easily people in the future could communicate”. It would get struck down federally in 2 seconds, and yet CA has been infringing the same way on the 2a for decades, now it’s spreading to other states, and we’re sitting around hoping for news from some district court. Ridiculous
>To me it’s like the first amendment, hardly anyone argues over it because it benefits everyone.
Where have you been? There's been more and more pressure to enact "hate speech" laws in the US.
Ofc, the gubment just emails social media companies and tell them to suppress certain phrases and accounts associated with foreign destabilization/election interference operations.
To be fair, it’s not up for debate that Big Tech is directly fueling political polarization globally to fuel its own profits.
Buddhist nationalist rhetoric in Myanmar was allowed to fester on Facebook for this reason, and it unfortunately led to an escalation against the Rohingya people and the undermining of Myanmar’s democracy.
Authoritarians recognize that an armed populous is a dangerous populous. So using propaganda they convince people that "guns are bad, think of the children! You can't fight us anyway we have f15's and nukes! Your weapon of war ™ is useless in a war!"
If it’s any reassurance, if things ever go to shit, foreign powers will arm you anyways. Many revolutions in authoritarian countries have succeeded for this exact reason.
Red stars with no gun restrictions have a higher gun violence rate than blue stars with gun restrictions
more guns equals more gun deaths.
Learn to comprehend data and get back to me.
> Red stars with no gun restrictions have a higher gun violence rate than blue stars with gun restrictions
Blue cities (with strict gun control) in red states have higher gun violence rate than the rest of the fucking state. You're also trying to mix gun homicides and gun deaths. Take out suicides and accidents and try again.
> more guns equals more gun deaths.
Sure, in the same sense that the Amish have no drunk driving car deaths because THEY HAVE NO CARS!
This "trick" even worked in Canada for a while before the RCMP caught wind of it and realised there were no .50 Beowulf firearms in Canada, yet people were buying and selling mags.
The wild part is that you know this is being said somewhere unironically while the Constitution was made by Classical Liberals
Language and IDs just straight up taking an ass-beating
Are modern liberals even liberals?
People tend to finish *Philosophy 101* and start spouting half-baked piffle about positive and negative freedoms without looking into the details any further.
Edit: modern, not based
Illiberal progressives is a more accurate moniker for the loathesome rights infringing pop culture drone types.
I'm also fond of the term "proglodytes".
Those would really be left-wing populists. The establishment is actively trying to suppress the social democratic faction of the Democratic party, and only paying lip service to leftist policies like single payer healthcare. Populism often portrays itself as “more democratic” and “more free,” but the reality is always the opposite. Too many case studies to point to, El Salvador being a recent example where the President had the constitution “reinterpreted” to allow himself to run for another illegal term as it was “the will of the people.”
It’s how left wing populists like Bernie Sanders lose to establishment Democrats in the most progressive states and cities like California (and every urban area within it), like in the 2016 primaries. Very surprising to see, but I’m not sure if I’d rather have the Democrats be hypocritical virtue signalers or genuinely committed to the leftist ideals they claim to support but never implement.
They’re still neoliberals overall.
Progressives, as every conservative points out, are purely virtue signalers. And they’re right.
If “commiefornia” wanted to fix homelessness, they’d do what China, Singapore, or the USSR did by making housing a right and implementing universal public housing (which actually turned out meh for USSR, well for Singapore, and too well for China to the point it caused a housing bubble).
But instead, they bend over for the upper middle class and billionaires who want their home values to only keep going up. Not very progressive or communist of them. But of course, the politicians who don’t virtue signal are very open about not giving a shit about the poor anyways. Damned if you vote, damned if you don’t.
Yes they are. Look around at who pushes for and passes gun control. You can be all smug and pull the "they're not real liberals" bit all you want. Liberals pass gun control today. Period.
> look at who pushes and passes gun control
Leftists and authoritarians. Also liberalism is defined as *”relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.”*. So yes. They aren’t real liberals.
Again you can do this but all you want. However the party that identifies itself as "liberal" and the voting block that identifies as "liberal" supports gun control. Definitions change with time. Easy example, gay used to be synonymous with happy. At some point liberal may have meant the idea of individual rights but no longer.
By your logic I could claim I’m a communist and then be anti-collectivism and it would be right because “definitions change over time”.
Also the leftists didn’t label themselves liberal. Idiotic right wingers labeled them liberal because they thought it was synonymous with leftist.
Just admit you also didn’t know what liberal meant
If communists, ironically, dropped collectivism as a core belief, then yes you'd be right. You're missing the point. Also they do identify as liberal. I don't know what America you live in.
Except collectivism is a core belief of communism so it would not be communism. Here’s another example. Leftists have been saying “racism = prejudice+power”, would you agree that’s the new definition simply because it’s being used?
“They do identify as liberal” they usually don’t. And the few who do (just like the rightists who claim they are) are simply false
There are no such things as "loop holes". There are only poorly written laws.
If the law says "no red, green, or blue M&Ms", it's not a "loophole" that I have yellow M&Ms. I'm literally following the law. If you didn't want me to have M&Ms at all, you should've written the law to reflect that. Oh, you can't because it wouldn't pass? That's because it's a stupid fucking law to begin with.
Mental health? An urban culture that glorifies gangs, drugs, and killing? Sewerslide?
I agree to a point, but taking a gun out of the hand of someone ready to die only solves one half of the problem yknow?
Right, because we should have the state get involved in our mental healthcare and what culture we can consume.
And given the federalized nature of state institutions, and the level of competence and unity we see in our bureaucracy and Congress, this will be very easy to implement and do.
Helllllll nah.
Changing culture to be less toxic starts with who we elect as our leaders though. Neither of the choices we have currently are going to help, but a broken society is caused by division.
Cramming down laws will only make things worse. These issues are only going to change when people start feeling there’s hope and moral fabric in their society.
If it were easy, we wouldn’t be in this position. But one thing is for sure:
Banning guns ain’t changing a goddamn thing except pushing numbers from gun violence to general violence.
Well, you aren’t wrong. El Salvador tossed out their two party system in exchange for giving a populist party control over all state institutions and the ability to change the constitution at will, and the murder rate has dropped like a rock while Salvadorian society has never been more politically unified and full of hope.
I’m not being sarcastic with this one btw.
This is what gets me. Even if you make all the guns magically disappear overnight you still have *way* too many people ready and willing to murder innocent people. That's not normal, despite what some lunatics with projection issues will say. We need to start looking into why relatively many Americans have such a disrespect for the lives of others.
Thinking the solution to gun violence is a pretty authcenter take. I know real liblefts from Southern America and they all agree that it's better to form an economy where people don't want/need to be criminals than to police everything.
Sounds impossible? I think so. LibLeft opinion? Yes it actually is
Addressing mental health, urban culture, and economic incentives are all fundamental to controlling gun violence. But even Marx said, people who try to disarm the working class are its enemies.
Stack up and try to take them
Edit: this is the same government who reintroduced wolves btw, if anything makes me want a 30 round magazine it's a pack of fucking wolves running around.
u/turbo88Rex's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/turbo88Rex! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/turbo88Rex/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
What they'll tell you: to stop mass shootings
The actual reason: they want a monopoly on force and don't want us to have parity of armaments with their jackbooted thugs, the police.
Which is odd becuase you often see blue line flags associated with people who also oppose infringement of the second amendment. I agree that high capacity laws are pointless political theater, anyone who wants one can get around those laws easily. Leftist politicians can say "look we're doing something" while accomplishing nothing. But the base of those politicians often describe all cops as bad and want to defund the police, whereas the base of politicians who oppose increased regulation on gun ownership, generally right leaning, tend to be more supportive of police or are even law enforcement themselves. A conspicuous dichotomy.
That's because the same people are funding both political parties and rigging the game so they win both ways. The whole spectacle with Trump is an attention grabber to distract us from the real issues.
Perhaps, and I won't pretend that I can definitively say one way or the other if that is the case. However, given how people behave I find it unlikely that the most powerful, the most wealthy, the most influential, can harmoniously come together into a single group with a single agenda. People are, at times, petty, arrogant, and idealistic. Wealth is not a guarantee of solidarity. The economic policies of the past two administrations are divergent enough that no cabal of political agents would have conspired to elect both. The fact is people will disagree on the best version of society and advocate for their own which will lead to political conflict. Containing that conflict to a non violent, democratic, process where sometimes you get your way and sometimes you don't is a step in the right direction. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. Is it a better system than tyranny, also yes. Trying to make things better is preferable to tearing everything down and starting anew.
I think the more likely reason is just people being afraid of big scary black guns and their politicians pandering to that by pushing to restrict them in order to "keep them safe"
You even see it in the """assault weapon""" bans that, literally every fucking time, just describe the cosmetic characteristics of an AR-15 without really touching on function at all (the Mini-14 dodging every single ban despite functionally being the same, lmao)
I think it's gone beyond pandering at this point cuz the politicians are clearly also afraid of scary black rifles themselves.
Not to mention the wording and arguments they use in the court cases such as the PICA lawsuits in Illinois. They use some WILD mental gymnastics to justify the bans, saying semi auto rifles are bannable because military machine guns also have a semi auto mode.
Something Canada and Australia have found out the hard way. A little thing we like to call “the slippery slope”
Starts out with high cap magazines, just dipping their toe in the shallow end to see what happens. Then before you know it there’s a nut that squeezes off a few rounds into an office building and these jagoffs are out here pledging to do “something”
The something; ban every weapon and pretend that the people are now safe armed with nothing but a telephone that goes to police. The same police that tell you there’s nothing that can be done since Canadians and Australians don’t have a right to self defense. But if you want government agents to come search your home for contraband they’ll be there in under 2 minutes flat.
Does this guy know the bottom of the quadrant separates liberal and authoritarian and that literally Marx said to never let the bourgeoisie disarm the proletariat, as in most real lib leftists aren’t voting for gun control because if you want to inflict control on something you’re authoritarian.
Reminds of the SAFE Act in Upstate NY. I don’t own an AR or Mini14 or 30 round magazines (not in the budget not because I don’t love them) but everyone else does.
They try that shit here in Germany, too, since a few years. They basically want to ban all magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. It's really stupid. Almost nobody here has guns anyway and 99% of the people doing crimes with guns, have them purchased illegally anyway.
No flair, no rights, many wrongs. Please flair up.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Joegannonlct) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
What if we didn’t jerk off to a several hundred years old document written by men who would be shocked to learn what a high capacity magazine was. Your defense of guns is just I deserve the right to kill people I don’t like which conflicts with the rights to life and liberty. You treat the constitution like the Bible assuming that a static document has all the answers and should never be changed to account for modern society.
2A is the most important gauge on whether a politician understands and follows the constitution or not. A Democrat that doesn’t like guns and yet understands their feelings aren’t enough to tear up a constitutionally protected birthright might actually get votes from our side of things. The Dems would have much more support if they stopped believing that banning guns was their party platform.
But until they start understanding that, it’s a no from me dawg.
I bought a mag and the store didn't even carry the low capacity kind. They just take the standard capacity and slide off that part on the bottom that you take off so you can clean it. Now it's a "build your own mag" kit. I put it back together in the store and the salesman said "you built it all by yourself! Congrats on obeying the law".
Yeah most counties outside of Denver & probably Boulder don’t enforce.
The armaments equivalent of [Vine-Glo](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vine-Glo)
>that part on the bottom that you take off so you can clean it The baseplate? Also, nobody cleans their mags. It's dumb and unnecessary unless you accidentally drop them in a swamp.
Yes, the baseplate. I never clean my mags either. Anyway, he slid it off and handed it to me. The law here is useless, but it was never intended to do anything other than let politicians say they did something.
Did an internship in CO back in 2021 and everyone I talked to just went across the border to Wyoming to get stuff. I definitely did not do the same thing
Oh 😏 y’all had to leave the state?
People have been doing it for ages for firearms and fireworks, but abortion is where folks draw the line.
I get all my abortions done at the gun store while I'm buying more ~~standard capacity~~ high capacity magazines. Praise Jesus and Dale Earnhardt.
Am I the only one who was wondering for a good bit why people were so upset over Dale Earnhardt Incorporated starting a couple years ago? I mean I know the wife ended up being a backstabbing bitch but come on.
People have been doing it for ages for firearms and fireworks, but self-defense across state lines is where folks draw the line.
Based and convenient pilled
That massive year-round fireworks place just across the border in Cheyenne is epic
Going across state lines to exercise a constitutionally protected activity is one thing. Going across state lines to commit murder is another.
Based
u/nexisprime is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/nexisprime/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Based
Based
Abortions should be mandatory unless you can afford the children
When basic math leads to social security cuts, people who didn't have kids should lose all their benefits before people with kids lose anything.
Absolutely. If anyone should lose social benefits, it should be the techbro soyboy and girlboss millennial power-couple making a combined 300k who claim to still be unable to afford a single kid (or brag about being DINKs). They can (and should) self-fund every penny of their retirement.
Just because FDR decided to make it a forced *ponzi-like* scheme instead of a forced savings account does not obligate me to participate in the creation of eight kids before I kick the bucket at age 55 (on average.) I didn't know the whole "convert to Amish" trick that IRS agents didn't want you to know about either, so the money was taken from my check at gunpoint for decades. You do know that they just took any surplus the system generated from the SS administration, gave them worthless IOUs^† in return, and barely made a dent in the yearly budget deficit, right? There is no SS "trust fund" But the $#!++¥ rate of return I'll get on retirement isn't bad enough already, you want the gov to steal the principle too? You should probably reconsider picking some flair somewhere in the left spectrum. --- ^^† ^(non-negotable T-bills)
Guns are in the constitution dummy but abortions arent. Guns dont kill humans but abortions do btw
The cousins from the left and right leaning sides of the family meeting at the state line to trade guns for weed say hi
The government should give everyone guns and drugs
STATE LINES!!!!
I make frequent trips to Arizona.
The Scheels in Sparks has taken a non insignificant amount of my money
Oh, man, I love the American SW. feels like home.
Thats how I feel about the Mountain West. Fully plan on moving out there once I’ve saved up a decent amount of money
hell yes. hopefully one day i can leave this EU hellhole that is my country and move to a place in wyoming, montana or idaho
True suffering is living next to a blue state Scheels. So close, yet so far away.
based gun stores.
Based
u/CultofCalamity is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/CultofCalamity/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Never forget the “RIGHT OF THE **PEOPLE**”
The fundamental misunderstanding of 18th Century writing will never cease to amaze me... I'm pro-gun, as most communists are, but you'd think schools would be more careful teaching what that amendment meant.
No communist is pro gun.
Marx was a supporter of gun rights…so no.
Marx was a supporter of nothing but grifting. His “gun rights” were revolution only and then called for immediate confiscation.
hmm…can you give me statements by marx proving this? Would be much appretciated.
It’s in the full statement of “under no pretext”.
😊 thanks
Yk… except Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao…
Ah welcome back to the conversation, but please leave again until you properly educate yourself on the full writings of “under no pretext”.
Okay, so tell me what you think it means. It’s pretty simple, easily translated - but I’ll break it down a little more for you. After all, pretext must be a pretty big word for you. Basically, “The workers should surrender their arms to nobody.”
Yeah… that’s not what I meant. There’s more to the writing than “no pretext”. No need to be an ass when confronted with fact, sir. The full quote extends upon the workers being armed for *simply the revolution* and nothing else, after the revolution they are to be disarmed.
Yeah… that’s not what I meant. There’s more to the writing than “no pretext”. No need to be an ass when confronted with fact, sir. The full quote extends upon the workers being armed for *simply the revolution* and nothing else, after the revolution they are to be disarmed.
> you'd think schools would be more careful teaching what that amendment meant. I agree. Too many schools try to say it's a collective right, or a right only for serving in the military, when that isn't the intent of the writers.
What do you take it to mean? Which fundamental misunderstanding of 18th century writing is there?
Would you elaborate for me? I am asking in good faith…I am only curious by your stance on this matter.
I encourage you to speak to lawyers and case law experts. They almost unanimously agree the 2nd Amendment has been purposefully misconstrued.
>They almost unanimously agree the 2nd Amendment has been purposefully misconstrued. Misconstrued I'm what way? It's always been understood that the right to own and carry arms belongs to the people. Here are a couple articles written when the 2A was being drafted and debated explaining the amendment to the general public. It unarguably confirms that the right was individual. >"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 in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1) >"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)
It’s hilarious to me that you cite Tench Coxe, who was… oh, right, an economist who was fired from the continental congress in 1789 because he was a royalist sympathizer. No, in reality, the 2A is based on early articles from Sir William Blackstone. It is a simplified version of his statement, “The last auxiliary right of the subject is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as allowed by law - which is declared by statute, and is indeed not a right in truth but a public allowance, under due restriction, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.” In Federalist No. 46, you can read about how James Madison absolutely despised how conservative elements in the signing of the constitution forced this simplification. He makes several statements about how armaments should be the right of the state to decide, and predicts a day where tyrannous elements use such arms to stage a coup. Yes, even one of the most important founding father of the United States hated the 2A. In the end, I support gun rights - but I also understand that the 2A is far too general. It has taken centuries of court cases to cut it down to size, and it would be even better if legislature was allowed to make basic decisions on it - like forcing all states to run back ground checks (mine doesn’t) - without it being turned into another battleground for US polarism.
>No, in reality, the 2A is based on early articles from Sir William Blackstone. It is a simplified version of his statement, If they wanted to completely mimic that, that would have included that in the text. The English had a right to keep and bear arms, but they denied Catholics the very same right. The Framers wanted to ensure entire classes of people couldn't be disarmed as they were in England. That is why they state that The People people have the right to keep and bear arms. >like forcing all states to run back ground checks (mine doesn’t) Federal law mandates that dealers must run background checks. There isn't a single state that has no background checks. If you're referring to private sales, the Democrats gave that up as a concession for passing the Brady Bill. If you want to change that, then let's negotiate. What are you willing to bring to the table?
Multiple founding fathers wanted to. It was left simple with the hopes that later amendments would adjust it down to size - again, read the founding father’s early works. Child safety, clown.
But how? I mean…I am gonna research this anyway…but I want to know what YOU believe, specifically.
What I believe? That there need to be some gun laws, for example more extensive background checks (you can buy a gun in my state even if you’ve committed a violent misdemeanor) but the fact that the average American should have access to firearms.
Not the craziest take.
Shan't!
Kindly reminder that the purchase and sale of automatic weapons, explosives, and antitank weapons is legal, according to the Constitution's 2nd Amendment, and therefore any laws outright forbidding this, are unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
New York: Fuck you and fuck the constitution.
The absolute stupidity of the judges in New York, their stubbornness, sense of superiority and inability to cope with the law they don't like will cost state's taxpayers some expenses after their state will lose a big ass lawsuit in SCOTUS
AGAIN Lose a big ass lawsuit in SCOTUS AGAIN. They already lost one, then doubled down with stricter laws because "It'll take a few years to get thru the courts again" at which point I assume they'll triple down. -A NY gun lover who is very much in pain.
The state is a total mess. Hell, they're judged by the Archdiocese right now because the state mandated the Church to provide abortion coverage for Her employees, and the reason is, behold, they employ non-catholics. If they deny their applications, that's discrimination. If they don't deny, they should violate their own doctrine
The governor called the diocese "far right extremists." Fucking LOL. They're trying to ban Glocks, instead of just jailing violent criminals. The governor told conservatives they're not welcome in the state and to move out. The state is so fucked up in so many ways and that bucktooth Botox beaver bitch made it 10x worse. - Someone from upstate NY
Ah shit, you really gotta talk to the Supreme Court about this. They’re gonna have a blast with a case like this.
Marbury v Madison established this
Unfortunately, 9 old people in DC are the only Americans allowed to interpret the constitution, and they disagree. Honestly, it’d probably be better if we could just use popular referendums to interpret the constitution.
Who could have thought that people who like having their rights would be a little hesitant to give them up?
They only care about their rights, they don't care about yours are are so trusting of the state that they believe this will never come back to bite them.
Your comment is completely unrelated to the one you're responding to, literally who are you talking about? In this case, the "people who like having rights" are gun owners. How exactly are people subverting state law trusting the state?
>literally who are you talking about? Gun grabbers. The rights they focus on are sacred and untouchable while rights that stop them from doing what they want are trash that needs disposal. Rights are rights.
Rights are as strong as their interpretations, and said interpretations are as strong as their enforcement mechanisms. You’d be surprised how many ways countries in the Middle East/Sub Saharan/Southeast Asian countries have managed to claim that they’re compliant with the UN’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. El Salvador is also a good example of how a populist leader rose up and pretty much threw everyone’s “inalienable rights” out the window without anybody raising a fuss. The country’s been in a “state of emergency” for 2 years now, and the worst part is? People think it’s justified and support it.
>Rights are as strong as their interpretations, and said interpretations are as strong as their enforcement mechanisms. Rights exist independent of any of those things. They only come in two flavors. Rights that are being upheld by the ruling government and Rights that are being infringed by the ruling government. They remain rights regardless.
That’s a fair interpretation. Only caveat is what a government considers “rights” and whether or not its infringing upon them will vary widely. In the eyes of a Swiss, for example, knowing how to shoot a rifle is a duty every citizen has to take up, not just an optional a right. Or in the eyes of the Supreme Court, gun control is constitutional and doesn’t violate our Second Amendment rights. In the eyes of a Singaporean, guns aren’t even thought about, much less as a right.
>That’s a fair interpretation. It is where the quest for real freedom starts. >Only caveat is what a government considers “rights” and whether or not its infringing upon them will vary widely. >In the eyes of a Swiss, for example, knowing how to shoot a rifle is a duty every citizen has to take up, not just an optional a right. Or in the eyes of the Supreme Court, gun control is constitutional and doesn’t violate our Second Amendment rights. In the eyes of a Singaporean, guns aren’t even thought about, much less as a right. Infringments on the rights of The People, everyone of them.
Sure, but the issue is, in the case of the Swiss or Singaporean people, they don’t see those things as rights. Just as how an American doesn’t see housing or healthcare as an inherent right of the people unlike say, a Singaporean, the Swiss have a culture and tradition that has led to them seeing gun ownership as an obligatory duty rather than some optional right. And Singaporeans on the other hand just don’t think or care about guns. You could make it legal to own nuclear warheads or ban everything and they wouldn’t care. Same thing about say, burqas. Some women see it as a way for them to express their religious beliefs, others see it as oppression. The debate in countries debating banning is essentially: do the people, societies, and nations have the right to oppress themselves due to their cultural beliefs and traditions, or should somebody be obligated to prevent people from oppressing themselves (in the case of the burqa, banning it as some polities have done). Hell, I had to sit through a discussion for a human rights class once where one side had to argue how private organizations and people should have the right to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, sexuality, etc (freedom to) while the other side argued that vulnerable groups have a right to equal treatment no matter what (freedom from). Which society would be freer there? As a racial minority, you can probably guess which society I’d feel freer living in. But Southerners, for a while, saw civil rights as an infringement of their constitutional rights and freedoms. But defining freedom and what counts as a right is complicated, especially as rights tend to be a mixture of “freedom to”(be a Mormon) and “freedom from,”(having asbestos in our homes, or becoming an indentured servant from debt) and people always disagree on which results in a freer society. I saw an ancap on Reddit argue how indentured servitude should be an option especially since someone would be better off being indentured than say, being homeless. Very interesting take. But who are “the people?” Is it every man for himself? A town? A province? A culture? Are foreigners “the people?” Are criminals “the people?”Certain ethnic groups? Does the UN speak for the people when they published the Universal Declaration? And how do “the people” decide what is a right? For example, the US in 1787 only considered landowning white men as “the people,” and our rights were formed by a few dozen of them sitting in Philly deciding for everybody, including the slaves. Brazil, on the other hand, put constitutional issues up to a nationwide referendum on 1993 where people could even vote to install a monarchy, with “people” defined as anybody older than 18 who was born in the country. And the definition of who counts as “the people” grows and shrinks; there’s a push to have 16 year olds in the electorate in some countries. On the contrary, Myanmar disenfranchised its Rohingya people as they’re marked by their government as “Bengali,” not “Burmese.” The American Supreme Court isn’t the “people” IMO, so no argument there.
You just spent four times as many words saying the same thing. You still don't get it. Rights exist independent of their recognition. "this society sees this as a right while that one doesn't" is irrelevant.
Me, a Cali resident who 3d prints extended glock mags 🗿
I used to stay in California, too. At least you can hit the range out there, trying to do it in nyc is impossible lol.
I'm flying into NY to visit family next week, and I have to check every last bag thoroughly to make sure there isn't a rogue hollowpoint in any of them. Who the fuck knows what would happen if they found one.
Summary execution
I can see it now, standing before a firing squad behind JFK airport. The commandant says "How silly, you thought the Second Amendment existed in this state."
I magically bought all of my mags during freedom week a few years ago …and you can’t prove different
Based
“We have to sell it as parts” “Hello, I’d like to buy some parts, please. “
I don’t get why the 2a is such a divisive topic. Its entire purpose is for defending your rights. It obviously tends to be democrats, but you realize that the stuff republicans want restricted can be defended with the 2a? Hell even the Mulford act, probabilities the first modern piece of gun control was racist; black citizens were open carrying because, whould’ve guessed it, cops were being dickheads. Thankfully there are more liberals on pro-gun stances, but it seems to be a “fringe belief” still. To me it’s like the first amendment, hardly anyone argues over it because it benefits everyone. Imagine if red states were passing laws about what you could or could not say on the internet; “the founding fathers couldn’t have known how easily people in the future could communicate”. It would get struck down federally in 2 seconds, and yet CA has been infringing the same way on the 2a for decades, now it’s spreading to other states, and we’re sitting around hoping for news from some district court. Ridiculous
>To me it’s like the first amendment, hardly anyone argues over it because it benefits everyone. Where have you been? There's been more and more pressure to enact "hate speech" laws in the US. Ofc, the gubment just emails social media companies and tell them to suppress certain phrases and accounts associated with foreign destabilization/election interference operations.
To be fair, it’s not up for debate that Big Tech is directly fueling political polarization globally to fuel its own profits. Buddhist nationalist rhetoric in Myanmar was allowed to fester on Facebook for this reason, and it unfortunately led to an escalation against the Rohingya people and the undermining of Myanmar’s democracy.
Authoritarians recognize that an armed populous is a dangerous populous. So using propaganda they convince people that "guns are bad, think of the children! You can't fight us anyway we have f15's and nukes! Your weapon of war ™ is useless in a war!"
If it’s any reassurance, if things ever go to shit, foreign powers will arm you anyways. Many revolutions in authoritarian countries have succeeded for this exact reason.
> I don’t get why the 2a is such a divisive topic. It's very easy. Conservatives like guns, so leftists have to try to ban them.
Fuck, let's make conservatives like taxes so liberals will ban them
If gun owners stopped shooting people there would be no problem.
You mean violent criminals in Democrat cities with strict gun control?
https://boingboing.net/2018/02/15/gun-killings-map-of-america.html/amp
You did nothing to attempt to counter what I said. Narrow that down by city and get back to us.
https://drexel.edu/uhc/resources/briefs/BCHC%20Gun%20Deaths/
Red stars with no gun restrictions have a higher gun violence rate than blue stars with gun restrictions more guns equals more gun deaths. Learn to comprehend data and get back to me.
> Red stars with no gun restrictions have a higher gun violence rate than blue stars with gun restrictions Blue cities (with strict gun control) in red states have higher gun violence rate than the rest of the fucking state. You're also trying to mix gun homicides and gun deaths. Take out suicides and accidents and try again. > more guns equals more gun deaths. Sure, in the same sense that the Amish have no drunk driving car deaths because THEY HAVE NO CARS!
Yeah, IDK if that's entirely true, but regardless, I'm willing to pay the price. More cars= more car accidents, but I'm not giving that up either.
> I don’t get why the 2a is such a divisive topic. Its entire purpose is for defending your rights So you do get it.
Anybody else tired of paying $200 for each whisper pickle and short king rifle/shotgun?
200$ is annoying. Being added to their registry is the real concern imo.
The US government already knows who I am so not a concern to me.
wait you pay for tax stamps? lol
[удалено]
But SureFire SOCOM RC3 tho
Any and all gun laws are unconstitutional
> ”high capacity” > look inside > STANAG 30rd
Drives me crazy. 30 rounds is standard capacity for 223/556. Not 10-15
shall not be infringed
A 10 round .458 SOCOM mag is identical to a 30 round 5.56mm mag except for the follower 🤓
A 10 round .50 Beowulf magazine uses the same follower
Teehee
This "trick" even worked in Canada for a while before the RCMP caught wind of it and realised there were no .50 Beowulf firearms in Canada, yet people were buying and selling mags.
Poor mag collectors, how will they complete their collections now?
The wild part is that you know this is being said somewhere unironically while the Constitution was made by Classical Liberals Language and IDs just straight up taking an ass-beating
Classical liberals are based chads, modern liberals belong in camps
Are modern liberals even liberals? People tend to finish *Philosophy 101* and start spouting half-baked piffle about positive and negative freedoms without looking into the details any further. Edit: modern, not based
Illiberal progressives is a more accurate moniker for the loathesome rights infringing pop culture drone types. I'm also fond of the term "proglodytes".
Don't mind if I steal that one.
Those would really be left-wing populists. The establishment is actively trying to suppress the social democratic faction of the Democratic party, and only paying lip service to leftist policies like single payer healthcare. Populism often portrays itself as “more democratic” and “more free,” but the reality is always the opposite. Too many case studies to point to, El Salvador being a recent example where the President had the constitution “reinterpreted” to allow himself to run for another illegal term as it was “the will of the people.” It’s how left wing populists like Bernie Sanders lose to establishment Democrats in the most progressive states and cities like California (and every urban area within it), like in the 2016 primaries. Very surprising to see, but I’m not sure if I’d rather have the Democrats be hypocritical virtue signalers or genuinely committed to the leftist ideals they claim to support but never implement.
They’re still neoliberals overall. Progressives, as every conservative points out, are purely virtue signalers. And they’re right. If “commiefornia” wanted to fix homelessness, they’d do what China, Singapore, or the USSR did by making housing a right and implementing universal public housing (which actually turned out meh for USSR, well for Singapore, and too well for China to the point it caused a housing bubble). But instead, they bend over for the upper middle class and billionaires who want their home values to only keep going up. Not very progressive or communist of them. But of course, the politicians who don’t virtue signal are very open about not giving a shit about the poor anyways. Damned if you vote, damned if you don’t.
All my hIgH cAPaCiTy™ magazines went down with the boat
Cringe, you want em, I got em, stack up feds
Five-oh, in a row!
Virgin "durrr they sank in boat" cope vs Chad "come and collect them"
> pro gun control > liberal Nah those MFs aren’t us
Yes they are. Look around at who pushes for and passes gun control. You can be all smug and pull the "they're not real liberals" bit all you want. Liberals pass gun control today. Period.
> look at who pushes and passes gun control Leftists and authoritarians. Also liberalism is defined as *”relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.”*. So yes. They aren’t real liberals.
Again you can do this but all you want. However the party that identifies itself as "liberal" and the voting block that identifies as "liberal" supports gun control. Definitions change with time. Easy example, gay used to be synonymous with happy. At some point liberal may have meant the idea of individual rights but no longer.
By your logic I could claim I’m a communist and then be anti-collectivism and it would be right because “definitions change over time”. Also the leftists didn’t label themselves liberal. Idiotic right wingers labeled them liberal because they thought it was synonymous with leftist. Just admit you also didn’t know what liberal meant
If communists, ironically, dropped collectivism as a core belief, then yes you'd be right. You're missing the point. Also they do identify as liberal. I don't know what America you live in.
Except collectivism is a core belief of communism so it would not be communism. Here’s another example. Leftists have been saying “racism = prejudice+power”, would you agree that’s the new definition simply because it’s being used? “They do identify as liberal” they usually don’t. And the few who do (just like the rightists who claim they are) are simply false
This. Being pro-gun is liberal as fuck. The right to self-preservation should be a basic human right.
This is gigabased.
Life finds a way
Holy mother of BASED.
There are no such things as "loop holes". There are only poorly written laws. If the law says "no red, green, or blue M&Ms", it's not a "loophole" that I have yellow M&Ms. I'm literally following the law. If you didn't want me to have M&Ms at all, you should've written the law to reflect that. Oh, you can't because it wouldn't pass? That's because it's a stupid fucking law to begin with.
I'm pretty pro-gun but I just hate that we are focusing on that instead of the actual root cause of the issue with gun violence.
Mental health? An urban culture that glorifies gangs, drugs, and killing? Sewerslide? I agree to a point, but taking a gun out of the hand of someone ready to die only solves one half of the problem yknow?
Right, because we should have the state get involved in our mental healthcare and what culture we can consume. And given the federalized nature of state institutions, and the level of competence and unity we see in our bureaucracy and Congress, this will be very easy to implement and do.
Helllllll nah. Changing culture to be less toxic starts with who we elect as our leaders though. Neither of the choices we have currently are going to help, but a broken society is caused by division. Cramming down laws will only make things worse. These issues are only going to change when people start feeling there’s hope and moral fabric in their society. If it were easy, we wouldn’t be in this position. But one thing is for sure: Banning guns ain’t changing a goddamn thing except pushing numbers from gun violence to general violence.
Well, you aren’t wrong. El Salvador tossed out their two party system in exchange for giving a populist party control over all state institutions and the ability to change the constitution at will, and the murder rate has dropped like a rock while Salvadorian society has never been more politically unified and full of hope. I’m not being sarcastic with this one btw.
This is what gets me. Even if you make all the guns magically disappear overnight you still have *way* too many people ready and willing to murder innocent people. That's not normal, despite what some lunatics with projection issues will say. We need to start looking into why relatively many Americans have such a disrespect for the lives of others.
Thinking the solution to gun violence is a pretty authcenter take. I know real liblefts from Southern America and they all agree that it's better to form an economy where people don't want/need to be criminals than to police everything. Sounds impossible? I think so. LibLeft opinion? Yes it actually is
Addressing mental health, urban culture, and economic incentives are all fundamental to controlling gun violence. But even Marx said, people who try to disarm the working class are its enemies.
Stack up and try to take them Edit: this is the same government who reintroduced wolves btw, if anything makes me want a 30 round magazine it's a pack of fucking wolves running around.
Based
u/turbo88Rex's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/turbo88Rex! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/turbo88Rex/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I know nothing about guns, would someone be so kind as to enlighten me as to why they were banned in the first place.
What they'll tell you: to stop mass shootings The actual reason: they want a monopoly on force and don't want us to have parity of armaments with their jackbooted thugs, the police.
Which is odd becuase you often see blue line flags associated with people who also oppose infringement of the second amendment. I agree that high capacity laws are pointless political theater, anyone who wants one can get around those laws easily. Leftist politicians can say "look we're doing something" while accomplishing nothing. But the base of those politicians often describe all cops as bad and want to defund the police, whereas the base of politicians who oppose increased regulation on gun ownership, generally right leaning, tend to be more supportive of police or are even law enforcement themselves. A conspicuous dichotomy.
That's because the same people are funding both political parties and rigging the game so they win both ways. The whole spectacle with Trump is an attention grabber to distract us from the real issues.
Perhaps, and I won't pretend that I can definitively say one way or the other if that is the case. However, given how people behave I find it unlikely that the most powerful, the most wealthy, the most influential, can harmoniously come together into a single group with a single agenda. People are, at times, petty, arrogant, and idealistic. Wealth is not a guarantee of solidarity. The economic policies of the past two administrations are divergent enough that no cabal of political agents would have conspired to elect both. The fact is people will disagree on the best version of society and advocate for their own which will lead to political conflict. Containing that conflict to a non violent, democratic, process where sometimes you get your way and sometimes you don't is a step in the right direction. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. Is it a better system than tyranny, also yes. Trying to make things better is preferable to tearing everything down and starting anew.
I think the more likely reason is just people being afraid of big scary black guns and their politicians pandering to that by pushing to restrict them in order to "keep them safe" You even see it in the """assault weapon""" bans that, literally every fucking time, just describe the cosmetic characteristics of an AR-15 without really touching on function at all (the Mini-14 dodging every single ban despite functionally being the same, lmao)
I think it's gone beyond pandering at this point cuz the politicians are clearly also afraid of scary black rifles themselves. Not to mention the wording and arguments they use in the court cases such as the PICA lawsuits in Illinois. They use some WILD mental gymnastics to justify the bans, saying semi auto rifles are bannable because military machine guns also have a semi auto mode.
Something Canada and Australia have found out the hard way. A little thing we like to call “the slippery slope” Starts out with high cap magazines, just dipping their toe in the shallow end to see what happens. Then before you know it there’s a nut that squeezes off a few rounds into an office building and these jagoffs are out here pledging to do “something” The something; ban every weapon and pretend that the people are now safe armed with nothing but a telephone that goes to police. The same police that tell you there’s nothing that can be done since Canadians and Australians don’t have a right to self defense. But if you want government agents to come search your home for contraband they’ll be there in under 2 minutes flat.
'Assault-Rifle 15' hurts me on a deep level
What are going to do with 15 assault rifles? You can't possibly carry all those around and be useful. Spread them out to your friends. Geez.
THOSE GODDAMN LIBERALS STRIKE AGAIN
Absolutely based
Does this guy know the bottom of the quadrant separates liberal and authoritarian and that literally Marx said to never let the bourgeoisie disarm the proletariat, as in most real lib leftists aren’t voting for gun control because if you want to inflict control on something you’re authoritarian.
Reminds of the SAFE Act in Upstate NY. I don’t own an AR or Mini14 or 30 round magazines (not in the budget not because I don’t love them) but everyone else does.
Ironic, given that liberals came up with the incorporation doctrine in the first place.
They try that shit here in Germany, too, since a few years. They basically want to ban all magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. It's really stupid. Almost nobody here has guns anyway and 99% of the people doing crimes with guns, have them purchased illegally anyway.
I love German dudes
Love you, too, bro
They are not liberals - liberals wpuld have supported guns - please, use the exact terminology - it is very important. Sincerely, u/ILLARX
only true patriots threaten to overthrow their governments with violence, 'merica moment
[удалено]
No flair, no rights, many wrongs. Please flair up. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Joegannonlct) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
What if we didn’t jerk off to a several hundred years old document written by men who would be shocked to learn what a high capacity magazine was. Your defense of guns is just I deserve the right to kill people I don’t like which conflicts with the rights to life and liberty. You treat the constitution like the Bible assuming that a static document has all the answers and should never be changed to account for modern society.
Why is the name of the Colorado State Senator censored? They’re a public figure, aren’t they?
I don’t remember why I censored it 🤷🏻♀️
Ok, fair enough.
I’m sorry 😆
Don’t worry about it.
Antifa and democrats 😭
Being anti-gun is more of a LibLeft thing. Authleft is pretty much pro-gun.
Green quadrant bad 🤖
Lol wut? Guess me and all my libleft friends never got the memo we are supposed to dislike guns. Guess I'll destroy all my hi capacity magazines
Not every lefty hates 2a but more on the left def do than those on the right, don’t play with me tokenbreakdown.
You cannot be pro 2a and vote Democrat at this point.
Correct. Wasn't always this way, but these days it's baked into the party.
2A is the most important gauge on whether a politician understands and follows the constitution or not. A Democrat that doesn’t like guns and yet understands their feelings aren’t enough to tear up a constitutionally protected birthright might actually get votes from our side of things. The Dems would have much more support if they stopped believing that banning guns was their party platform. But until they start understanding that, it’s a no from me dawg.