714
submitted 2 years ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Saganaki@lemmy.one 14 points 1 year ago

Genuine question: Why don’t 2A people also complain about driver’s licenses then? I really don’t understand. It’s the same barrier (if not even worse).

[-] Zatore@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The argument may be that driving isn't in the constitution. You don't need a permit to travel, just to drive a car on public roads. I like my guns but I'm fine with permitting if you are carrying in public.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Well as long as the SCOTUS is being text only your guns aren't in it either. It should be guns that exists in 1791 and only if you are in a well-regulated militia. Which I am fine with. We should start a militia, that is well regulated, and open to adults to join where they get 1791 guns to do whatever it is militias are supposed to do.

[-] Zatore@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

I dislike this "only guns from 1700's" argument. The constitution didn't make a distinction between shotguns, muskets, pistols, or even cannons. We know that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to make sure if the government got out of line we could put in a new one. That isn't possible anymore, but would be even more impossible if we restrict "new" guns. TBH, I think the writers of the constituion would be fine with private citizens owning cannons. Some quick Googling indicates private ownership was a thing: https://www.aier.org/article/private-cannon-ownership-in-early-america/ but I'll have to research more.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

We know that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to make sure if the government got out of line we could put in a new one

We know no such thing. That is intent and other text only view of the law it can not be used.

Secondly even if we did know the intent it was for standing state armies to deal with the federal army. Not Regular people

[-] Zatore@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

gonna have to disagree. 2A was established because we had to fight in the revolutionary war. We literally did the exact thing that lead to 2A being necessary. If we peacefully broke off from England then maybe 2A wouldn't be in the constitution.

[-] bluewing@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

You are already a member of a militia in the US - it's called the state militia, (which in NOT the National Guard). And while it falls outside of formal military service, (Regular military, Reserve, or Guard), it does exist and you are a part of it from ages 17 to 55 or so. And in some states even women are subject to it equally. There are contingencies upon contingencies that already exist for this and have for a very long time.

This is a decent, and not super complicated overview of most of the military organizations and how they interact.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAsZz_f-DUA) The state militias part come towards the end.

I am a bit familiar with this as a medic who asked a dumb question, I was told we were subject to, (though it takes a really major disaster), to being "called up" by the Dept of Homeland Security to go and supply aid if needed and where needed. If I remember correctly some few were either called up or were close to being called and assigned during the last major hurricane in New Orleans. I'm old and retired now and I am no longer subject due to age.

So perhaps you should get that musket and start training...........

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

it does exist and you are a part of it from ages 17 to 55 or so.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that there is an age and gender restriction on a civil right? Males have a constitutional protection that women do not have and the young have one the elderly do not? That's very interesting. Does it apply to any other rights?

[-] Confound4082@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

You are correct on the argument.

[-] Katana314@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

We put law on paper because other paper has law on it

My brother, that is not responsible and well-reasoned lawmaking, you are executing the function of a xerox copier.

[-] gmtom@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

A lot of them unironjcally do, and they think that things like seatbekt laws and drunk driving laws are bad.

this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
714 points (100.0% liked)

News

31365 readers
2190 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS