Anonymous #1 1d

2A is the 2nd amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms without infringements. Basically my post asks whether or not you agree with the 2nd amendment

-1

Anonymous #1 1d

I’ll go for some. The most I would do at a federal level is universal background checks and immediate red flags for persons with DV convictions. And also make CC licenses required for handguns. That’s as easy as expanding the amount of classes and paying instructors more to have more classes. That’d be the fullest extent I could reasonably assert federally.

3

Anonymous #2 1d

Why not just ban guns if you already plan to get rid of the 2nd?

-1

Anonymous #1 1d

Those gun controls alone would be transformative but will not stop the longterm problem of gun violence. That would working backwards towards related causes of gun violence (lack of education, mental health crisis, lack of work opportunities.) Mental health reform must go hand in hand with fixing the gun problem. Expand psychiatric wards to better care and house for mentally unwell.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Sure but they would pale in comparison to what a complete ban on guns would do for those. If you do not care about protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, why wouldn't you just ban them? I feel like I am missing something

1

Anonymous #1 1d

I stress the CC classes and hunter’s safety classes because that would be direct education on responsible gun ownership, which I want of all law-abiding citizens. 2A being well regulated means safety in handling firearms. Education in general needs a lot of work. But start with educating people directly on safe firearm ownership.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

"2A being well regulated" did you even read the amendment?

1

Anonymous #2 1d

What you're describing wouldn't be the historical definition of "well regulated", but instead "infringed"

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Not required but suggested by the federal government: Gun buyback (40-80% MSRP on the firearm, or flat rate) Mag limits Firearm inspections, specifically how the gun is safely stored (Japan does this) Those things and others I haven’t thought of should be state decisions.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Yeah, there would be literally no point in even pretending to protect the 2A if we put those in place

0

Anonymous OP 1d

So what I’m getting from you is any sort of regulation means I’m banning the 2A? Ever hear of slippery slope fallacy?

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Any sort of infringement means banning it yes, that is what the 2A protects

0

Anonymous #2 1d

Again, have you actually read the 2nd amendment?

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Yeah. Leads off “A well-regulated Militia.” What does well-regulated mean? One would think it means being discipline and coordinated in the proper use of a firearm. I’m not talking about banning. That would be infringement I agree. Having laws and standards in place (e.g. libel laws and 1A) isn’t infringement. It’s knowing how not to act a fool when exercising rights enumerated to We The People.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I get I’m being semantic here. But conflating regulation with infringement is apples and oranges.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

A "well regulated militia", in its historical context would mean a standing army which operates well.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Arbitrary regulations on firearms are precisely what they meant when they said infringements

1

Anonymous #3 1d

Lot of gun control laws do have some racist origin to them. If not Reagan as CA governor making firearm laws because he hated the Black Panthers, freed slaves after the Civil War were heavily maligned and watched for owning weapons. Lot of southern towns developed gun restrictions to make gun ownership for black people near impossible.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

In fact, most of these regulations are so arbitrary that they do not have any historical precedence besides Jim Crow laws or Crown acts from when we were still legally a colony of England

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Having a background check to make sure criminals or the mentally unstable don’t have firearms sounds clear-cut to me, not really arbitrary. Again, slippery slope dude. Our common laws means events occur and precedent takes shape as written laws. Making infringed as ‘all or nothing’ as you are doesn’t consider all the laws since that point that came about with established precedent, started by the right of the American people to own firearms.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Also worth noting some founders had their notions of America not doing a standing army, but state militias or smaller.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

It does to me. Saying you shouldn't be able to own a gun because you jaywalked or have ADHD is ridiculous

0

Anonymous #2 1d

Infringement isn't "all or nothing" either, there are clauses like "dangerous and unusual" that would stop a weapon from being sold and do so constitutionally. Infringement of the people's right to keep and bear arms is simply any restriction meant to interfere with the people's ability to exercise that right.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Hey. Don’t put words in my mouth. The one particular crime I have specified is Domestic Violence. That is a clear cut reason someone should not own a gun. If someone has actually been turned away from gun ownership for jaywalking or ADHD, it would’ve made national headlines. Slippery Slope. Read about it, I beg of you.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Stop a weapon from being sold. So background checks?

1

Anonymous #2 1d

If having committed a crime in the past is a justification to rid someone of their rights, why don't we just keep them in jail for the rest of their lives?

1

Anonymous #2 1d

No, "dangerous and unusual" applies to weapons, not people.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

I know what the slippery slope fallacy is too, you advocating for 2nd amendment infringements isn't encompassed by it.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

You do also realize the interpretation of the second amendment did get reassessed by the time of the ratification of the 14th amendment? It was enshrined as self-defense, in part of rights enumerated to ex-slaves.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I must stress to you, the second amendment has taken on a few different forms since 1789, without meaning to strip people of their right to bear arms. It has also changed in reflection to a lot of changing events that do relate to public safety and health.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Yes, I do understand that there was serious review of what the prefatory and operative clauses actually meant when slavery was abolished

1

Anonymous #2 1d

You likely would have sided with the people saying it was incumbent on military service based on this conversation

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Wonderful use of prefatory and operative.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Which as I said before, is one of the only justifications you can use as historical precedence of gun laws in this country. Jim Crow/ Black code laws

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Shoot. I said “well trained” in relation to competency, not military service. The one thing I take as written on the page is “the people.” Personal ownership is important. In the owning of the gun and the accountability for gun safety.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Ownership for We The People.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

I'm going to paraphrase a famous quote on this subject matter, "Gun control proponents trust their average citizen as much as someone in the Jim Crow era South would trust a black man"

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Hell the whole idea of gun control being a better means of preventing violence than policing has its roots in systemic racism and tyranny. Don't talk to me about "We the people", my culture isn't your costume.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

That’s why I didn’t go past background checks and red flags for DV charges. There are a lot of issues that intersect with gun violence that need worked back towards to alleviate the problem. As history went on, the government has recognized the threat of tyranny by a foreign empire subsided. I’m not attacking your culture, good god. I am telling you that history changes. But the right of ownership has remained.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Red flag laws are some of the most harmful ideas flouted in the 2A space in history

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Working on breaking down systemic racism and strengthening the treatment of mental health isn’t infringing on people’s rights. Not of the rights in the bill of rights are unlimited.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

You're seriously suggesting that anyone you've met be allowed to take away your right to self defense without any crime being committed and think you aren't detracting at all from the 2A? Even while understanding its meaning in its entirety? You actually just need to get your head checked, there is something seriously wrong.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

I don't even say that as a joke either, if I was talking to someone in person and they said that I would immediately drive them to the hospital

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Ok moving past the strawman, I don’t think people who beat their spouses should have a gun. And if someone has a proven record of violent outbursts tied to severe mental health issues, they really shouldn’t have a gun either.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

I'm not going to continue this conversation any further until you signify in some way that you do not have a serious open head wound

1

Anonymous OP 1d

If either of those apply to you, then you got some things to reflect on.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I’m trying for good faith and you’re being fallacious.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Dude I'm worried for your health

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Yeah. I shouldn’t own a firearm for that reason.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

You don't feel any warm liquid dripping down your neck right?

1

Anonymous OP 1d

We’re both interpreting history. We both know history changes.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

There were even recent decisions made by courts ruling gun locks as unconstitutional. I ain’t suggesting gun locks. I’m pushing for common sense and responsibility.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Can you hold up your hand in front of your face and count the amount of fingers for me?

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Hey #1, hoped we gave you some opposing perspectives to think about. Point and counterpoint seems effective for nuance.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Dude can you in some way show or tell me that you are OK? I'm beginning to feel personally responsible about this and may contact non emergency to do a wellness check if I seriously can't get a confirmation on that

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Dude it’d be poor form and fallacious of me you started to make your argument badly. But you’re not even pretending to be coherent.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

*poor form and fallacious of me *to say* you started…

1

Anonymous OP 1d

What are you even attempting at this point?

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Read the thread if you need some clarification, I already explained twice that I just want to clarify you are mentally OK, I have seriously never seen anyone so unable to grasp basic logic while still typing

1

Anonymous #2 1d

I asked multiple questions to try and determine what may be causing this issue with your head, and suggested multiple times that you seek medical help.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

This is the crow, telling the raven that it’s black.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

This isn’t 1789. It’s 2025. We’ve moved past quill and candles.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

It takes like 5 words to say "I always think this way" and 2 words to say "I'm OK", are neither of those true?

1

Anonymous OP 1d

No I’m not really ok. But that’s separate from this and I don’t expect you to have any genuine empathy for other people outside yourself.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

I'm sorry to hear that, is there anything I could do to help?

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I beg of you to not lie to me.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

I have yet to

1