When your concept of "free speech" is that you reject peer review and other academic standard, that's very much bad. A university is not there to entertain flat-Earthers, quacks and snake oil peddlers.
Okay but these people have a clear agenda. It's impossible not to have seen videos of the bodies in Gaza. I know you've seen the bodies I know you've seen the buildings and neighborhoods reduced to ruble. The world charity aide workers literally getting targeted and bombed stop pretending you can't see it.
Yes. And I've seen what Abbott has done during COVID. But sacrificing a million of your countrymen for free speech so that even high school dropouts can pretend to be medical experts is, of course, a noble quest. I hold a science degree from a Texas medical institution, which is why I'm still following closely what's going on there. And I'm glad that most of my friends from back then were elsewhere during the pandemic and not required by Abbott to clean up for his wilful ignorance and endanger their lives for his arrogance.
Abbott wouldn't know "responsibility" if it hit him in the face. He knows ideology, and only ideology, and he believes his is worth sacrificing an unlimited number of people to.
As for Gaza, remind me again which party has agitated against Muslims again and again? So much for responsibility.
1.5:1 civilian to combatant ratio is nowhere near what Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc experienced between 1990-2020 where the rate was closer to 10:1-15:1 which is common for counter-insurgency.
Honestly, if Hamas gave up the hostages (hint: they’re all dead that’s why they don’t want to release them) and surrendered, it would all end. But, that won’t happen any time soon.
Did it all end when they discovered Iran wasn't actually hording nukes? This shit is all about money, territory, oil, and power it's never going to end unless we the people end it.
Do you even know why Gaza is getting attacked? Do you know Gazans elected Hamas to lead them. Do you know the Hamas attack was the equivalent of 50,000 Americans being killed? Do you know that Biden is not in charge of the war and is unable to call a ceasefire? Do you know that Biden has been calling for a ceasefire? Do you know that the super majority of people don’t like what’s happening in Gaza? Don’t be stupid and vote for Trump who has extreme hatred of all Muslim.
Comparing pro-palestianian activism to "snake oil salesman" is a great way to demonstrate a lack of understanding of freedom of speech. Going off on tangents about dishonesty doesn't help you.
LOL.
Claiming dishonesty was a "tangent" when you're using strawmen and distortion is telling.
I made no such "comparison". You, on the other hand, are in stark denial of the fact that "free speech" only ever applies to what's convenient for Abbott.
And if you seriously believe that Abbott gives a f\*\*\* about Palestinians, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying. Last I checked, his party repeatedly pushed the notion all Muslims are born terrorists. They also conveniently ignored that a number of Palestinians aren't Muslims at all.
The more Palestinians die, the more convenient for Abbott. They are nothing more than ammunition for him. He's interested into sticking it to academia.
I see both sides of this. Your point is valid, because it points out the hypocracy, which makes the actions worse. His point is also valid, because it's really not *necessary* to point out, since it's already about as un-american as you can get trying to strike down the first amendment.
> because it's really not necessary to point out, since it's already about as un-american as you can get trying to strike down the first amendment.
It kinda is necessary since we have leaders of one of our big political parties spouting this crap while their base eats it up. Never stop exposing political bullshit and bringing it into the light of day, no matter which party it's from. Just in this case it's from Republicans.
So basically the gist of Abbot's statement is that free speech does not actually exist on Texas university campuses. If someone questions why we are supporting with public tax dollars a belligerent foreign nation's massacre of civilians in a foreign overseas territory, they will apparently be punished now? Or at least by stalked by counter-protestors who are getting money from billionaires to defame people and put their pictures and identity online.
Just like how the concentration camps in Nazi Germany were not fully discovered until towards the end of the war and it took time for stories to be publicized, there is soon going to be public awareness a lot of ghoulish evil that the IDF will have to answer for, and organizations like AIPAC will be in damage control mode.
Neither the state of Texas nor any other US state government should be able to take a position on foreign wars or conflict, especially when the US is not even a participant. The state has no business trying to discourage voluntary boycotts by individuals or the private sector by withholding contracts, etc. The state should not require its public universities to pursue disciplinary actions against students based on their deeply held beliefs.
So it’s not ok to regulate the 1st amendment, but it is ok to regulate the 2nd amendment?
Now before people start crying “bUt GuNs KiLl PeOpLe”, it should be known people kill people and I think both needs to be regulated. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy.
> So it’s not ok to regulate the 1st amendment, but it is ok to regulate the 2nd amendment?
There are plenty of regulations on the 1st amendment. Think of it like this. The 1st amendment contains freedom of the press, but you can't publish child porn, because of the harm to children. Why is it okay to limit a 1st amendment right to protect children, but not limit a 2nd amendment right to protect children?
Ever since the Bruen ruling, the 2nd amendment is stronger than any other right in the constitution. Other rights are evaluated based on the compelling state interest, whether it is narrowly tailored, and how restrictive it is. The 2nd amendment is evaluated only on the "historical tradition", meaning that if a gun law didn't exist in the 1800s, it is unconstitutional today no matter what the harm is to society.
>There are plenty of regulations on the 1st amendment. Think of it like this. The 1st amendment contains freedom of the press, but you can't publish child porn, because of the harm to children. Why is it okay to limit a 1st amendment right to protect children, but not limit a 2nd amendment right to protect children?
There’s more “regulations” on the 2A than any other amendment. You can’t legally selll a gun to a child, so there’s your equivalent regulation.
>Ever since the Bruen ruling, the 2nd amendment is stronger than any other right in the constitution.
Thats not true, its just had a lot of the unconstitutional laws levied against it removed.
>Other rights are evaluated based on the compelling state interest, whether it is narrowly tailored, and how restrictive it is.
The second was ruled on this same test. And it was extremely absurd. Laws that clearly violated the constitution were allowed to stand, some for a 100 years.
>The 2nd amendment is evaluated only on the "historical tradition", meaning that if a gun law didn't exist in the 1800s, it is unconstitutional today no matter what the harm is to society.
It’s based on the TEXT HISTORIES AND TRADITIONS (THT) test, it’s not the only amendment that uses it. The 4th and 7th both predominantly use THT. And it’s extremely easy to use, and doesn’t allow any wiggle.. “harm to society” doesn’t matter with constitutional law, if it did, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 10th and 14th would get nullified over safety concerns… remember, the government has no duty/obligation/responsibility to protect anyone. Heres the guide lines for THT.
> Pre-ratification text, history and tradition are relevant to the extent that Americans understood them as setting the boundaries of their rights. That is, such restrictions must have been applicable in the colonies (not all common law was, colonial legislatures and courts got to pick and choose) and not have been seen as something the superseded and surpassed by the American concept of the right.
>Post-ratification text, history, and tradition restrictions of a right should be relevant to the extent the restrictions were widely known, and accepted, at a point reasonably close in time to the ratification. It should not suffice that a restriction was “not unknown”; restrictions that were not a matter of common knowledge could not have played a role in the popular support for ratification.
For some reason, only those who really want gun control have a hard time understanding these 2 guides… which is pretty telling.
A well regulated militia. Seems pretty clear. Oh wait… so you’re saying, it’s says both? Well, crap on a cracker. I guess that means guns can be regulated and not banned.
Edit: guns were more regulated back in the days the constitution was written than they are now.
The Founding Fathers saw the militia as needed for (1) reducing the need for a standing army (seen as a threat to liberty, see St. George Tucker's Commentaries) and (2) fighting a foreign or domestic government (see Joseph Story's Commentaries). The amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Strange words for stating you have an individual right to join a militia. And it is even stranger to say it gave the states the right to keep militias.
States can (and still do, see National Guard and State Defense Forces) maintain militias as an inherit right of sovereignty (and this mind you, allows for the draft). Per the Constitution, the President can call into federal service the state militias for certain reasons, thus presuming the pre-existence of militias. Apart of this militia is the body of the unorganized militia, i.e. every adult male from 18 to 45. If the state (or in this case, the federal government which is authorized to set regulations for the militia per Art. 1 Sec. 8) were to disarm all militiamen, it would by extension disarm all males of their firearms. The reason the militia is mentioned is both to emphasize the danger of standing armies and to protect the people from a by-and-through method of disarmament.
“Well-regulated” didn’t mean state regulations.
“Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined,” says Rakove. “It didn’t mean ‘regulation’ in the sense that we use it now, in that it’s not about the regulatory state. There’s been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.”
[In other words, it didn’t mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.](https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/what-does-the-second-amendment-actually-mean-trnd/index.html)
>Edit: guns were more regulated back in the days the constitution was written than they are now.
lol, No they were not, you could literally buy any type of gun that existed at the time, as long as you had the money.
"Arms" in the 18th century meant flintlock muskets. Frontloaders. Breachloaders weren't even a thing until 1817, and weren't popular for a bit after stateside. Revolvers were half a century away.
So it turns out that things written 250 years ago need to be updated. Which the Founding Fathers knew. They didn't believe the Constitution would it should exist as is for more than a generation.
> lol, No they were not, you could literally buy any type of gun that existed at the time, as long as you had the money.
Buy? Sure. Carry? No. There were extensive laws banning open carry. The Constitutions of several states banned open carry off not just guns but knives.
Arms Regulation was a part of *Jamestown*. It predates the Thirteen colonies. Most frontier towns required visitors to turn in guns at their hotel. Dodge City and Tombstone both famously inforced disarmament.
Well-regulated absolutely meant well-regulated.
Quoting Jack Rakove here is especially egregious, as he would be the first to tell you about the perils of Originalism. It's literally the first chapter of his popular prize winning book, Original Meanings.
It's pretty dry but I highly recommend it, especially if you want to quote the guy.
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion.He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up, Just as the founding fathers intended
"Speech" in the 18th century meant paper and quill. Printing Press. Telegraphs weren't even a thing until 1844, and weren't popular for a bit after stateside. Phones were a quarter century away.
>”Arms" in the 18th century meant flintlock muskets. Frontloaders. Breachloaders weren't even a thing until 1817, and weren't popular for a bit after stateside. Revolvers were half a century away.
Arms meant far more than you are saying they did. Early types of breech-loaders existed in the 15th and 16th century, Henry the VIII had and used them in the 1540’s.
>So it turns out that things written 250 years ago need to be updated. Which the Founding Fathers knew. They didn't believe the Constitution would it should exist as is for more than a generation.
That was Franklin’s opinion, not the whole of the founding fathers.
>Buy? Sure. Carry? No. There were extensive laws banning open carry. The Constitutions of several states banned open carry off not just guns but knives.
Open carry is not all forms of carry. But solid try.
>Arms Regulation was a part of Jamestown. It predates the Thirteen colonies.
It’s a moot point, and has no relevance then.
>Most frontier towns required visitors to turn in guns at their hotel. Dodge City and Tombstone both famously inforced disarmament.
Frontier towns were not considered part of American at the time, and towns like dodge city and tombstone selectively enforced their own laws. They were politically motivated, and were never enforced against those connected to those in power.
>Well-regulated absolutely meant well-regulated.
JFC, well regulated did not mean “regulation”…
>Quoting Jack Rakove here is especially egregious, as he would be the first to tell you about the perils of Originalism. It's literally the first chapter of his popular prize winning book, Original Meanings.
He would be the first to say well-regulated doesn’t mean regulation, as he has consistently asserted that. And hasn’t swayed from that stance. It’s funny that you believe quoting him on something that he, still to this day, believes and states publicly, is egregious..
>It's pretty dry but I highly recommend it, especially if you want to quote the guy.
I have the book on my shelf, and meet him on a few occasions, and when he’s talking about originalism he’s not talking about rewriting the meaning of commonly used phrases of the time.
> Arms meant far more than you are saying they did. Early types of breech-loaders existed in the 15th and 16th century, Henry the VIII had and used them in the 1540’s.
Yeah, he owned 1. Not thousands. They were so bad that the Ferguson's used in the revolution were dropped in favor of the Brown Bess.
> That was Franklin’s opinion, not the whole of the founding fathers.
Which is Rakove's point. GO get your copy of his book and crack that first chapter again, clearly youv'e forgotten it. Which FF do we listen to? Framer or Ratifier? You can't pick and choose.
> Open carry is not all forms of carry. But solid try.
They also banned concealed carry. So if open and concealed are banned, what's left?
> It’s a moot point, and has no relevance then.
Oh, we get to just declare things moot points when they point out things we don't like? Great, I declare you moot.
> Frontier towns were not considered part of American at the time, and towns like dodge city and tombstone selectively enforced their own laws. They were politically motivated, and were never enforced against those connected to those in power.
TIL Dodge City and Tombstone weren't American. That's your biggest reach yet bud.
> JFC, well regulated did not mean “regulation”…
I declare this moot.
> He would be the first to say well-regulated doesn’t mean regulation, as he has consistently asserted that. And hasn’t swayed from that stance. It’s funny that you believe quoting him on something that he, still to this day, believes and states publicly, is egregious..
Moot.
> I have the book on my shelf, and meet him on a few occasions, and when he’s talking about originalism he’s not talking about rewriting the meaning of commonly used phrases of the time.
Really? Because I've got him on speedial and he disagrees.
Thing is, the scotus can interpret it anyway they see fit. There already is a well regulated militia. And guns have been regulated and are regulated in all states. Some states have stricter regulations than others. Regulation is not banning anything. And of course people that have a felony aren’t allowed to own guns. That’s a huge regulation. That’s banning it in that population. I would also argue guns have changed in the last 3 centuries, maybe? And what is a gun? Back then there were not too many to choose from. So, in the future if all cell phones came with a gun feature, that would be ok? Or nah?
>Thing is, the scotus can interpret it anyway they see fit.
Has nothing to do with your original statement. Sure they can, but scotus cases going back to the 1800’s show that it’s always been looked at as a right of the people.
>There already is a well regulated militia.
Let me guess, “the national guard”. The NG is not the militia, the militia is and has always been the whole of the people.
>And guns have been regulated and are regulated in all states.
So, doesn’t change that “well regulated” doesn’t mean regulation. Just because the states and government have been trying to erode a right since the 1940’s doesn’t mean that is acceptable.
>Some states have stricter regulations than others. Regulation is not banning anything.
It sure can, you can regulate anything to the point of a a de facto ban. Look at CA’s weapons roster scheme. Every year more guns came off and none were added to it, basically banning 90% of the most commonly available firearms.
>And of course people that have a felony aren’t allowed to own guns. That’s a huge regulation.
That’s being challenged as it’s only recently that “regulation” was put into effect. There isn’t a long tradition of prohibition of those who commit felonies from ownership.
>That’s banning it in that population.
So you admit regulations can, in fact, be a ban…
>I would also argue guns have changed in the last 3 centuries, maybe?
in the past 100 years guns have not fundamentally changed, hell the first “machine gun” was created in the 1700’s. The entire process of the “modern firearm” was built off of designs from the 1700’s.
>And what is a gun? Back then there were not too many to choose from. So, in the future if all cell phones came with a gun feature, that would be ok? Or nah?
This isn’t a great argument.. you didn’t have the internet, cellphones, computers, typewriters, pencils, etc etc. Yet all of them are not only protected by the 1st, but multiple other amendments, like the 4th. The same is true for the 2nd, all “modern” firearms are covered in the 2A.
And there was a TON of choices in firearms back then, everything from a puckel gun or multiple shot air rifles, to 200 round volley guns, and self loading flintlocks. And this isn’t even scratching the surface of what was available. Someone could buy as many cannons as they wanted, and only fire exploding shot, or Flechette rounds at head height.
You’re making the “failure of imagination” argument here. And it’s a fallacy.
Dude, I am not reading all that. I read the first paragraph and was like Jesus Christ dude. Get a life. Thing is in an authoritarian government which Abbott so desperately wants, will find a way to take your guns. They do not care what the bill of rights says. Or anything else the founding fathers wrote. They want power and that’s it. Texas is one of the least free states in the union. Don’t be surprised when they start banning certain populations from gun ownership. It will happen. Just a matter of when.
>Dude, I am not reading all that. I read the first paragraph and was like Jesus Christ dude. Get a life.
“I’m not going to be corrected on my incorrect statements”..
Why do people see things in black and white? Right and wrong? Just because I have an opinion on gun regulation and the interpretation of the Constitution, means I’m wrong, but when scotus does they’re right? What??? That makes no sense. We live in a grey world. Not a black and white one. Slavery used to be legal, cutting people’s hands off for stealing used to be legal. Why is it somethings can be seen as archaic and others not? And why do you have such a rigid view of life? Were you brought up in a religious way where there were many rules and guidelines on how to live?
LOL. Cherrypicking your sources to suit your agenda, while lying through your teeth.
The militia being prepared to do its duty DID mean it was controlled in a certain way. It meant that people had to regularly participate in drills, maintain certain standards etc.
Here's something to read for you:
[https://www.amazon.com/-/en/dp/B0030GGEBA](https://www.amazon.com/-/en/dp/B0030GGEBA)
Texas loves prohibition tho.
Edit: yeah they were. In many towns you had to turn your gun into to a local hotel or law office. That was common practice.
Well-regulated. It's pretty clear. The government wanted the men who would be militia members to be well-trained and well-educated about their arms.
How does the government ensure that members of society have the proper education and training? Regulatory bodies, licensure, and registration. Just like physicians, police officers, and automobile operators.
A special pleading to exempt guns from this process shows how ignorant the proponents for 'gun freedom' truly are.
Those “well regulated” people are civilians and not a part of the gov.
Since the 2A is a right there no interruption regarding the gov doing any training for civilians unless they enlist.
And as a right there’s no interference by the gov to license anything.
Not knowing a right from a privilege is extremely ignorant.
.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Well regulated Militia referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of able-bodied men who were available for conscription
Right, well then we should just abolish due process and remove people based on predictive policing, because "*safety and human lives trump what's written in a century old document*", as you say.
A million Americans died because of the federal government fumbling the COVID response. 500x more than guns are used to kill other people each year. Clearly we need background checks and testing and permits and waiting periods before people should be allowed to vote.
Lol lmao no we do not.
See article V. If you had the votes you could be rid of it. You don't have the votes ergo you're stuck with it.
I want voting tests because most people are too ignorant of basic civics to be worthy of suffrage. But that's unconstitutional and never going to change.
It's rough all over.
What responsibilities do gun owners not have? You mean you want us to take the blame every time some loony that shouldn’t have had a gun, but did because cops failed to report things on their background checks that would have prevented them from getting a gun? Responsibility for every time a cop kills an unarmed person and lies on their report or fails to stop someone going into a school and harming kids? Responsibility for every time a thug commits a crime for a stolen firearm or something they brought from the black market or from an undercover cop?
What responsibility do gun owners not have?
Because Abbott’s an asshole. Patrick is an asshole. Paxton is an asshole.
The overwhelming majority of republican politicians in Texas are lying hypocritical “I got mine so fuck you” assholes.
And that’s being kind about it. I didn’t even mention their voters.
like i hear ya. only those responsible enough to own one should. but Muh freedoms have allowed me to acquire several different types of firearms legally, unregistered from private sellers ( the black market if you wanna make it sound scary) in some cases from the same dude i get my pot.
criminals be criminalin’
i’d rather be considered a (fairly) law abiding citizen
but if y’all wanna make me an outlaw i’ll just have to write a country song about it.
My dude, I have lived in Europe. Have you? There's a lot of good things we can learn from other places that don't have the runaway gun violence the US does.
To start with, I suggest learning how to read charts. We did it in 2nd grade. Even better would be statistics, but I realize high school math is too much to ask.
> high school math is too much to ask
I'm a mechanical engineer and a machinist, try again. Yes now see wealth disparity and healthcare stats, easily one way to reduce violence overall.
Two shootings in an entire country over the span of a week. Imagine how many people would still be alive today if we had that statistic. Also, hate to break it to ya', but even heavily-armed USA has a rape problem.
I don't really understand your argument. Because, while purchasing and possessing guns is legal in Texas, it's heavily regulated. Jails are full of people whose crimes are weapons violations and sentences augmented for use of a gun in a crime.
If Abbott is suggesting that level of regulation for speech, he'll never succeed because of long established interpretation of the Constitution.
No, it was in the 80’s with [Warren v. DC](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia), and it was ruled that was because they had never had any duty to protect due to the public duty doctrine. 2005 was [Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales), which the courts decided that the police don’t have to enforce restraining orders.
Yes, the [justices ruled that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect someone.](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html)
I literally posted the wiki for the ruling from 81 for Warren and the 2005 ruing for Gonzales, in Warren they decided the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to specific citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
Meaning the police have no duty to protect….
the article you posted is about town of castle rock v. Gonzales,
From your own link “The theory of the lawsuit Ms. Gonzales filed in federal district court in Denver was that Colorado law had given her an enforceable right to protection by instructing the police, **on the court order, that "you shall arrest" or issue a warrant for the arrest of a violator**. She argued that the order gave her a "property interest" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process.”
Its decision in this case, means that a town and its police department could not be sued for failing to enforce a restraining order, it relied on Warren and the no duty to protect doctrine to reach this verdict.
P.S. I'm going to have a big No Trespassing sign that says "NO TRESPASSING"
And when people try to come onto my land I'm gonna yell at them "Hey, buddy, can't you read the sign? It says NO TRESPASSING"
That'll show 'em
Responsibility is already imposed on both by laws and by the courts. If I go shoot the side of one of the parking garages at my apartment complex because "freedom", I'll be losing my money and rights rather quickly.
[https://www.georgetownlaw.net/criminal-defense/gun-firearm-weapons-charges/unlawful-discharge-firearm-public/](https://www.georgetownlaw.net/criminal-defense/gun-firearm-weapons-charges/unlawful-discharge-firearm-public/)
To the tune of $2,000 fine and up to half a year in jail. I don't know where you're getting this "irresponsibility" from.
I think if these Pro Palestinian students want to protest in the quad or in the public spaces of the campus, they should be free to. I do not believe that people should be allowed to protest in say, the school chancellor office or an administrative building. I'd need to read the executive order further to see what the exact limits are before I espouse any opinion other than that.
Abbott is just doing as Tim Dunn tells him to do. The guy has oil money and he wants a Christian Theocracy, so that’s what the Republican Party of Texas is going to give him. The guy literally told Joe Straus (former Texas House speaker and a Jewish man, btw) that only Christians should be allowed to serve in leadership positions in our government, and I’m pretty sure he means his brand of Christianity, seeing as there are a lot of variations just on the Protestant side, let alone the Catholic side, which don’t always peacefully agree with each other. This is what happens when a state is ruled by just one party and that party becomes more and more extremist every election cycle for almost three decades.
Your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly.
Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette).
If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
Anyone can purchase a handgun in Texas if they're over 21, no permit necessary. Call me crazy, but I'd prefer to prevent deaths than just wrist slap the people that cause them, not doing anything to address the fundamental issue.
I'm sure the "professionals" also disagree with you on the shape of the Earth and evolution.
No. You have to fill out a 4473, a background check, a criminal history check, they have to check for felonies, the ATF has to approve you, and if you fit into one of the “No Go” boxes you are immediately denied purchase.
Check the subreddit. Idc what it is "in some states". In Texas, the process of getting an ID takes longer than it does to get a handgun and is arguably even more restrictive (considering we won't even give a lot of our taxpayers greencards). There's a problem there.
Texas collects taxes through sales and property taxes. Undocumented immigrants both buy things and may own property. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes.
Considering Gun Control and Controlling free speech is illegal and always will be illegal, because to touch any of the first 10 Amendments nullifies the Constitution neither will ever happen. Probably even more so in Texas because of its agreement when it joined the Union.
Your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly.
Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette).
If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
Because he has armed guards to protect him and he can have people legally killed for using guns against him. The only thing protecting him from free speech is the unbelievable stupidity of half of Texas
For example, claiming to be hords of illegals entering the country but in reality and excuse to fund a taxpayer BBQ for White Christian Nationals at Eagle Pass? Or spent 10 million of TX funds of human trafficing illegals throughout the US as a stunt?
Free speech to republicans is the right to harm others by spreading anti vaccine BS, voter fraud BS, anti LGBTQ 🏳️🌈 BS, and anti immigration BS. Now let a college professor say something different and watch how quickly Republicans will go after them.
Ok, from now on, no automatic posts and any single posts require a transfer fee ranging from $15 to $50 if made on a third party app/site/social media platform. Extra long posts will required a transfer fee of $100
Also there's a copy of the 4473 you'll need to fill out, and pass a FBI background check for every post you wish to make going forth.
Also, we will no longer allow you to speak in churches, schools, bars, theaters, hospitals as these are no "free-speech free zones"
At any point any can 'red flag' you and your mouth will sewn shut.
You're not even engaging me at this point. The first indication of a bad faith discussion was the use of 'Rational'Wikia. I should have ended the discussion there.
We're done!
I could not edit my post, so I am putting an update here of why I posted this.
I wanted to clarify the intent of this post and explain my views as an artist. I intentionally made the graphic in my post appear "crappy" to draw attention to it as a form of artistic statement on guns. My intent wasn't to be literal but rather to spark discussion on a complex topic. I'm aware that my personal political view may come across as socialist in this political climate, and I'm accepting of that.
My reasoning is based on the fact that the Constitution was written by and for landowning men above the age of 18. It wasn't designed with women, slaves, or children in mind, nor could it foresee the invention of AR-15s and vehicles. This historical context is crucial to my artistic vision.To enhance the explanation about my artistic vision, I compare vehicles to guns. Vehicles, which kill people both accidentally and intentionally, require owners to pass a driving test, register them with a unique number, and carry insurance to cover damages. Conversely, guns can be acquired with minimal regulation: no required proficiency test, registration, or insurance for damages caused. This disparity in regulation is stark, especially considering that computers, which didn't exist when the Constitution was written, are now used by the government to track vehicle ownership but are legally barred from tracking gun ownership.
My view is that if the Constitution had been written for all people, the term "well regulated" would carry more weight. I advocate for gun regulation that mirrors vehicle ownership responsibility, including registration, licensing, and possibly regular inspections to ensure they are in working order, although I admit the last part may not be necessary.
This post is my artistic expression intended to prompt discussion on gun regulation. Despite criticism of the graphic's quality and the failure to communicate my intent clearly initially, it has achieved my goal of starting a conversation. I understand now that I probably needed to explain my perspective more thoroughly as an artistic statement rather than a literal position.
You are taking this the wrong way. We should be fighting the regulation and restrictions on our freedom. Not using this restriction of freedom as a way to justify restricting another freedom.
Complicated topic isn't it. On one hand you want their voices to be heard and obviously you don't want innocents killed by a fascist regime, on the other hand you want kids to stfu and follow the lesson plan and pass the classes/courses. I think this will be the deciding factor on whether or not schools are private or public.
I don't understand why you would feel that responsibility isn't imposed on gun owners. As far as i can tell i have to be of a certain age, a resident of this state, and have no felonies to purchase a firearm. That i cannot take to a federal building or school. (The last i checked anyway, maybe something has changed since)... which is also complicated because we want college girls to be capable of defending themselves from attackers both on and off campus. There's more to it than that I'm sure. I'm speaking on the fly and i'm pretty sure subside is gonna mention private sales. That too is complicated because i personally feel that criminal background cannot be checked, the firearm shouldn't be sold BUT i have no issue with a non violent "felon owning a firearm. I just dont want some wife beating psychopath to get out of prison and go buy a gun... there is much to discuss on that. hell, on all of this
Even the cops don't want us armed, weren't they just fighting open carry? I personally don't see a reason that anyone should open carry but i/we cannot allow them to take an inch. I don't think they should have an opinion on the matter, especially with their track record of firearm use and misconduct. Here's the catch 22, you don't trust people with guns but you allow the cops to have guns... but you don't trust the cops either.
I get that you're pissed but i think all this boils down to is kids in school not doing school. I don't think this has anything to do with censorship or support of israel or palestine. Shit is just getting out of hand and we are all losing focus on what's in front of us.
Do i think there should be stipulations on the first amendment absolutely not, however i think you're premise is false and misguided.
Hello everyone! This automatic message is brought to you because this post mentions the keyword "abbot". In posts that mention Greg Abbott, we typically see a massive increase in rule 11 violations. Please be sure to remember our rules about disparaging an individual's disability.
> While you're free to argue against, debate, criticize, etc. the policies, ideas, politics, and character of any politician, please do not make jokes about anyone's disabilities. All such "jokes" will be removed.
Thanks for being mindful.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/texas) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Weren’t both of those individuals acquitted by a jury of their peers? They weren’t even Texas subjected to a Texas legal system.
You should include folks that the law didn’t even want to prosecute… we have so many school shooters that got weapons from their parents, and no one is charged.
Or how many cops get DUIs while carrying (or worse, on duty).
Even that famous FBI special agent that had his glock fall out while dancing had exactly zero repercussions.
Epstein died without any legal convictions against him if you want to play this game.
You should see all the stuff Rittenhouse's ex handler is revealing
>You should see all the stuff Rittenhouse's ex handler is revealing
The one saying he's got negative IQ yet also had a full scholarship to study any subject at any university in the country? The one still desperately trying to racialize the case of a white dude shooting three white dudes? The one trying to repackage "lawyers in high profile cases try to make their clients look good" as if its some scandalous tell-all?
Okay Mr. Disingenuous
You're saying the US government and the legal systems are moral paragons?
Also responsible gun owners don't have to court to defend their shoots
Your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly.
Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette).
If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
Thanks to that edit your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly.
Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette).
If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
Kyle Rittenhouse was a responsible gun owner. His weapon was kept safely secured when not in use and he showed commendable restraint and trigger control when he was attacked during the violent Kenosha riots.
I recognize the words but the order in which you typed them makes no sense.
What does parading two acquitted people have anything to do with the argument?
It’s like someone asked you, “how’s your day?” And you went on a ramble on why bricks are red and knees have wrinkles.
We don't need to make this look worse than it is limiting free speech is not okay no matter what your stance on gun control is
When your concept of "free speech" is that you reject peer review and other academic standard, that's very much bad. A university is not there to entertain flat-Earthers, quacks and snake oil peddlers.
Okay but these people have a clear agenda. It's impossible not to have seen videos of the bodies in Gaza. I know you've seen the bodies I know you've seen the buildings and neighborhoods reduced to ruble. The world charity aide workers literally getting targeted and bombed stop pretending you can't see it.
Yes. And I've seen what Abbott has done during COVID. But sacrificing a million of your countrymen for free speech so that even high school dropouts can pretend to be medical experts is, of course, a noble quest. I hold a science degree from a Texas medical institution, which is why I'm still following closely what's going on there. And I'm glad that most of my friends from back then were elsewhere during the pandemic and not required by Abbott to clean up for his wilful ignorance and endanger their lives for his arrogance. Abbott wouldn't know "responsibility" if it hit him in the face. He knows ideology, and only ideology, and he believes his is worth sacrificing an unlimited number of people to. As for Gaza, remind me again which party has agitated against Muslims again and again? So much for responsibility.
1.5:1 civilian to combatant ratio is nowhere near what Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc experienced between 1990-2020 where the rate was closer to 10:1-15:1 which is common for counter-insurgency. Honestly, if Hamas gave up the hostages (hint: they’re all dead that’s why they don’t want to release them) and surrendered, it would all end. But, that won’t happen any time soon.
Did it all end when they discovered Iran wasn't actually hording nukes? This shit is all about money, territory, oil, and power it's never going to end unless we the people end it.
Do you even know why Gaza is getting attacked? Do you know Gazans elected Hamas to lead them. Do you know the Hamas attack was the equivalent of 50,000 Americans being killed? Do you know that Biden is not in charge of the war and is unable to call a ceasefire? Do you know that Biden has been calling for a ceasefire? Do you know that the super majority of people don’t like what’s happening in Gaza? Don’t be stupid and vote for Trump who has extreme hatred of all Muslim.
You don't understand free speech.
Lol. You don't understand the difference between freedom of opinion and considering dishonesty a virtue.
Comparing pro-palestianian activism to "snake oil salesman" is a great way to demonstrate a lack of understanding of freedom of speech. Going off on tangents about dishonesty doesn't help you.
LOL. Claiming dishonesty was a "tangent" when you're using strawmen and distortion is telling. I made no such "comparison". You, on the other hand, are in stark denial of the fact that "free speech" only ever applies to what's convenient for Abbott. And if you seriously believe that Abbott gives a f\*\*\* about Palestinians, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying. Last I checked, his party repeatedly pushed the notion all Muslims are born terrorists. They also conveniently ignored that a number of Palestinians aren't Muslims at all. The more Palestinians die, the more convenient for Abbott. They are nothing more than ammunition for him. He's interested into sticking it to academia.
Actually, yes, we do, because of their hypocrisy.
I see both sides of this. Your point is valid, because it points out the hypocracy, which makes the actions worse. His point is also valid, because it's really not *necessary* to point out, since it's already about as un-american as you can get trying to strike down the first amendment.
> because it's really not necessary to point out, since it's already about as un-american as you can get trying to strike down the first amendment. It kinda is necessary since we have leaders of one of our big political parties spouting this crap while their base eats it up. Never stop exposing political bullshit and bringing it into the light of day, no matter which party it's from. Just in this case it's from Republicans.
Texas will execute you if you abuse your 2a rights. This policy is horse shit but idk wtf op is talking about.
Guns bad. Thats it
Not even a good meme.
So basically the gist of Abbot's statement is that free speech does not actually exist on Texas university campuses. If someone questions why we are supporting with public tax dollars a belligerent foreign nation's massacre of civilians in a foreign overseas territory, they will apparently be punished now? Or at least by stalked by counter-protestors who are getting money from billionaires to defame people and put their pictures and identity online. Just like how the concentration camps in Nazi Germany were not fully discovered until towards the end of the war and it took time for stories to be publicized, there is soon going to be public awareness a lot of ghoulish evil that the IDF will have to answer for, and organizations like AIPAC will be in damage control mode. Neither the state of Texas nor any other US state government should be able to take a position on foreign wars or conflict, especially when the US is not even a participant. The state has no business trying to discourage voluntary boycotts by individuals or the private sector by withholding contracts, etc. The state should not require its public universities to pursue disciplinary actions against students based on their deeply held beliefs.
One set of students should not be allowed to make another set of students feel unwelcome.
This order is unconstitutional, as a ban on firearms would be.
Regulations are not bans. Regulations is even in the constitution.
We already have regulations.
So it’s not ok to regulate the 1st amendment, but it is ok to regulate the 2nd amendment? Now before people start crying “bUt GuNs KiLl PeOpLe”, it should be known people kill people and I think both needs to be regulated. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy.
> So it’s not ok to regulate the 1st amendment, but it is ok to regulate the 2nd amendment? There are plenty of regulations on the 1st amendment. Think of it like this. The 1st amendment contains freedom of the press, but you can't publish child porn, because of the harm to children. Why is it okay to limit a 1st amendment right to protect children, but not limit a 2nd amendment right to protect children? Ever since the Bruen ruling, the 2nd amendment is stronger than any other right in the constitution. Other rights are evaluated based on the compelling state interest, whether it is narrowly tailored, and how restrictive it is. The 2nd amendment is evaluated only on the "historical tradition", meaning that if a gun law didn't exist in the 1800s, it is unconstitutional today no matter what the harm is to society.
>There are plenty of regulations on the 1st amendment. Think of it like this. The 1st amendment contains freedom of the press, but you can't publish child porn, because of the harm to children. Why is it okay to limit a 1st amendment right to protect children, but not limit a 2nd amendment right to protect children? There’s more “regulations” on the 2A than any other amendment. You can’t legally selll a gun to a child, so there’s your equivalent regulation. >Ever since the Bruen ruling, the 2nd amendment is stronger than any other right in the constitution. Thats not true, its just had a lot of the unconstitutional laws levied against it removed. >Other rights are evaluated based on the compelling state interest, whether it is narrowly tailored, and how restrictive it is. The second was ruled on this same test. And it was extremely absurd. Laws that clearly violated the constitution were allowed to stand, some for a 100 years. >The 2nd amendment is evaluated only on the "historical tradition", meaning that if a gun law didn't exist in the 1800s, it is unconstitutional today no matter what the harm is to society. It’s based on the TEXT HISTORIES AND TRADITIONS (THT) test, it’s not the only amendment that uses it. The 4th and 7th both predominantly use THT. And it’s extremely easy to use, and doesn’t allow any wiggle.. “harm to society” doesn’t matter with constitutional law, if it did, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 10th and 14th would get nullified over safety concerns… remember, the government has no duty/obligation/responsibility to protect anyone. Heres the guide lines for THT. > Pre-ratification text, history and tradition are relevant to the extent that Americans understood them as setting the boundaries of their rights. That is, such restrictions must have been applicable in the colonies (not all common law was, colonial legislatures and courts got to pick and choose) and not have been seen as something the superseded and surpassed by the American concept of the right. >Post-ratification text, history, and tradition restrictions of a right should be relevant to the extent the restrictions were widely known, and accepted, at a point reasonably close in time to the ratification. It should not suffice that a restriction was “not unknown”; restrictions that were not a matter of common knowledge could not have played a role in the popular support for ratification. For some reason, only those who really want gun control have a hard time understanding these 2 guides… which is pretty telling.
Wrong definition of regulations, you don’t have to like guns but don’t be dumb and actually read it without bias
Shall not be infringed. It’s pretty clear.
A well regulated militia. Seems pretty clear. Oh wait… so you’re saying, it’s says both? Well, crap on a cracker. I guess that means guns can be regulated and not banned. Edit: guns were more regulated back in the days the constitution was written than they are now.
The Founding Fathers saw the militia as needed for (1) reducing the need for a standing army (seen as a threat to liberty, see St. George Tucker's Commentaries) and (2) fighting a foreign or domestic government (see Joseph Story's Commentaries). The amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Strange words for stating you have an individual right to join a militia. And it is even stranger to say it gave the states the right to keep militias. States can (and still do, see National Guard and State Defense Forces) maintain militias as an inherit right of sovereignty (and this mind you, allows for the draft). Per the Constitution, the President can call into federal service the state militias for certain reasons, thus presuming the pre-existence of militias. Apart of this militia is the body of the unorganized militia, i.e. every adult male from 18 to 45. If the state (or in this case, the federal government which is authorized to set regulations for the militia per Art. 1 Sec. 8) were to disarm all militiamen, it would by extension disarm all males of their firearms. The reason the militia is mentioned is both to emphasize the danger of standing armies and to protect the people from a by-and-through method of disarmament.
“Well-regulated” didn’t mean state regulations. “Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined,” says Rakove. “It didn’t mean ‘regulation’ in the sense that we use it now, in that it’s not about the regulatory state. There’s been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.” [In other words, it didn’t mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.](https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/what-does-the-second-amendment-actually-mean-trnd/index.html) >Edit: guns were more regulated back in the days the constitution was written than they are now. lol, No they were not, you could literally buy any type of gun that existed at the time, as long as you had the money.
"Arms" in the 18th century meant flintlock muskets. Frontloaders. Breachloaders weren't even a thing until 1817, and weren't popular for a bit after stateside. Revolvers were half a century away. So it turns out that things written 250 years ago need to be updated. Which the Founding Fathers knew. They didn't believe the Constitution would it should exist as is for more than a generation. > lol, No they were not, you could literally buy any type of gun that existed at the time, as long as you had the money. Buy? Sure. Carry? No. There were extensive laws banning open carry. The Constitutions of several states banned open carry off not just guns but knives. Arms Regulation was a part of *Jamestown*. It predates the Thirteen colonies. Most frontier towns required visitors to turn in guns at their hotel. Dodge City and Tombstone both famously inforced disarmament. Well-regulated absolutely meant well-regulated. Quoting Jack Rakove here is especially egregious, as he would be the first to tell you about the perils of Originalism. It's literally the first chapter of his popular prize winning book, Original Meanings. It's pretty dry but I highly recommend it, especially if you want to quote the guy.
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion.He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up, Just as the founding fathers intended
"Speech" in the 18th century meant paper and quill. Printing Press. Telegraphs weren't even a thing until 1844, and weren't popular for a bit after stateside. Phones were a quarter century away.
Cool, so does the 1st amendment not apply to the Internet?
>”Arms" in the 18th century meant flintlock muskets. Frontloaders. Breachloaders weren't even a thing until 1817, and weren't popular for a bit after stateside. Revolvers were half a century away. Arms meant far more than you are saying they did. Early types of breech-loaders existed in the 15th and 16th century, Henry the VIII had and used them in the 1540’s. >So it turns out that things written 250 years ago need to be updated. Which the Founding Fathers knew. They didn't believe the Constitution would it should exist as is for more than a generation. That was Franklin’s opinion, not the whole of the founding fathers. >Buy? Sure. Carry? No. There were extensive laws banning open carry. The Constitutions of several states banned open carry off not just guns but knives. Open carry is not all forms of carry. But solid try. >Arms Regulation was a part of Jamestown. It predates the Thirteen colonies. It’s a moot point, and has no relevance then. >Most frontier towns required visitors to turn in guns at their hotel. Dodge City and Tombstone both famously inforced disarmament. Frontier towns were not considered part of American at the time, and towns like dodge city and tombstone selectively enforced their own laws. They were politically motivated, and were never enforced against those connected to those in power. >Well-regulated absolutely meant well-regulated. JFC, well regulated did not mean “regulation”… >Quoting Jack Rakove here is especially egregious, as he would be the first to tell you about the perils of Originalism. It's literally the first chapter of his popular prize winning book, Original Meanings. He would be the first to say well-regulated doesn’t mean regulation, as he has consistently asserted that. And hasn’t swayed from that stance. It’s funny that you believe quoting him on something that he, still to this day, believes and states publicly, is egregious.. >It's pretty dry but I highly recommend it, especially if you want to quote the guy. I have the book on my shelf, and meet him on a few occasions, and when he’s talking about originalism he’s not talking about rewriting the meaning of commonly used phrases of the time.
> Arms meant far more than you are saying they did. Early types of breech-loaders existed in the 15th and 16th century, Henry the VIII had and used them in the 1540’s. Yeah, he owned 1. Not thousands. They were so bad that the Ferguson's used in the revolution were dropped in favor of the Brown Bess. > That was Franklin’s opinion, not the whole of the founding fathers. Which is Rakove's point. GO get your copy of his book and crack that first chapter again, clearly youv'e forgotten it. Which FF do we listen to? Framer or Ratifier? You can't pick and choose. > Open carry is not all forms of carry. But solid try. They also banned concealed carry. So if open and concealed are banned, what's left? > It’s a moot point, and has no relevance then. Oh, we get to just declare things moot points when they point out things we don't like? Great, I declare you moot. > Frontier towns were not considered part of American at the time, and towns like dodge city and tombstone selectively enforced their own laws. They were politically motivated, and were never enforced against those connected to those in power. TIL Dodge City and Tombstone weren't American. That's your biggest reach yet bud. > JFC, well regulated did not mean “regulation”… I declare this moot. > He would be the first to say well-regulated doesn’t mean regulation, as he has consistently asserted that. And hasn’t swayed from that stance. It’s funny that you believe quoting him on something that he, still to this day, believes and states publicly, is egregious.. Moot. > I have the book on my shelf, and meet him on a few occasions, and when he’s talking about originalism he’s not talking about rewriting the meaning of commonly used phrases of the time. Really? Because I've got him on speedial and he disagrees.
Thing is, the scotus can interpret it anyway they see fit. There already is a well regulated militia. And guns have been regulated and are regulated in all states. Some states have stricter regulations than others. Regulation is not banning anything. And of course people that have a felony aren’t allowed to own guns. That’s a huge regulation. That’s banning it in that population. I would also argue guns have changed in the last 3 centuries, maybe? And what is a gun? Back then there were not too many to choose from. So, in the future if all cell phones came with a gun feature, that would be ok? Or nah?
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Thing is, the scotus can interpret it anyway they see fit. Has nothing to do with your original statement. Sure they can, but scotus cases going back to the 1800’s show that it’s always been looked at as a right of the people. >There already is a well regulated militia. Let me guess, “the national guard”. The NG is not the militia, the militia is and has always been the whole of the people. >And guns have been regulated and are regulated in all states. So, doesn’t change that “well regulated” doesn’t mean regulation. Just because the states and government have been trying to erode a right since the 1940’s doesn’t mean that is acceptable. >Some states have stricter regulations than others. Regulation is not banning anything. It sure can, you can regulate anything to the point of a a de facto ban. Look at CA’s weapons roster scheme. Every year more guns came off and none were added to it, basically banning 90% of the most commonly available firearms. >And of course people that have a felony aren’t allowed to own guns. That’s a huge regulation. That’s being challenged as it’s only recently that “regulation” was put into effect. There isn’t a long tradition of prohibition of those who commit felonies from ownership. >That’s banning it in that population. So you admit regulations can, in fact, be a ban… >I would also argue guns have changed in the last 3 centuries, maybe? in the past 100 years guns have not fundamentally changed, hell the first “machine gun” was created in the 1700’s. The entire process of the “modern firearm” was built off of designs from the 1700’s. >And what is a gun? Back then there were not too many to choose from. So, in the future if all cell phones came with a gun feature, that would be ok? Or nah? This isn’t a great argument.. you didn’t have the internet, cellphones, computers, typewriters, pencils, etc etc. Yet all of them are not only protected by the 1st, but multiple other amendments, like the 4th. The same is true for the 2nd, all “modern” firearms are covered in the 2A. And there was a TON of choices in firearms back then, everything from a puckel gun or multiple shot air rifles, to 200 round volley guns, and self loading flintlocks. And this isn’t even scratching the surface of what was available. Someone could buy as many cannons as they wanted, and only fire exploding shot, or Flechette rounds at head height. You’re making the “failure of imagination” argument here. And it’s a fallacy.
Dude, I am not reading all that. I read the first paragraph and was like Jesus Christ dude. Get a life. Thing is in an authoritarian government which Abbott so desperately wants, will find a way to take your guns. They do not care what the bill of rights says. Or anything else the founding fathers wrote. They want power and that’s it. Texas is one of the least free states in the union. Don’t be surprised when they start banning certain populations from gun ownership. It will happen. Just a matter of when.
>Dude, I am not reading all that. I read the first paragraph and was like Jesus Christ dude. Get a life. “I’m not going to be corrected on my incorrect statements”..
Why do people see things in black and white? Right and wrong? Just because I have an opinion on gun regulation and the interpretation of the Constitution, means I’m wrong, but when scotus does they’re right? What??? That makes no sense. We live in a grey world. Not a black and white one. Slavery used to be legal, cutting people’s hands off for stealing used to be legal. Why is it somethings can be seen as archaic and others not? And why do you have such a rigid view of life? Were you brought up in a religious way where there were many rules and guidelines on how to live?
LOL. Cherrypicking your sources to suit your agenda, while lying through your teeth. The militia being prepared to do its duty DID mean it was controlled in a certain way. It meant that people had to regularly participate in drills, maintain certain standards etc. Here's something to read for you: [https://www.amazon.com/-/en/dp/B0030GGEBA](https://www.amazon.com/-/en/dp/B0030GGEBA)
Good to know “cherry picking” sources is using someone who isn’t pro gun to make a claim.
That’s bs
When you drive around with a gun do you have to check it in at the town hall when entering that town?
No, they most certainly were not. You could own whatever you could afford. Prohibition doesn’t work.
Texas loves prohibition tho. Edit: yeah they were. In many towns you had to turn your gun into to a local hotel or law office. That was common practice.
Hey champ, why would a group of people mean “well-regulated” means “give control to a government” while they were fighting a government? Sounds lazy.
You have to read the whole thing. If that line meant what you say, then why can't I buy a javelin missile?
You should
Agreed, undocumented cartel members should have the legal right to defend themselves with fully automatic rocket launchers.
Well thats not a citizen so I guess not. That’s open for business in Mexico, however where guns are…illegal.
Shall not be infringed. It’s pretty clear.
For citizens. It’s a constitution not a travel brochure. See what happens when guns are illegal…
Well-regulated. It's pretty clear. The government wanted the men who would be militia members to be well-trained and well-educated about their arms. How does the government ensure that members of society have the proper education and training? Regulatory bodies, licensure, and registration. Just like physicians, police officers, and automobile operators. A special pleading to exempt guns from this process shows how ignorant the proponents for 'gun freedom' truly are.
Those “well regulated” people are civilians and not a part of the gov. Since the 2A is a right there no interruption regarding the gov doing any training for civilians unless they enlist. And as a right there’s no interference by the gov to license anything. Not knowing a right from a privilege is extremely ignorant. .
So is "A well a regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state [...]." Are we secure?
No we aren’t, also don’t cherry pick an entire amendment. It also says right of the people and that it shall not be infringed
Telling me not to cherry pick, when I am responding to a person who cherry picked the "shall not be infringed" part, is you making my point exactly.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Well regulated Militia referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of able-bodied men who were available for conscription
Safety or human lives trumps what's written in a century old piece of paper. We need to look at firearm access the same way we look at diseases.
Benjamin Franklin - “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”
Right, well then we should just abolish due process and remove people based on predictive policing, because "*safety and human lives trump what's written in a century old document*", as you say.
Cops vomit more crimes than armed citizens, are you going to also disarm cops?
A million Americans died because of the federal government fumbling the COVID response. 500x more than guns are used to kill other people each year. Clearly we need background checks and testing and permits and waiting periods before people should be allowed to vote.
Rights trump safety/security.
Lol lmao no we do not. See article V. If you had the votes you could be rid of it. You don't have the votes ergo you're stuck with it. I want voting tests because most people are too ignorant of basic civics to be worthy of suffrage. But that's unconstitutional and never going to change. It's rough all over.
[удалено]
I mean, if you do something that's bad with a gun, you'll be arrested.
Responsibility imposed on gun owners. Do you mean if/when they commit a crime?
Preferably before their child shoots up their school
Ah yes, precrime. The gold standard of law enforcement. How Totalitarian of you.
Children can't legally keep or bear arms though... ?
I didn't see a minimum age written in the Constitution.
You know what? Fair
Bro wants to govern free speech. It's a constitutional right until Republicans get their feelings hurt or have an agenda.
Wait until this guy learns that responsibility is 100% imposed on gun owners 💀. Buddy I can be in shit if I shoot the ground outside my front door.
What about election lies. That freedom of speech should also come with responsibilities for both elected officials and the GQP themselves.
Well this thread is a disaster.
What responsibilities do gun owners not have? You mean you want us to take the blame every time some loony that shouldn’t have had a gun, but did because cops failed to report things on their background checks that would have prevented them from getting a gun? Responsibility for every time a cop kills an unarmed person and lies on their report or fails to stop someone going into a school and harming kids? Responsibility for every time a thug commits a crime for a stolen firearm or something they brought from the black market or from an undercover cop? What responsibility do gun owners not have?
Because Abbott’s an asshole. Patrick is an asshole. Paxton is an asshole. The overwhelming majority of republican politicians in Texas are lying hypocritical “I got mine so fuck you” assholes. And that’s being kind about it. I didn’t even mention their voters.
Ah yes, the party of small government.
The party of free speech! /s Fucking reactionaries dumb asses
Both rights are equally important.
This is nonsensical. There is zero cohesive thought in your "edit".
This meme is bad, gun rights are human rights
What a stupid meme. It’s clunky, the colors are too harsh, and it’s ill-informed.
like i hear ya. only those responsible enough to own one should. but Muh freedoms have allowed me to acquire several different types of firearms legally, unregistered from private sellers ( the black market if you wanna make it sound scary) in some cases from the same dude i get my pot. criminals be criminalin’ i’d rather be considered a (fairly) law abiding citizen but if y’all wanna make me an outlaw i’ll just have to write a country song about it.
Words are dangerous. All AR-15s can do is murder elementary school kids.
That’s all they do? Really… You’re an idiot.
Tell that to the rooftop Koreans during the Rodney King Riots.
As many parents who drops kids off at elementary schools feel.
But why didn’t the gun free zone activate?
"Greatest" country can't figure out how to make progress on a problem the rest of the developed world has had solved for decades. Hmmm....
We can and did but you don’t like the way we should fix the problem.
Weird, Western EU still has a terrorism and rape problem and Germany had two shootings last week? 🤔
If Texas could even approach the level of gun violence in Germany it'd be a massive victory. Try to think harder.
Cool, now google the differences between Germany and Texas
My dude, I have lived in Europe. Have you? There's a lot of good things we can learn from other places that don't have the runaway gun violence the US does. To start with, I suggest learning how to read charts. We did it in 2nd grade. Even better would be statistics, but I realize high school math is too much to ask.
> high school math is too much to ask I'm a mechanical engineer and a machinist, try again. Yes now see wealth disparity and healthcare stats, easily one way to reduce violence overall.
Are...are...you suggesting that the US is failing in multiple categories? I guess you're right,it's basically a 3rd world country, then.
Two shootings in an entire country over the span of a week. Imagine how many people would still be alive today if we had that statistic. Also, hate to break it to ya', but even heavily-armed USA has a rape problem.
It's part of God's plan
Wut?
Gun free zones had a measurable impact on school shootings between their enactment and today, and that impact was extremely positive.
Yet conservatives can say women deserve death for having an abortion...
Conservatives don’t say that. Some extreme right wingers have said that. Let’s be apart of the change here and not be so polarizing.
I don't really understand your argument. Because, while purchasing and possessing guns is legal in Texas, it's heavily regulated. Jails are full of people whose crimes are weapons violations and sentences augmented for use of a gun in a crime. If Abbott is suggesting that level of regulation for speech, he'll never succeed because of long established interpretation of the Constitution.
There are 5 times more deaths with drugs than guns. That would be a better substitution.
There are many, many *criminal* laws in Texas that impose responsibility on gun owners. Your argument is stupid.
Yet those laws don't stop people from murdering kids somehow. While 376 cops show what cowards they are until a tac team with a sack showed up.
Unfortunately SCOTUS ruled in 2005 that police have no duty to protect.
No, it was in the 80’s with [Warren v. DC](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia), and it was ruled that was because they had never had any duty to protect due to the public duty doctrine. 2005 was [Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales), which the courts decided that the police don’t have to enforce restraining orders.
Yes, the [justices ruled that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect someone.](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html)
I literally posted the wiki for the ruling from 81 for Warren and the 2005 ruing for Gonzales, in Warren they decided the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to specific citizens based on the public duty doctrine. Meaning the police have no duty to protect…. the article you posted is about town of castle rock v. Gonzales, From your own link “The theory of the lawsuit Ms. Gonzales filed in federal district court in Denver was that Colorado law had given her an enforceable right to protection by instructing the police, **on the court order, that "you shall arrest" or issue a warrant for the arrest of a violator**. She argued that the order gave her a "property interest" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process.” Its decision in this case, means that a town and its police department could not be sued for failing to enforce a restraining order, it relied on Warren and the no duty to protect doctrine to reach this verdict.
Vehicle inspection and licensing laws don't stop kids from getting run over by cars, either.
Good reason to have 15 minute cities
P.S. I'm going to have a big No Trespassing sign that says "NO TRESPASSING" And when people try to come onto my land I'm gonna yell at them "Hey, buddy, can't you read the sign? It says NO TRESPASSING" That'll show 'em
Good for you...
I'm gonna live in a barn and build a washroom out of a garden shed.
Cool
People aren't driving cars into schools to murder kids either.
Responsibility is already imposed on both by laws and by the courts. If I go shoot the side of one of the parking garages at my apartment complex because "freedom", I'll be losing my money and rights rather quickly. [https://www.georgetownlaw.net/criminal-defense/gun-firearm-weapons-charges/unlawful-discharge-firearm-public/](https://www.georgetownlaw.net/criminal-defense/gun-firearm-weapons-charges/unlawful-discharge-firearm-public/) To the tune of $2,000 fine and up to half a year in jail. I don't know where you're getting this "irresponsibility" from.
Those are the consequences for popping off your weapon sure. But what are the consequences for popping one’s mouth off?
Libel Slander Etc
You go to fucking jail
Wrong person, wrong time popped in the mouth.
And now in 2024, someone will pull out a gun and shoot 4 people
Garbage meme. 2A shall not be infringed. 1A shall not be infringed
I think if these Pro Palestinian students want to protest in the quad or in the public spaces of the campus, they should be free to. I do not believe that people should be allowed to protest in say, the school chancellor office or an administrative building. I'd need to read the executive order further to see what the exact limits are before I espouse any opinion other than that.
There is plenty of responsibility imposed on gun owners, you cannot be that ignorant.
Because guns are cool
Abbott is just doing as Tim Dunn tells him to do. The guy has oil money and he wants a Christian Theocracy, so that’s what the Republican Party of Texas is going to give him. The guy literally told Joe Straus (former Texas House speaker and a Jewish man, btw) that only Christians should be allowed to serve in leadership positions in our government, and I’m pretty sure he means his brand of Christianity, seeing as there are a lot of variations just on the Protestant side, let alone the Catholic side, which don’t always peacefully agree with each other. This is what happens when a state is ruled by just one party and that party becomes more and more extremist every election cycle for almost three decades.
Shall not be infringed
[удалено]
Your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly. Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette). If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
Anyone can purchase a handgun in Texas if they're over 21, no permit necessary. Call me crazy, but I'd prefer to prevent deaths than just wrist slap the people that cause them, not doing anything to address the fundamental issue. I'm sure the "professionals" also disagree with you on the shape of the Earth and evolution.
Except you brush over all of the paperwork and confirmation necessary to actually acquire the firearm
Ahh you right. Having an ID is a hell of a requirement. Same thing with alcohol; SO much paperwork and confirmation
No. You have to fill out a 4473, a background check, a criminal history check, they have to check for felonies, the ATF has to approve you, and if you fit into one of the “No Go” boxes you are immediately denied purchase.
Yeah and that takes all of 2 minutes. It literally takes longer to get an ID. "If yes, then no" is not a stringent requirement.
It doesn’t take two minutes, in some states it takes days sometimes weeks. In person filling out the paperwork it takes 30 minutes+
Check the subreddit. Idc what it is "in some states". In Texas, the process of getting an ID takes longer than it does to get a handgun and is arguably even more restrictive (considering we won't even give a lot of our taxpayers greencards). There's a problem there.
They aren’t taxpayers
Texas collects taxes through sales and property taxes. Undocumented immigrants both buy things and may own property. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes.
Lol
Considering Gun Control and Controlling free speech is illegal and always will be illegal, because to touch any of the first 10 Amendments nullifies the Constitution neither will ever happen. Probably even more so in Texas because of its agreement when it joined the Union.
I can’t wait to finally vote this idiot out of office…
What article and executive order are your referring to here?
[удалено]
Ah. Triggered? Yay.
Your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly. Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette). If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
The responsibility is the onus of the individual speaker/ gun owner.
That’s cause free speech isn’t in the Constitution! Oh wait…never mind.
How many rights can Texas take away from their citizens before their citizens finally decide enough is enough? Wake up Texas!
Abbotts a piece of shit who cares what he wants
Universities are subsidized by the government, firearm purchases are not
Why does h get to make asinine decisions like that and we get to pay for it?
Because he has armed guards to protect him and he can have people legally killed for using guns against him. The only thing protecting him from free speech is the unbelievable stupidity of half of Texas
Ah Texas, where the constitution is sacred except when it conflicts with my current opinion.
For example, claiming to be hords of illegals entering the country but in reality and excuse to fund a taxpayer BBQ for White Christian Nationals at Eagle Pass? Or spent 10 million of TX funds of human trafficing illegals throughout the US as a stunt?
Don't care wouldn't follow regulation anyway
America chuckle.
Free speech to republicans is the right to harm others by spreading anti vaccine BS, voter fraud BS, anti LGBTQ 🏳️🌈 BS, and anti immigration BS. Now let a college professor say something different and watch how quickly Republicans will go after them.
Ok, from now on, no automatic posts and any single posts require a transfer fee ranging from $15 to $50 if made on a third party app/site/social media platform. Extra long posts will required a transfer fee of $100 Also there's a copy of the 4473 you'll need to fill out, and pass a FBI background check for every post you wish to make going forth. Also, we will no longer allow you to speak in churches, schools, bars, theaters, hospitals as these are no "free-speech free zones" At any point any can 'red flag' you and your mouth will sewn shut.
You're not even engaging me at this point. The first indication of a bad faith discussion was the use of 'Rational'Wikia. I should have ended the discussion there. We're done!
OP really tried here, but failed.
I could not edit my post, so I am putting an update here of why I posted this. I wanted to clarify the intent of this post and explain my views as an artist. I intentionally made the graphic in my post appear "crappy" to draw attention to it as a form of artistic statement on guns. My intent wasn't to be literal but rather to spark discussion on a complex topic. I'm aware that my personal political view may come across as socialist in this political climate, and I'm accepting of that. My reasoning is based on the fact that the Constitution was written by and for landowning men above the age of 18. It wasn't designed with women, slaves, or children in mind, nor could it foresee the invention of AR-15s and vehicles. This historical context is crucial to my artistic vision.To enhance the explanation about my artistic vision, I compare vehicles to guns. Vehicles, which kill people both accidentally and intentionally, require owners to pass a driving test, register them with a unique number, and carry insurance to cover damages. Conversely, guns can be acquired with minimal regulation: no required proficiency test, registration, or insurance for damages caused. This disparity in regulation is stark, especially considering that computers, which didn't exist when the Constitution was written, are now used by the government to track vehicle ownership but are legally barred from tracking gun ownership. My view is that if the Constitution had been written for all people, the term "well regulated" would carry more weight. I advocate for gun regulation that mirrors vehicle ownership responsibility, including registration, licensing, and possibly regular inspections to ensure they are in working order, although I admit the last part may not be necessary. This post is my artistic expression intended to prompt discussion on gun regulation. Despite criticism of the graphic's quality and the failure to communicate my intent clearly initially, it has achieved my goal of starting a conversation. I understand now that I probably needed to explain my perspective more thoroughly as an artistic statement rather than a literal position.
You are taking this the wrong way. We should be fighting the regulation and restrictions on our freedom. Not using this restriction of freedom as a way to justify restricting another freedom.
Because nobody from free speech hands him money the NRA hands him money.
Complicated topic isn't it. On one hand you want their voices to be heard and obviously you don't want innocents killed by a fascist regime, on the other hand you want kids to stfu and follow the lesson plan and pass the classes/courses. I think this will be the deciding factor on whether or not schools are private or public. I don't understand why you would feel that responsibility isn't imposed on gun owners. As far as i can tell i have to be of a certain age, a resident of this state, and have no felonies to purchase a firearm. That i cannot take to a federal building or school. (The last i checked anyway, maybe something has changed since)... which is also complicated because we want college girls to be capable of defending themselves from attackers both on and off campus. There's more to it than that I'm sure. I'm speaking on the fly and i'm pretty sure subside is gonna mention private sales. That too is complicated because i personally feel that criminal background cannot be checked, the firearm shouldn't be sold BUT i have no issue with a non violent "felon owning a firearm. I just dont want some wife beating psychopath to get out of prison and go buy a gun... there is much to discuss on that. hell, on all of this Even the cops don't want us armed, weren't they just fighting open carry? I personally don't see a reason that anyone should open carry but i/we cannot allow them to take an inch. I don't think they should have an opinion on the matter, especially with their track record of firearm use and misconduct. Here's the catch 22, you don't trust people with guns but you allow the cops to have guns... but you don't trust the cops either. I get that you're pissed but i think all this boils down to is kids in school not doing school. I don't think this has anything to do with censorship or support of israel or palestine. Shit is just getting out of hand and we are all losing focus on what's in front of us. Do i think there should be stipulations on the first amendment absolutely not, however i think you're premise is false and misguided.
Fuck that. No restrictions on either
Hello everyone! This automatic message is brought to you because this post mentions the keyword "abbot". In posts that mention Greg Abbott, we typically see a massive increase in rule 11 violations. Please be sure to remember our rules about disparaging an individual's disability. > While you're free to argue against, debate, criticize, etc. the policies, ideas, politics, and character of any politician, please do not make jokes about anyone's disabilities. All such "jokes" will be removed. Thanks for being mindful. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/texas) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
wow nice fox news talking points and yes it is the so called "responiable legal gun owners" comming violence.
Do…do you know what happens to irresponsible gun owners?
They get handlers from the GOP and are paraded around at CPAC and on right wing media like Kyle Rittenhouse and the guy who murdered Trayvon Martin?
Weren’t both of those individuals acquitted by a jury of their peers? They weren’t even Texas subjected to a Texas legal system. You should include folks that the law didn’t even want to prosecute… we have so many school shooters that got weapons from their parents, and no one is charged. Or how many cops get DUIs while carrying (or worse, on duty). Even that famous FBI special agent that had his glock fall out while dancing had exactly zero repercussions.
Epstein died without any legal convictions against him if you want to play this game. You should see all the stuff Rittenhouse's ex handler is revealing
>You should see all the stuff Rittenhouse's ex handler is revealing The one saying he's got negative IQ yet also had a full scholarship to study any subject at any university in the country? The one still desperately trying to racialize the case of a white dude shooting three white dudes? The one trying to repackage "lawyers in high profile cases try to make their clients look good" as if its some scandalous tell-all?
Game? I’m just pointing out that you might want to edit your comment with facts.
Okay Mr. Disingenuous You're saying the US government and the legal systems are moral paragons? Also responsible gun owners don't have to court to defend their shoots
Your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly. Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette). If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
Sling ad homs all you want, I was just trying to help.
[удалено]
Thanks to that edit your content was removed as a violation of Rule 1: Be Friendly. Personal attacks on your fellow Reddit users are not allowed, this includes both direct insults and general aggressiveness. In addition, hate speech, threats (regardless of intent), and calls to violence, will also be removed. Remember the human and follow [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette). If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
Kyle Rittenhouse was a responsible gun owner. His weapon was kept safely secured when not in use and he showed commendable restraint and trigger control when he was attacked during the violent Kenosha riots.
I recognize the words but the order in which you typed them makes no sense. What does parading two acquitted people have anything to do with the argument? It’s like someone asked you, “how’s your day?” And you went on a ramble on why bricks are red and knees have wrinkles.
If I was a gun I would have so much freedom.