The holy trilogy | PussyPassDenied

[–]qemist1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

https://www.boredpanda.com/liberal-girl-converted-gun-use-shooting-fiona-mccrossin/

[–]Godspeed311 18 points19 points20 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]musicalrssnroulette 18 points19 points20 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]rsplatpc 14 points15 points16 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Miker9t 16 points17 points18 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Preform_Perform 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnStulteHominibus 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Prid 66 points67 points68 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coconuthead93 40 points41 points42 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeakyThoughts 22 points23 points24 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JakeDC 16 points17 points18 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gsbiz 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]neliz1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

I can't really find, but here name is fiona mccrossin

[–]thefudmaster 29 points30 points31 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]neliz 15 points16 points17 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]-LexXi-1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

r/yourjokebutworse

[–]BlazingLeo 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bruised_Penguin 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PublicyPolicy 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drayelya 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wowgokys 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]careofKnives 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JangoKujo 90 points91 points92 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dilord1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm pretty certain that's reserved for men only. For women, it's "tomboy" and "butch".

[–]reverend234 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Legario1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Lesbians don't have to be masculine and gay men don't have to be feminine.

[–]Dilord1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

And where exactly did I say that?

[–]Legario0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yeah_nevermind19 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PoeticPoltergeist 14 points15 points16 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Muzdog83 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Comrade_Jacob 16 points17 points18 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]silvermoon26 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]OceanSlim 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]silvermoon26 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]OceanSlim 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]silvermoon26 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yea I’m well aware, one of my guns is definitely illegal (Smith & Wesson M&P15T) potentially a second one (Mossberg 500 12 gauge but they haven’t worked out that massive fuck up yet) and If they go after my handgun (Walther PPX) next then 3 of them will be illegal. Which just leaves my Ruger Precision .308 to shoot which is built off an AR platform so who fucking knows there!

I’m not saying you’re wrong, if it’s legal for you to keep loaded firearms in the house and you want to then you should. I hope you never have to use them but if you feel better that way then do it!

However, since I live in Canada where that’s not legal, and I intend to keep my guns (both the illegal and legal ones) I’m following the rules.

I also didn’t buy guns for protection. I bought them to hunt, to shoot trap, and for long range target practice. I live in a good neighborhood with some of the most trust worthy people in the country (gun owners) all around me.

[–]OceanSlim 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]silvermoon26 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]OceanSlim 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]silvermoon26 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No I believe you have a right to defend yourself there’s no argument there. The issue is this.

My guns are in a safe, unloaded, with trigger locks on, with the ammo stored in separate locked boxes. This is a requirement for me by law for the type of firearms I own. Even if someone did break in with a gun, in the amount of time it would take me to unlock the ammo box, unlock the gun safe, undo the trigger lock, load a magazine, chamber it and be combat ready I’d already be dead.

If hes there to steal shit and steals my TV downstairs then so what? I have insurance. If they’re there specifically to kill me (and I can’t imagine why they would be) then id do what I have to. What you’re saying is that I don’t care about protecting myself because I won’t break the law and potentially have my firearms and license taken away and go to jail to do it.

This is the reality of Canadian gun law. We have daily background checks done by the RCMP (your version of FBI) and are subject to compliance checks from them given proper notice of entry. If the RCMP wants to come into my home and make sure I am properly storing my weapons I have no choice but to let them.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveD3Immoral 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mocktail_williams 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZbrojovkaBRNO 34 points35 points36 points 6 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

[–]maschine01 49 points50 points51 points 6 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

[–]OceanSlim 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ZbrojovkaBRNO -56 points-55 points-54 points 6 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

[–]maschine01 27 points28 points29 points 6 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

[–]BobbySanchoas 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

[–]maschine01 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]DirtyDirtson 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 6 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx04271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms:  We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The Court also noted that the Second Amendment only restrained the federal government from regulating gun ownership, not the individual states:  The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.

[–]OceanSlim 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]OceanSlim 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx04271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OceanSlim1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]Mister_Noun -12 points-11 points-10 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GoinWithMaGut 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OceanSlim -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BobbySanchoas 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]OceanSlim 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZbrojovkaBRNO -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]101fng 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]UltimaterializerX 14 points15 points16 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tb21666 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]big_red_160 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iMnotHiigh 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FartsInElevator 15 points16 points17 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]labrigade2012 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Catson2 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fluxocity 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dr_Loveylumps 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]svalbard53 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ILoveD3Immoral 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JangoKujo 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FakinUpCountryDegen 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]0nlyL0s3rsC3ns0r 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheImpossible1 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Anarchy0 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveD3Immoral 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gohaveirr 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TyronnicPoppy40 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BrosephRadson 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azar002 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bart-simpson106 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PokemonMaster619 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]michsimm 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gizmoman112 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]burntcheezeitz 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jayflamer 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cohliers 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]waituntilthis -29 points-28 points-27 points 6 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]101fng 27 points28 points29 points 6 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hydroponically 16 points17 points18 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]waituntilthis 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]101fng 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AntiquatedLunacy -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]waituntilthis 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]AntiquatedLunacy 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

that article spews the exact same information. i already read and responded to it elsewhere in this thread.

That article is misleading because, while it does show that 85% of the gun deaths in America are suicides, it leaves out that the remaining 10% is gang violence and is confined to about 4 cities, and even with that being the case, you are more likely to die of malpractice in a hospital in one of those cities, than getting shot (unless you are in a gang).

The media cries about school shootings, but there have only been around 170 deaths in the past 30 years due to school shootings, and while any child being killed in school is a tragedy, the stats are skewed by almost any other cause of death in children. Falling out of bed kills 150 Americans every year!!

"Mass shootings" are also misleading and includes any situation where more than 3 people are shot. I appreciate that this article actually left out gang violence out of their statistic, because this makes up for the majority of mass shootings you see in the media.

[–]waituntilthis 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]AntiquatedLunacy -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]waituntilthis 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]AntiquatedLunacy -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]waituntilthis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AntiquatedLunacy0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]waituntilthis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AntiquatedLunacy0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]waituntilthis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AntiquatedLunacy0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Which statistics would you like sources for?

The United States is the third-most populous country in the world, with an estimated population of 329,227,746 as of January 28, 2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States

Three-in-ten American adults (30%) say they personally own a gun, and an additional 11% say they live with someone who does,

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/22/facts-about-guns-in-united-states/

ABC News/FBI: four or more shot and killed in one incident, excluding the perpetrators, at one location, at roughly the same time.[10] (lists 41 incidents with this criteria totaling 220 deaths)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019?wprov=srpw1_1

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#21cadaf4299a

Guns dont NEED to be used for self-defense, but if im trying to defend my life, I want to be able to overpower my attacker, easily. At worst, it levels the playing field. At best, it allows a 90lbs women to stand up against a 270lbs muscular rapist.

thousands of people die because of your stupid second amendment.

and hundreds of thousands of people dont become victims.

[–]waituntilthis1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AntiquatedLunacy0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]Elefantenjohn -8 points-7 points-6 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]101fng 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Elefantenjohn -5 points-4 points-3 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ModsAreThoughtCops 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]101fng 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Elefantenjohn 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Elefantenjohn 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms: We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Court also noted that the Second Amendment only restrained the federal government from regulating gun ownership, not the individual states: The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.

[–]waituntilthis -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AntiquatedLunacy 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]waituntilthis 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]waituntilthis 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -16 points-15 points-14 points 6 years ago (180 children) | Copy Link

[–]Inchkeaton 26 points27 points28 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaxMouseOCX 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveD3Immoral 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaxMouseOCX 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

Yes they do... Article 10 of the human rights act.

Also, American freedom of speech is subject to exactly the same limitations ours is - they can't even use "fighting words".

The point is: Americans shout loudly that they have freedom of speech and think they're alone in that... They're not, and neither do they have true freedom, it has limitations which are more or less the same as those stated in the human rights act.

In the United States, freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and by precedents set in various legal cases. There are several common-law exceptions, including obscenity [234][235] defamation,[236][235] incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,[236][235] fighting words,[236] fraud, speech covered by copyright, and speech integral to criminal conduct.

"Fighting words":

Fighting words are written or spoken words intended to incite hatred or violence from their target.

Hatred? So if an American upsets someone with words enough... That's not covered by their rights... Freedom eh?

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AntiquatedLunacy 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaxMouseOCX 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Seriously?

I read articles all the time that show mass shootings, police killing minorities, shit health care etc etc... Look..

Here's yours, emphasis mine.

In the United States, freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and by precedents set in various legal cases. There are several common-law exceptions, including obscenity [234][235] defamation,[236][235] incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,[236][235] fighting words,[236] fraud, speech covered by copyright, and speech integral to criminal conduct.

Obscenity... Fighting words...

You're fed that you can say what you like, and it's allowed as it is here... But sometimes, it isn't. And those are the laws both your government and mine use.

Tl;dr: if someone stands in the middle of new York and says "kill all ni**ers!" and makes a huge thing about it, they get arrested (or knocked the fuck out before the police arrive), as they should... If someone says that in London... They do too. The reason that happens there is because of common law, the reason it happens here is because of article 10 of the human rights act.

Your speech is as free as mine, but they both have caveats.

Edit:

you don't bet arrested for being mean to people

Fuck me, we'd all be behind bars if that was true.

Tell you what... Find a police officer and call him a cunt, tell him you hope his family dies and you'll dance on his children's grave... See what happens.

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The “obscenity” is mostly in reference to saying a bunch of bad words like in front of school children or something like that.

And the “fighting words” is in reference to a call for PHYSICAL action, not just words.

And if you indeed did walk in to the middle of Times Square and yell “kill all ni🅱️🅱️as”, you may be arrested for disturbing the peace, but you SURELY will not be arrested for what you said. More to do with HOW you went about saying it. Two very different things. And why would you said “arrested, as they should”? Do you SERIOUSLY believe that people should be incarcerated for holding a certain OPINION? If so, you’re as bad as the Chinese government is. That’s a terrible way to do “freedom” if you think you’re country is free. Jesus dude.

And to answer your question, if you went up to a cop, and called him a cunt, and tell him you hope his family dies and that you’ll dance on his children’s grave, one of two things will happen, either: a) he’ll call you and asshole and nothing will happen (which is by FAR the most likely), or b) they will do this thing that we call “find-a-crime”, which is basically where the police DESIRE to charge you with SOME random crime, and so they will manage to find SOMETHING that is unrelated to the current situation, that is illegal, and charge you with that as a way of “getting at you”. But PURELY just calling them a cunt and stuff? Most definitely WELL within your rights, and there exists NO criminal charge to charge you with for that action.

[–]AntiquatedLunacy -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaxMouseOCX 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AntiquatedLunacy 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveD3Immoral1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ILoveD3Immoral -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Article 10 of the human rights act

Article 10 protects your right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference.

This includes the right to express your views aloud (for example through public protest and demonstrations) or through:

published articles, books or leaflets television or radio broadcasting works of art the internet and social media

looooool BIG NOPE KIDDO

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/12/20/37275129/fighting-on-twitter-in-the-uk-you-could-be-arrested-for-that

Americans shout loudly that they have freedom of speech and think they're alone in that...

Fuck you and your big gay queen, you dont have free speech there at all, faggot.

Hatred? So if an American upsets someone with words enough... That's not covered by their rights...

Give any examples that didnt cause violence, cuck.

[–]MaxMouseOCX 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaxMouseOCX 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ununilium 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ununilium 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ununilium 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]cannythinkofaname -8 points-7 points-6 points 6 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]rg90184 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]rg90184 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]rg90184 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx04271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alx04271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pacmatt27001 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alx04271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pacmatt2700 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cannythinkofaname 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]5DSBestSeries 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveD3Immoral 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -11 points-10 points-9 points 6 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]RegretPoweredRocket 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RegretPoweredRocket -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DesperateForADwarf 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveD3Immoral 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Everything you’re saying is a lie or a half truth.

Europe is free, obviously. But America DOES have much higher levels of personal freedom when compared to any other country on earth. Zero doubt about that.

Now with your bottom paragraph, it’s just BS after BS after BS.

A) how are you “owned by the oligarchy”? What does that even mean? You sound like a communist revolutionary trying to get people to join your budding party and “MAKE WEAK THE CHAINS OF CAPITALISM!”

B) You are in NO WAY “forced to shop at major chains”. Don’t know where you got that idea. You can go and shop anywhere your heart desires. There’s easily accessible small-business retailers for EVERY consumer industry imaginable in the US. The only thing I can even think of where you’re FORCED to buy from the “big guy” is cars, and that’s just because it’s hard for a small business to build a billion dollar factory and mass-produce cars.

C) you say small business is dead, and yet it’s the largest economic sector in the entire country. The aggregate amount of money that small businesses have in revenue in the US is larger than some entire countries economies. Don’t know where you got that one.

D) you say people “cant work for themselves anymore”. See point “C”.

E) you say America is an oligarchy. Again, see point “C”.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Dude, what are you even talking about? Have you actually been to America? Almost every major street in town in the country is absolutely LITTERED with individual, non-franchise restaurants. In fact, the VAST VAST majority of restaurants are owned by individuals and only have one location. Just go on google maps and see.

And yes, on grocery stores you are correct for the most part. I’ll give you that one.

And what makes you think you’re somehow NOT FREE to go start a restaurant??? You literally can do it ONLINE. You just go on the states’ secretary of state’s website, pay the <$50 fee, and BAM you’re a small business owner. I don’t know how you can possibly think you’re not LEGALLY FREE to start a business.

And im not “reading too much crap” because im not basing this on reading anything anyway, you can LITERALLY DRIVE DOWN THE STREET and see exactly what I’m talking about here; plain as day.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms: We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Court also noted that the Second Amendment only restrained the federal government from regulating gun ownership, not the individual states: The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms: We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Court also noted that the Second Amendment only restrained the federal government from regulating gun ownership, not the individual states: The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.

[+]neliz -12 points-11 points-10 points 6 years ago (74 children) | Copy Link

[–]kitchen_attack 14 points15 points16 points 6 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[–]kitchen_attack 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveD3Immoral 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]kitchen_attack 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveD3Immoral 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kitchen_attack 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rg90184 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveD3Immoral 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveD3Immoral 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx04271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alx04270 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Right, and using speech for discrimination purposes can, and is, considered that “other crime” that you’re talking about.

So yes, you absolutely CAN be subject to criminal consequences for calling someone the wrong fucking pronoun. Absolutely asinine. MUCH LESS Intentionally and knowingly holding an opinion that disagrees with transgenderism itself. That’s even WORSE on the Canadian governments eyes.

You’d never EVER see something like that in the US. You can freely, and without legal consequence, walk up to a transgender person and say “I hate you because you’re trans. and I think you should just die”.

And you SHOULD be able to see that. I disagree with that stance, and most people would, I bet. BUT the government tolerance of the MOST EXTREME of opinions is the ESSENCE of freedom of speech. They should NOT have these laws in Canada if they actually take freedom of speech seriously.

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alx04271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alx04271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alx04271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alx04271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alx04271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alx04271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alx04271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alx04271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alx04270 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What do you mean lying? What exactly am I lying about here?

This, plus you thinking that I’m intentionally responding to YOU and ONLY YOU, what’s next dude? You’re really paranoid man. REALLY paranoid.

And ok, so that’s even more to my point. You NEED the mj so much that you went out and got it from a doctor instead. Here in the US at least, the reason that most people get prescribed mj is because they simply want it for fun and can’t get it otherwise, or want a legal way to get it. I remember reading back when California legalized weed that the rates of people getting an actual doctor to prescribe it to them dropped DRAMAAAATICALLY mostly because it want an actual medical thing in the first place; they just wanted to get high lol.

But yeah dude, I’m not “lying” about anything. I do ACTUALLY smoke from time to time, believe it or not. Doesn’t affect me if you paranoid-ally think I’m lying about that for some sort of unknown reason.

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alx04271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

[–][deleted]0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cannythinkofaname -4 points-3 points-2 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveD3Immoral 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cannythinkofaname 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]cannythinkofaname 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveD3Immoral 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cannythinkofaname 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]neliz -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]neliz 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GoinWithMaGut 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]neliz -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveD3Immoral 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]neliz 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveD3Immoral 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GoinWithMaGut 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveD3Immoral 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]pacmatt27 -7 points-6 points-5 points 6 years ago* (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]RegretPoweredRocket 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 -4 points-3 points-2 points 6 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]DesperateForADwarf 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]DesperateForADwarf 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well it's weird because in Europe that's almost exactly what happens. There is virtually no gun crime because guns are all but outlawed... For exactly the reason we see in America. Innocent people are shot and killed every day to the point that America is almost as violent as Somalia. Lmfao.

Obviously I don't expect it to be the case that a firearm is never discharged irresponsibly. Yet somehow, me saying "Your system is not effective and there are countless models which you can use which would be better" is being conflated with "Nobody should ever die to a firearm and no criminal should ever possess one". Stop trying to muddy the argument by misrepresenting my position. It may be easy and it may make you feel right but all you're doing is massaging your ego while your children are shot to death.

On a side note I do find it hilarious how only Americans can't see how utterly broken and terrible their country is to live in. I don't care if you accept my position. You really should but, ultimately, it makes no difference to me. It will not affect my life or the lives of my loved ones. It will affect yours. The last school shooting in my country is important to me because I cannot remember when it was. Can you say the same?

[–]DesperateForADwarf 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No but that is a huge part of the issue. The fact that it is completely legal for random civilians to carry firearms is a massive problem because it makes enforcing carrying laws impossible. And that's to say nothing of the fact that people with no criminal or psychiatric history are not, by default, responsible gun owners. That's a daft supposition and it gets people killed (and, ironically, casualties of firearm violence are more likely to be gun owners themselves).

Take the UK for example. Over here it is illegal to own a gun for all but a tiny minority of people. Those who are allowed one have to go through a much more extensive vetting and training procedure than the US. For everyone else, it is strictly illegal. If an officer sees a civilian with a gun he will stop them, immediately. And he can because it's so rare. It's easy to enforce. If a civilian sees another civilian armed with a gun they will shout, scream and/or report you immediately. If you don't have the proper documentation you are going straight to prison. You are fucked. No criminal would dare carry one except in very rare, very specific circumstances because it would increase their likelihood of being arrested or killed.

Compare that with America. So many people own guns it's not reasonable or possible to stop every single one and, largely, it will be pointless because they will be doing so legally. This means that it's not possible to enforce the law with people who should not be carrying them. There simply aren't enough officers to go round stopping armed civilians all day. Which means guns are everywhere and not all of them are legally owned. Of those that are legally owned, they are likely not in the hands of responsible people who need them.

Again, you may not agree but countless other countries go by the same or similar models as the UK and it works. What clearly doesn't work is America's model. You may not believe that it's part of the problem but it is, demonstrably.

I do, yes. This is the most recent one I could find and America has, sadly, overtaken Somalia, which is depressing.

[–]RegretPoweredRocket1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DesperateForADwarf 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DesperateForADwarf 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry, you're making a complete balls-up of this. I'm not suggesting the system should be foolproof. I'm suggesting it should be somewhat effective. There are countless models, far more effective, that you could easily draw from but you don't. That is what I am suggesting, that you notice and rectify your inadequate, crappy system as best you can but you refuse because you have been brainwashed.

You have at least 300,000 people known to have acquired a firearm and then used it to harm or kill another person. Those are just the ones you know about and managed to imprison with your absolute shitshow of a judicial system.

Of those 300,000, at least 20,000 actually just straight up walked into a shop, bought a gun, then shot someone in the face with it. Literally nothing hindered their progress at any point. If you don't have a criminal record or a diagnosed mental illness, you can walk into a shop, walk out with a loaded gun and kill a person immediately. The fact that you would argue that this is in any way an acceptable or effective system is incomprehensible.

I'm not suggesting mistakes never happen but this is a far cry from fucking foolproof. It is the opposite. It is a system designed by fools and endorsed by fools.

You are a fool.

[–]DesperateForADwarf2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Lol. No I don't. Nobody I know has ever been the victim of gun-related crime because it never happens here. So why would I have a personal stake in it? What you're misinterpreting as emotionality from the topic is actually just irritation at your blind ignorance. I've rebuffed every argument you've made and yet you remain steadfast in your commitment to allow irresponsible people to own guns and to make policing gun ownership utterly impossible. Your argument makes no sense and you have failed to justify your position. I mean you asked for a source about Somalia, I gave you one, and suddenly you stop addressing it because it is inconvenient to you. Your country is more violent than fucking Somalia and you think gun ownership is a hella good idea. When I call you a fool I am stating a fact. That is foolish and ignorant to the point of idiocy.

And, no, I'm sorry but that argument doesn't wash. You can't just claim there are differences without explaining how they would disrupt the implementation of gun prohibition. There are dozens of socioeconomic and cultural differences between all European countries and, yet, they have almost universally banned gun ownership for civilians. It has been effective in every country. What's myopic is clinging to the flawed belief that your special little country is a magical utopia where normal laws of reason don't apply. America is a complete shithole compared to every other first world country in almost every aspect but you're all brainwashed into thinking it's some bastion of culture and liberty. What's myopic is repeatedly watching your children being shot to death and going "Yeah, guns seem safe".

Of course we aren't, because you don't want to admit you're wrong.

[–]RegretPoweredRocket1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx04270 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alx04271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms: We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Court also noted that the Second Amendment only restrained the federal government from regulating gun ownership, not the individual states: The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]RegretPoweredRocket 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]RegretPoweredRocket 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx04271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well first of all, if you’ve been legally adjudicated mentally defective, you WILL fail the background check. You can’t just deprive people of their rights because you “feel” like they at bad. That’s not how “rights” work.

Imagine if, say, I could say “I don’t like pacmatt27; please deprive him of his free speech”. Yeah, makes you think twice, doesn’t it?

And criminals, which I bet you’re talking about convicted felons, CANNOT get firearms from a gun shop. They will fail the background checks. They ILLEGALLY buy them from person-to-person transactions. So how can you blame the government/structure of the law for criminals committing crimes? You can’t.

And America has nowhere NEAR the amount of violent crime that god damn SOMALIA has. I’d like to see where you got that data.

And what the other guy said, about how 80% of gun violence is gang related, is ABSOLUTELY relevant and you should not just shrug it off. It’s important to the conversation.

[–]pacmatt271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alx04271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I’m not talking about human rights. In the United States we have constitutional LEGAL rights. Completely separate from human rights, because human rights aren’t NEARLY as scrutinized and untouchable as legal rights are. And what do you mean “mental defective” is a bad term? It gets the point across, doesn’t it? And it’s even more of a “blanket” term than mentally ill. You can have something mentally wrong with you without being mentally ill, and my wording accounts for that.

And the government doesn’t “provide” anyone firearms besides the military and police. Civilians acquire firearms themselves, with their own money. And yes, a felon could go that route. But again, it’s a crime. The government cannot hover a drone over every person everywhere and prevent crimes from occurring. They RESPOND to crime. They don’t PREVENT crime. That’s how law enforcement works everywhere. And saying that “civilians are irresponsible morons” and should be nannied by the government is an abhorrent statement. You’re essentially saying that freedom itself is a bad idea. By your logic, fascism is the ultimate system. After all, it leaves no room for a civilian to be an irresponsible moron. Because they have zero freedom. Also, reducing firearm violence shouldn’t be the goal. Reducing violence in general should. Just because the tool is a firearm instead of a knife is irrelevant. Dead is dead. Doesn’t particularly matter HOW you died.

And I’d really like to see your Somalia data. I simply don’t buy that a country controlled by terrorist warlords that has beheadings in the street is a LESS violent place than ANY first world country.

And the gang violence thing is very relevant. Because, say, if the bloods and crips are killing each other in droves, who wins? WE DO. The law abiding citizens win. Because every violent gang member that gets killed is one less violent gang member that exists who can commit crimes agains normal law abiding people. And if you remove 80% of the violent crime, the rate goes down dramatically. And that 20% is all that really merits discussion, because that 20% is the only violent crime that actually effects innocent people.

[–]Pacmatt27001 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I’m not talking about human rights. In the United States we have constitutional LEGAL rights.

Yes, which should be changed.

And what do you mean “mental defective” is a bad term? It gets the point across, doesn’t it?

Like I said, it is outdated and pejorative. Mentally ill is also outdated. Person with mental health difficulties is the preferred term because the person is more important than whatever illness they may have.

And the government doesn’t “provide” anyonefirearms besides the military and police.

Point missed.

And yes, a felon could go that route. But again, it’s a crime.

Yes, a crime which is impossible to enforce because everyone has access to firearms.

They RESPOND to crime. They don’t PREVENT crime. That’s how law enforcement works everywhere.

Lmao! Oh wow. No it is not. Most civilised countries attempt to prevent crime. Jesus christ. Even in America, prevention is preferred over response. You have literally no idea what you're talking about. And, no, they can't fly a drone over everyone and they don't need to. There is virtually zero firearm violence in other developed countries because of the limitations they have placed on firearm access. That means it's much easier to police firearm possession.

And saying that “civilians are irresponsible morons” and should be nannied by the government is an abhorrent statement. You’re essentially saying that freedom itself is a bad idea.

Those two positions are both not the ones I'm holding and totally different. By your logic, any law which limits your actions is nannying and in opposition to freedom itself. I assume you must campaign against all laws?

Also, reducing firearm violence shouldn’t be the goal. Reducing violence in general should.

Reducing firearm violence does reduce violence in general, lol. It's much harder to kill someone with a knife than it is a gun. Other developed countries have far lower rates of violence than the US as a result of their policies on firearms.

And I’d really like to see your Somalia data.

Then you can look through my posts on this thread and find it. Better yet, you can use google and find it yourself. I'm not posting it for you again because you'll dismiss it. It's a waste of my time.

And the gang violence thing is very relevant.

No, it's not. Every country has gang violence and they don't just kill each other you simpleton. If your proposition was true, you'd have no crime. But you do. You have more violent crime than any developed nation and more than many third world countries.

[–]Alx04271 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They should not be changed. There’s nothing wrong with them as they are, and they have afforded us more freedoms and legal protections than anywhere else on earth for the last 250 years. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Especially when what you’re suggesting would, in some way, remove people’s freedoms.

I did not in any way suggest that somehow a persons’ illness was more “important” than the person themselves. But regardless, “offended” culture is dumb. There’s no reason imo to change WORDS simply to make people feel better. It’s a stupid idea.

Felons illegally acquiring guns is most definitely NOT impossible to enforce. When they get arrested for something unrelated (which they inevitably will, because again, they’re criminals), them being in possession of a gun generally adds AT LEAST 10 more years to their sentence. I’d say that’s enforcement.

I never said prevention wasn’t PREFERRED over response. Obviously that is the case. If they CAN, they will attempt to prevent crime before it occurs. Obviously. That’s just not how it REALISTICALLY works 99.999% of the time. It’s simply wishful thinking to think that police could EVER prevent any significant portion of crime.

No, not ALL laws are “government nannying”. BUT there are plenty of laws that ARE like that. Such as, for example, requiring people to have hunting licenses. They only exist to fund the DNR, for the most part. And they severely restrict the ability of people to hunt.

If like to see a country WITH MORE FREEDOM THAN THE US that has a lower rate of violent crime than the US has. I’d be willing to bet that there are few, if any. Generally, places with more freedom have more violent crime. It simply comes with the territory. Good example is Afghanistan. In many places, there’s no government to speak of. And violent crime is quite commonplace there. Or if you want a country that ISNT at war, take Egypt for example. Outside the major cities, there isn’t a lot of government to speak of. Therefore they have a lot of freedom to do whatever they want. And they have a LOT of violent crime. It’s a trade off you make for NOT forcing your population to live with the government breathing down their neck at all times. And yes, reducing firearms crime does reduce violent crime in general. Obviously. Because firearms crime is WITHIN the sphere of violent crime. That being said, firearms crime is a VERY LOW percent of the total of violent crime. So why do people have such a hard-on for guns vs, say, besting people with blunt instruments? I’ll tell you why: because firearms have been turned into a political tool. Baseball bats have not. It’s as simple as that.

I looked up the Somalis data. Just ten years ago, (and probably not improving a TON since then) Somalia was listed as THE most dangerous place on the planet. Here’s the link: https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/09/30/the-most-dangerous-place-in-the-world/ The official data from Somalia is DRASTICALLY skewed, being that the data for their homicide rate is only collected from places in control of the national government, which last i read, was only something like 5-10% of the country. The other 90% is controlled by terrorist warlords, and they don’t collect homicide data. Terrorist attacks are a regular occurrence. Public killings are a regular occurrence. People disappearing never to be seen again are a regular occurrence. You CANNOT, with a straight face, honestly try to argue that you are safer in FUCKING SOMALIA than you are in the god damn United States! It makes you look like an absolute joke, and removes 100% of the credibility of your arguments. Like, you honestly have to be kidding me with that shit! Listen to yourself, man!

Yes, gangs obviously don’t ONLY kill each other. BUT they largely MOSTLY kill each other. I just looked it up, and in 2016 (most recent I could find), 67% of all homicides, gun or not. We’re gang-on-gang. And 78% of all FIREARMS homicides were gang-on-gang. In other words, the vast majority.

Not to mention, your last sentence isn’t even true. It’s a plain LIE. The US is 99th rank on the list for the aforementioned crime rate (measured worst to best). There are 203 entrants on the list. So that means that 98 countries are WORSE off than the US. That includes Ukraine, Estonia, Moldova, Seychelles, The Cayman Islands, Russia, Bermuda, GREENLAND, Brazil, The Bahamas, St. Kitts, etc. Therefore, what you said is objectively false. Many second world countries are worse than the US, plus one (or arguably two) first world countries are worse than the US.

Stop pushing these lies and false narratives that you’re saying just to hate on the US with no data backing you.

Also, I don’t get the point anyway about all of this relatively sudden anti-gun stuff going around, being that the crime rate has decreased every year since 1993. Oh, wait, yeah; I know exactly why. Because one of the two major political parties in the US has politicized guns and made them a major issue to get votes. Just as politicians in general always do. They make things that weren’t issues into issues to try to get votes. And you’ve fallen right into that trap AND you’re now advocating on their behalf. Which is exactly what politicians want!

[–]RegretPoweredRocket 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveD3Immoral 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pacmatt27 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]imalwayseatingpoop1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Whore

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Mr-Jabba-4 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (54 children) | Copy Link

Americans...

[–]Alx0427 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveD3Immoral 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Mods_Are_Low-IQ 16 points17 points18 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]Duckswithwheels -8 points-7 points-6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PshYcoPgm 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mr-Jabba1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

True, it's really terrible! I can't understand the love for guns and never will. This is one of the reason I hate the second amendment. Americans need to change their law and been more strict about their gun law.

[–]PshYcoPgm 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyyyuuuvggf -4 points-3 points-2 points 6 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyyyuuuvggf 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago* (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyyyuuuvggf 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyyyuuuvggf 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyyyuuuvggf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyyyuuuvggf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyyyuuuvggf1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyyyuuuvggf 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyyyuuuvggf 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]re_Pete 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]re_Pete 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]re_Pete 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DrSamsquantch -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrSamsquantch 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hog135 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrSamsquantch 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Hog135 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]AhriEija -17 points-16 points-15 points 6 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drayelya 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]theworstpony 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drayelya 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drayelya 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ultimately yes, part of what makes America such a unique place, regarding firearms at least, is the ability to choose. Forcing mandatory ownership I don’t think would be a good thing. Educating people about weapon safety I think would curtail a number of problems. Even melee weaponry can be exceptionally dangerous, to others and the self, when used improperly or one losses respect for the weapon.

Now, regarding the mental health checks. I see this as a much more complicated issue. It can be solved by forcing it down people’s throats, which like you said, is essentially an infringement on their rights. There is no actual due process involved and I certainly don’t think we should all have to go to court just to be able to own a weapon. That defeats the whole idea of being able to choose.

On the other hand however, there is a strong history of mentally deranged individuals being “mass” shooters. The Columbine School shooters were both on medication and already suffering from depression, among other things if I remember right. So the ultimate question is, how do we prevent events like this from occurring without infringing on individual rights? Once again though, these people were both probably already undergoing evaluation and still slipped by as being non-risk for violent events, so an evaluation may not be effective anyway. An armed and educated populous could prevent such events from occurring though.

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So on your first point, I think there was a misunderstanding: I’m not saying that gun ownership should/shouldn’t be mandatory. What I’m saying is that firearm education cannot be mandatory. THAT would be an infringement on their rights; you don’t/shouldn’t have to have a required education of any sort to be able to use your constitutional rights. That being said, of course, the more the merrier. But it can’t be required.

And regarding your last paragraph, I’ll start with a question: do you, therefore, believe that everyone who is on ANY type of depression medication not being able to own guns? Because I work in a pharmacy, and believe you me, it seems like half the population of the damn country is on an antidepressant, and I’ve NEVER met a patient that I truly felt was “mass shooter” material, ya know? But anyways, to answer your question (how do we prevent these incidents without infringing in rights), the answer is “we don’t”. You simply cannot stop murderous people from being murderous unless we adopt some sort of pre-crime, minority report type shit. And obviously mass shootings are bad, but you actually have to look at the statistics here: mass shootings are EXCEEEEDINGLY rare. The only reason that people seem to think that we have some type of “mass shooting epidemic” is because of how heavily they are reported on in the news. Think about it: if you have reel-to-reel news stories every day about mass shootings, it makes sense that that would lead some people to believe that they are common. News flash (lol): they ARE NOT common in the SLIGHTEST.

Here’s some miners to back that up: between 1966 and 2012 (a FOURTY SIX year range), there were between ~90 and ~160 incidents of 4 or more people being killed with firearms in a single location (which is the federal definition of a mass shooting). For the purposes of this conversation, let’s use the extreme of 160 mass shootings in that 46 year range. The AVERAGE number of victims is 5. That means that, as a rough average, 800 people total have died due to mass shootings. And let’s go even further, and add 25% to that number for the EXTREMELY high kill-count mass shootings. So the number we’re working with now is ~1000 deaths total, from 1966-2012. We will also be using the number 15,000 for the average yearly homicides in the United States

That is 22 people killed per year (22 out of 15,000 homicides), meaning that a measly 0.15% of homicides, total, are mass shootings. Next, we will say that 330M is the population of the US. That means that in any given year, any given person has a 0.005% chance of being murdered in the United States, and only a 0.000007% chance of being killed in a mass shooting.

When you put it like that, it suddenly doesn’t seem like this “massive epidemic” anymore, does it? No, it doesn’t, because it NEVER WAS an epidemic of any shape or sort, and never will be. It’s simply SUCH an exceedingly rare thing. The only reason it seems so bad is because the 22-per-year that are killed in mass shootings are ran on front-page news for weeks, and talked about for months and years, BUT the other 14,978 homicides every year remain completely unmentioned on the news, because nobody is actually interested about hearing about those murders. They aren’t interesting, they aren’t jarring, they aren’t heart-string-pulling. People are bored by them. But what are people NOT bored by? Seeing the latest mass shooting on their news feed.

Overall, an inevitable side affect of having guns engrained in both your culture AND your legal rights will inevitably produce individuals that decide to use them for bad, and RARELY, but sometimes, use them on large groups of innocent individuals that have no connection to the assailant. That’s just how it is. People exist, and people will therefore do bad stuff. There’s no preventing it, there’s no point trying to prevent it, and trying to prevent it inevitably won’t work. Because murderers always have, and always will, figure out a way to murder. Wether that be with a firearm, a vehicle, a chainsaw, a hammer, a knife, or whatever other implement they think of. Firearms are just convenient to them, but make no mistake: they are NOT necessary to them. And we, as a society, should absolutely NOT restrict the constitutional rights of 100 MILLION law abiding gun owners just to try and prevent 22 deaths out of the 15,000 that are going to happen anyway. “Saving just one person” is a nice thought, but it should not be at the expense of the freedoms of everyone else in the society. Otherwise, the legislature will just take and take and take and take, trying to “save just that one person”, until the populace turns around and realizes that they all of the sudden have no freedoms left.

[–]ironlabel1 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

Lmao! Do you have any idea about the paper work you have to do to get one? God people like you make me laugh so much! You have no idea what it takes to even purchase one or get a license but talk shit non the less. You know what a 4473 is? Nope you probably don’t. It’s a universal background check. So if she bought it legally then she had to take one and passed. Which means she didn’t have any criminal activity before. Now she could have gotten it illegally, don’t know. It’s not as simple as walk in purchase gun. People get denied all the time. I used to work in a gun shop. Hell we would have some people come in and you could tell they were buyers. Buyers which were really obvious would work for gangs and show up with thousands of dollars of cash. They were gang meme era who would not commit any crimes so they could complete the background check. Well when someone brings 5 to 20k dollars cash for a shit ton of guns at a time it’s a red flag. So when we call the ATF. We would tell them. Then the ATF would track the individual. Within a week they would catch him and we would receive a notice to hand in the 4473 for criminal evidence.

[–]101fng 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ironlabel1 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AhriEija -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ironlabel1 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AhriEija -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ironlabel1 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GhostTheEternal1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

Do you have any idea about the paper work you have to do to get one?

Yes, and it varies from state to state.

In Alabama, if you buy from a private seller you need no licence, no registration, no permit, no background check. No paperwork.

I am a responsible firearm owner and believe in the right to own a firearm, but let's not blow smoke up people's arses about it being difficult in the US to get one.

[–]ironlabel1 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

No it does not very state to state. 4473 is a government document. Every gun store has to run one. The only thing that is different between states is person to person. I don’t think you have all the info you think you have on this subject.

So in a person to person sale. The seller has to know if the person is a criminal or not or has bad intentions. If the seller sells a firearm to a person who commits a crime the atf is going to the seller it’s a 500k fee and 10 years in prison “if the seller knew the buyer was a criminal.” That can be checked if the buyer and seller knew each other or hung out multiple times aka friends of the like. Now let’s say a seller sells a firearm to a individual who was deemed safe to the seller. Well the atf is still coming after them with fines and fees. Just not the 500k and ten year penalty. If that individual commits a crime or the buyer has a previous crime that was committed. The seller will still get in trouble if the firearm was used in any sort of crime. Most people don’t want to take on that risk so they usually sell it back to a store or go to a store pay usually around 35 to 50 dollars and will have the buyer fill out a 4473 to see if the NICS center allows the purchase.

[–]GhostTheEternal 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ironlabel1 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GhostTheEternal1 points 6 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

The paperwork is different in different states you stubborn idiot, exactly like I said.

[–]ironlabel1 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GhostTheEternal0 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]Aelonius -12 points-11 points-10 points 6 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]RegretPoweredRocket 12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drayelya 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveD3Immoral 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rg90184 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ironlabel1 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rg90184 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aelonius -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]RegretPoweredRocket 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aelonius 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It doesn’t require ANY manual gymnastics to be one of the 100-million-plus gun owners in the US. It’s quite simple actually:

If someone wants to rob my house, or injure or kill me, I want to be able to kill them FIRST in order to save myself and/or my family members.

Seems pretty simple to me.

And it’s simply untrue to think that “if someone wants you dead, they’ll shoot you before you touch your gun”. That may be true if their ONLY purpose is to kill you, with no other objective, and their smart about that. But the thing is, that situation only comprises an exceedingly small number of murders/attempted murders. The VAST VAST majority of potentially deadly and/or deadly interactions have a purpose OTHER than purely to kill someone. Most people are there to rob you, among MANY other crimes. But the majority are armed robberies/attempted robberies. And in the case of a robbery, ESPECIALLY a home invasion, the “defender” is in a highly advantageous tactical situation, being that they KNOW the layout of their house, and the criminal doesn’t, and also the fact that the majority of robbery victims do not shoot back at the robbers. So the criminal is therefore not EXPECTING you to fight back. So when you do, it’s an ambush, and they’re often fucked in that situation.

And that’s EXACTLY the reason that there are MANY MANY more successful legal uses of firearms in the United States, for self Defence, each year than there are gun crimes. Like it’s a HUUUGE margin. The CDC keeps the statistics, you can look it up. Way more people defend themselves with guns than people using guns for crimes. It’s a simple statistical FACT.

And the reason that Europe is “better” with gun crime than the US is simple: the quantity of guns in the US.

If I could snap my fingers and make all firearms on earth magically disappear? Sure, why not! But that’s not reality. They are already in the hands of both law abiding citizens, AND criminals. And if you go tomorrow and ban guns, the law abiding citizens will ABIDE THE LAW, and turn in their guns, by in large. This would leave only the criminals with guns, because they wouldn’t turn them in. WHY wouldn’t they turn them in? Simple: THEYRE CRIMINALS. Crime is what they do. By definition.

If you think criminals would voluntarily comply with firearms restrictions, you’re either an idiot, or you’re lying to yourself. They always have violated the law IN GENERAL, and they always will. Because they’re CRIMINALS. They do CRIMES.

And I’m not very fond of the idea of living in a place where EVERY potential criminal has firearms, and I have ZERO means of defending myself from these firearms with my own firearms, because some people in a fancy building in Washington DC with their ARMED security decided that I’m not allowed to own them anymore, even though I have done nothing wrong.

And THATS why no mental gymnastics are required to understand why an American might want to arm themselves for the purpose of defending themselves and their families from criminals who are absolutely ready and willing to USE their guns agains YOU for the purpose of furthering their criminal activities.

[–]Aelonius -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Delifier -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This is pretty much why america is effed up compared to europe. The want for a gun is mixed with the need for a gun. You can have guns in my country, but you need to put it in the applciation for the license, what the intended use is for, though this usually goes along with the type of gun. You can own a pistol or a revolver, you can own a hunting rifle or a shotgun. Or a semi automatic for that matter, but it all lays in the reason for it. You just wanting to own one isnt it.

For pistols you need to be in a club, and active at least 6 months. Shotguns and hunting rifles are pretty self explaintatory. Semi automatics for competitive reasons can be allowed. "Selfdefense" does not exist in the laws and wont be accepted as a reason to own a gun. You are allowed to defend yourself in general, but with least potential of harm to others. If you are worried about getting shot, a gun wont likely help that much unless you activley go out of your way to use it first, a bulletproof vest is more likely to have better effect anyway, even in a scenario where you get robbed with a knife in your back.

[–]Historybuffman 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, that’s the difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE.

You have a PRIVILEGE to own firearms.

We have a RIGHT to own firearms.

And why is selfie defense with lethal force a BAD thing to you? If someone is trying to kill me, I will absolutely be ready and willing to kill them first to save myself. Duh. Also, aren’t bulletproof vests illegal in most European countries anyway? Also, what happens when they just aim for your head, or when they use a rifle and it goes right through that precious vest??

Also, you’re argument of “if you’re worried about getting shot, a gun won’t help you” makes no sense at all. If you’re being attacked or home invaded, and you’re worried about getting shot, a gun will ABSOLUTELY help protect you against being shot, by shooting them first. That’s the entire concept of “self defense”. I do t understand your argument.

Also, the entire purpose of our right to own firearms is NOT for defending yourself against common criminals. It’s for overthrowing the government in the case that they become tyrannical and a violent revolution is required. THAT is where EUROPE is fucked up. You guys have ZERO ability to defend yourself against your government if they become oppressors.

So why exactly is “America fucked up compared to Europe”?????

[–]beanoffury -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LifeJockey -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]BoochsRise -16 points-15 points-14 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProfessionalFormal9 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BoochsRise 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]piguy31415 -9 points-8 points-7 points 6 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]karmadoe18 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]7CoolNameHere7 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shooter-Mcgavinn 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]fluxocity 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rg90184 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms: We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Court also noted that the Second Amendment only restrained the federal government from regulating gun ownership, not the individual states: The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms: We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Court also noted that the Second Amendment only restrained the federal government from regulating gun ownership, not the individual states: The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms: We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Court also noted that the Second Amendment only restrained the federal government from regulating gun ownership, not the individual states: The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.

[–]ILoveD3Immoral 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]thisbitch97-369 -28 points-27 points-26 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]neliz 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -14 points-13 points-12 points 6 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 6 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]lastIn1stout 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms: We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Court also noted that the Second Amendment only restrained the federal government from regulating gun ownership, not the individual states: The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Dude come on.

First of all, I didn’t even know that the first (I guess 11) were to you. I’m on the app, and I just started at the bottom and was replying to every comment that I had not yet read. I don’t know why you’re somehow thinking that I am SPECIFICALLY replying to YOU. I had 45 unread comments and replied to all of them.

And you keep sending me the same two comments on EVERY reply you make. Which, I think you would agree, is just needlessly blowing up my phone for no purpose, and putting those comments on every single thing for no reason other than to be a nuisance.

I’m not gonna report you, because I don’t really believe in reporting people, but you should know that what you’re doing ABSOLUTELY CAN get you banned from the entire website. So please stop. I’m not doing that to you; all I ask is that you show the same respect and not do that to me. I don’t see how you think it’s “rude” somehow for me to ask you to not spam me pointlessly.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]fluxocity 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alx0427 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

' Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms:

We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The Court also noted that the Second Amendment only restrained the federal government from regulating gun ownership, not the individual states:  The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. [116 U.S. 252, 102] 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.'

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

[–]fluxocity -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sainty-UK -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sainty-UK 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]shaun212 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]himmelstrider 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	The holy trilogy
Author	jarvis125
Upvotes	1629
Comments	501
Date	May 14, 2020 5:45 AM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PussyPassDenied
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/pussypassdenied/comments/gjgajj/the_holy_trilogy/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PussyPassDenied/the-holy-trilogy.852563 https://theredarchive.com/post/852563

Comments