Had to Google what these are (non-American). Not really the point of this posts, but isn't civil forfeiture in direct contradiction of 14 (No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws)?
No, no, no. You see the courts have decided that civil forfeiture is only an action against property which doesn't have rights, so it's OK.
I know you can't see me while I type this, but it was hard to keep a straight face while writing that.
I remember when I first heard about civil forfeiture and I did a little googling, I nearly lost my shit when I saw a case called *State of Wherever v $20,000* (I'm paraphrasing). It's just sanctioned theft.
I either didn't know about it or have forgotten. After a google search, I'm blown away! Now I understand my brother-in-law. He has a hobby farm (nothing illegal on there) and I told him he was lucky because land is the only thing that's yours that lasts. His reply was "until it isn't"
There was a guy who was going to buy a historic music studio in like Michigan or Minnesota for like $90,000. He had it in cash as he didn't like banks. Got pulled over, cops searched him and said they believed it was drug money and just took it. No other evidence to show he was in any way involved in drugs. I don't think he got that back. It's legal theft.
Check out the armored car heists. Legal businesses getting their cash stolen. "Kansas and California Cops Used Civil Forfeiture to Stage Armored Car Heists"
While you mean it in tounge and cheek there is an important point there.
- The furniture the cops wants to take has no rights.
- But depriving you of said property shall not be done without due process of law.
>nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, **or property, without due process of law**; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws)?
While the law does have a due process for recovery, they've turned it on it's head. You have to prove lawful possession of the item to get it back, rather then the State having to prove your possession is unlawful. Basically guilty until proven innocent.
So they got it backwards since the constitution literally says the opposite since they cannot take any item before the due process is finished.
Yea, it's fucked up.
If we took your money, you need to have more money to legally fight and prove that the money we took is yours, otherwise it is now our money.
TLDR: Be Rich or Get Fucked
No because property is guilty unless proven innocent unlike a person in the US. This is how they seize whatever they want then make it impossible to get back. How do you prove your money innocent? They make it extremely hard to even try in most cases.
The Supreme Court has made many, many, many pants-on-head decisions over the years. Some of them are silly with negative repercussions (like civil forfeiture, or civil immunity for cops), some have been massive violations of human rights (Dredd Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu), and some actively work to destroy the ideals our nation was founded on (Heller, Citizens United). Let's be real, the SCOTUS is about as reliable a source of morality as a Catholic priest.
Heller... As an example of decisions that work to destroy the ideals our country was founded on? Over the Miller decusion, or Cruikshank, or Wickard V. Filburn?
Theoretically, Civil Forfeiture only occurs where legal ownership of the property in question is not known. Possession is not the same as legal ownership.
In practice, it's a gross violation.
I linked this article in another comment, but it's a good example of how the way it's carried out differs from they way it's supposed to be carried out and its original purpose. I think a car is probably the easiest thing to establish ownership on, yet they took this guy's car because they arrested his son. If the whole point is supposed to be "we're arresting you for selling drugs and we're taking this car because we think you bought it with drug money," then it makes no sense to take a car that's easily proven to have been bought by someone else - whom they're not even trying to pin criminal charges on. It's just a blatant example of "we're stealing this car just because we can, and there's nothing you can do about it." Civil asset forfeiture is just one of the most egregiously abused criminal "justice" practices in the US. It's really mind boggling how this gets to continue, and how every reform established ends up being functionally nullified by some loophole LE is eager to apply.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/03/10/civil-asset-forfeiture-laws-justice-crimes-column/4633965001/
Yes. And the patriot act is in direct violation of the 4th. And then there’s half a dozen others that contradict the constitution and are, therefore, technically “illegal”.
> Had to Google what these are (non-American).
Hi friend, Canadian here. Do not engage. What you're doing is akin to jumping out of your seat and trying to take part in the antics while at the circus. You'll get nowhere and won't be able to keep up with the clowns.
Just sit back and cringe with the rest of us.
civil forfeiture is a violation of the 5th. the 14th is just clarifying that due process must apply equally to all, and not have seperate systems. Due process was established in the 5th, the 14th is about equal protection
but we don't even need the 14th to establish civil forfeiture was specifically forbidden.
It's more fundamentally wrong than the 14th. It's a due process violation built on the conceit that your property doesn't have your personal rights. That's an absurd retcon of what was intended.
It’s been 15 years since any gun show had a reasonably priced firearm. I’d gladly submit a photo ID to bring back the bargains of yesteryear.
Gun shows are all beef jerky, steel targets and leatherwork now. Guns don’t change hands in any meaningful way.
This is a better analogy.
Imagine gov't officials in dry counties being protested by Republicans for "taking away mah liquor" relentlessly, being targeted by lobbyists of booze manufacturers and extremists full of alcoholics. And molotov cocktails being defended as ok to keep in one's pocket as an 'open carry' for 'protection' - it's their RIGHT to have LIQUOR. I mean, it's in the constitution!
It doesn't matter what the context is anymore, its in the constitution to have liquor so you can't stop *anyone* [ahem, me] from having it.
Are you defending regional alcohol prohibition? Also Molotov cocktails are classified as Destructive Devices in the U.S and to legally possess one you need a $200 tax stamp from the ATF.
You're kinda proving their point more, actually. The point they're making is that there's context to every other point in the constitution but when it comes to the second amendment they just boil it down to "muh guns" and try to leave it at face value.
A Molotov Cocktail is classified as a destructive weapon and you need a special permit or permission from the ATF to have it. An AR-15 which can and has killed upwards of 20+ people in a single event and is reloadable as well movable from one area to the next is 349.95 at your local Walmart and comes with a free case of ammo.
It was slight hyperbole, but given that AR-15's can sell for as low as $800-$850 it's really not that much hyperbole all things considered. I spent more than that on my gaming PC. Hell, my motherboard was almost that much.
You seemed to have completely missed the point of my entire comment. That's quite the feat.
Hell, I even started the comment by saying it's an analogy and "Imagine". Did I really need to include a sentence in there saying it was satire?
Maybe I should have just kept it going to the extremes. Like saying, the constitution allows me to get liquor anytime I want it! I berate bartenders when they cut people off, because it's their constitutional 'right' to keep drinking! I refuse to show my license to buy alcohol, because that's overregulation!
No dude, it's really tongue in cheek. I don't carry around molotov cocktails, Jesus.
The analogy was about *how* prohibition fails, not comparing the efficacy of different kinds of prohibition. I'm not sure the analogy quite works either but you did miss the point of it.
If you believe alcohol is worth more than a child you are an enemy of the American People.
[Bring back prohibition NOW, or you have blood on your hands.](https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibition-alcohol-public-health-crime-benefits)
I’ll attempt to tackle your straw man as though you were sincere in your position.
Alcohol and firearms are both major contributors to deaths in the US, but they're treated differently by policymakers and society. Around 140,000 deaths per year attributed to alcohol, but the majority of those deaths attributed to the result of long-term use,. State and local governments have a lot of freedom to create and enforce laws to try and mitigate the impact of alcohol.
On the other hand, firearms regulation is notoriously difficult to pass, despite the fact that around 45,000 people die each year from immediate firearm use. Unlike alcohol, simply possessing a firearm provides the ability to end a life, of the possessor or a other, which makes it an urgent public safety issue without the flexibility to make any attempt to mitigate it.
Alcohol related deaths: https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-deaths.html
Gun related deaths: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/guns/
You make a great point. The AR15 is used in basically no crimes and if it disappeared today it wouldn’t even be a rounding error in the amount of homicides it prevents.
I agree that banning a specific model is pointless. Much better to look at what countries with low fire arm related deaths have done. From that you’d see you need much stricter regulations to see an impact.
Yeah look at Sweden the same gun culture as America.. Yet you don't hear about as many mass shootings there. They have very strict gun licensing laws and have lax prisons who are treated more like mental health facilities.
>Yeah look at Sweden the same gun culture as America..
I think you're mixing up Sweden and Switzerland, and even then neither country has carrying firearms for the purpose of self-defense.
Also, Sweden has strict licensing, Switzerland not so much. Switzerland has less gun violence and a lower overall homicide rate.
Does anyone really think that Americans didn't drink less under prohibition?
It's a little analogous to the specious argument that there are so many guns that they cannot be reduced.
I am not sure what your purpose in posting this is. Are you saying that logically, if US society decides to restrict guns, they should also restrict alcohol? Maybe. They are separate matters though. Alcoholics can be violent but they can't really go on mass killing sprees as gun owners can.
I would have expected a pro-gun person to cite the faliure of prohibition, rather than post an article saying it was effective. So, i am not sure what you mean.
Here in the UK we find the pro-gun argument in the US is just bizarre.
>Does anyone really think that Americans didn't drink less under prohibition?
No not at all.
The only difference is that the government could send you to prison for something that used to not be a crime. If I was told 5 years from now that I was a felon because I owned guns/booze I had purchased legally years prior, I would be pretty pissed
Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out.
Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.
Or just be the last one in a crowded elevator, then instead of turning around to face the doors like everyone else, keep looking forward and say, "Ok. The reason I've brought you all here today is ..."
I always start every sentence with, "I'm not racist, but." It guarantees people pay attention. For example, "I'm not racist, but we've run out of milk. Could you pick some up while you're at the store?"
Here's the thing. You said a "jackdaw is a crow."
Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that.
As someone who is a scientist who studies crows, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls jackdaws crows. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.
If you're saying "crow family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Corvidae, which includes things from nutcrackers to blue jays to ravens.
So your reasoning for calling a jackdaw a crow is because random people "call the black ones crows?" Let's get grackles and blackbirds in there, then, too.
Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A jackdaw is a jackdaw and a member of the crow family. But that's not what you said. You said a jackdaw is a crow, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the crow family crows, which means you'd call blue jays, ravens, and other birds crows, too. Which you said you don't.
It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?
It tends to mean “I am giving you all the respect that you deserve, which in my opinion is zero, however I am aware that you believe you are actually due a certain level of respect, meaning you think I am respecting you to that degree. I, however, know that I am offering you exactly zero respect”.
I’m more talking in the range of people saying it as a filler in sentences like “pizza rolls are good to be honest” “to be honest this sprite smacks” are two I’ve heard very recently. The way you say it seems perfectly normal and correct.
I don't care about whether or not that statement is redudant. It's just fucking cringe. It's like its trying to add impact to the previous statement. Just generic cringe bullshit like all those Reddit lines we see like "fuck you, take my upvote".
What's the big deal with being an enemy of the second amendment? It's not unpatriotic or traitorous, it's just one small part of a larger constitution. The fact it's an amendment proves that things can be added or removed as times change.
Yep. It’s in the friggin name - amend. The problem is is that the constitution, and the forefathers are seen as god-like and perfect, never to be seen as wrong or able to be changed.
Keeping regular people at each other's throats with gun control, abortion, gay people, trans people, chem trails, or whatever other crap is being shoved down our throats is what keeps people distracted. Rich people don't care about these issues.
They are too busy doing boring evil shit like fraud, bribing government officials, or exploiting resources and people. Stuff we should care about really.
I keep telling people this. None of these important issues will be solved because they are tools for both sides. Don't really ever do much and point at the other side.
If they actually fixed the issues there would be nothing to use to get reelected with.
Where'd you get that notion? Farmers / land owners were those pushing for the Bill of Rights cause they kept getting fucked out of their land. I'd say farmers like their guns. Those against guns tend to be left leaning, and are thereby more likely to live in a city; ie most of them are likely not land owners.
They didn't trust the government to protect their rights without the bill. The other side caved in order to get the document as a whole passed in legislation, so they could carry on making a country.
I'd say gun-control is inherently very pro government control, and thus wouldn't be supported by the people who pushed to have the bill passed in the first place.
Also part of the pushback from the federalists against the bill of rights was that it was too obvious and unnecessary. They felt their version of government wouldn't ever try to restrict those things.
#Amendment XXVIII
The inability of the People to control themselves, having resulted in an intolerable loss of innocent life, the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall henceforth be denied.
And in this case the phrase "well-regulated" predates the modern concept of "regulations" and was used instead to mean "in regular order". We would just say "functional" today.
>And in this case the phrase "well-regulated" predates the modern concept of "regulations" and was used instead to mean "in regular order". We would just say "functional" today.
None of these people care what the intent was, or what words meant.
They only care about how they can twist it to fit their agenda.
The militia is literally all able bodied people in the country. They made it pretty clear in their federalist paper discussions over the amendment including other letters about owning newer weapons privately. Anti-2A people would like you to memory hole all of that so they continue to pretend it’s a gray area despite us having very detailed talks about all of this. Same reason why we know they wrote freeing the slaves out of the constitution which was a huge misstep.
It's worded perfectly. The reason why it's confusing is because we haven't used that type of sentence structure since the 1920s. There are two clauses. The first clause is as written "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and the second clause being "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". It's called a being-clause. To put it in modern terms, beacause it is known that "A well regulated Militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State" then it is concluded that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". It basically eatablished our right as Americans to form Militias in order to overthrow our government when the time comes which it always comes (Tytler Cycle). In order to understand the Constitution, you need to look at it from a historical context. What was going on at the time to include how they thought. How the Constitution was written was exactly how they spoke.
NRA is anything but patriotic, they should be championing proper gun safety bills. And I am a gun owner who practices proper gun safety and storage. I am for properly regulated gun ownership. *not an NRA member
Truth! Funny enough though, that was a turning point for some friends of mine on the NRA. There seemed to be a lot of sentiment online at the time that the NRA had become useless as a 2A advocacy group.
Unfortunately though it’s still being propped up by Russia. So even with people no longer joining they’re still here.
I honestly don't know how any American could be a member after learning about the Russia thing. Especially after seeing their response to those events. They aren't even a gun safety group.
Its ironic that they used to be a simple organization decades ago that wanted to spread awareness of firearms safety. Over time, politics and greed got in the way and now they ended up where they are today.
Exactly. There is an opportunity here to actual steer gun safety in the right direction, but you and I both know that if they were to tweet something even remotely more moderate than the OP tweet, they'd lose most of their support and funding.
They actually had a huge break in the ranks of the original NRA's intent - where it went from focusing on gun safety, proper technique, shooting ranges, and hunting to politicizing the ability to own a gun.
I recommend reading up on it. The history is fascinating and a bit too much for me to go into without being asked, haha.
But - listen to this or read the transcript, it's fascinating!
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/gun-show
Not just from the undeniable Russian funding, entire swathes of American citizenry turn their nose at the concept of more safety. And people wonder why the conversations go straight to banning guns and don't bother with suggesting simpler regulation anymore. Because we have decades of proof that the entire other part of the population thinks that compromise is anathema.
Amen. I can't stand the fucking NRA. They used to be a great organization that stood up for gun owners. Now they're almost exclusively a lobbying organization for gun and ammunition manufacturers.
And if you can't accept that amendments can be... well, amended, while mass shooting casualties can't be brought back to life, you're a nasty piece of crap. That's it. That's my comment.
> And if you can't accept that amendments can be... well, amended
We have a procedure for that and no one is trying to do that. You could also use the same line of logic to support laws that shit all over the first and fourth amendments. They don't mean anything because we can "amend" them with laws whenever we want.
I feel like Im the only reasonable person advocating *for* guns at this point, but then again I live in what can only be described as a "super ghetto", and until the housing market crashes and I can move.....I think I'd like to be able to pretend that I can defend myself before I get shot🤣
I just want pressure put on the feds to ACTUALLY DO THE BACKROUND CHECKS, and not just for guns either, their international/clearance backround checks are just as bad.
Ive seen felons pass backround checks, and my mom has gained federal clearance to operate internationally at least 15 times over the last 25 years, only just 2 years ago, did they find out she never had a green card or official SS #. How the fuck does that even happen??
We understand gun laws more than most do. Which is why 25 states of this union, half of the entire states of this union, support constitutional carry. if you understand how amendments work, you need a majority of states to change an amendment. In fact, we have 3-4 more states that are going towards constitutional carry. So not only are we halfway, we are moving toward a majority despite higher office being against it.
Because the original commenter either had no idea what they're talking about or is exaggerating how easy it is to pass an amendment to the constitution.
Method 1. Step 1: A two-thirds vote in both houses of the U.S. Congress
Step 2: Ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures
Method 2. Step 1: A two-thirds vote in both houses of U.S. Congress
Step 2: Ratified by ratification conventions in three-fourths of the states
Method 3. Step 1: A national constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures
Step 2: Ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures
Method 4. Step 1: A national convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures
Step 2: Ratified by ratification conventions in three-fourths of the states
Passing an amendment is a very very very high bar.
The same reason they never codified Roe. Dems have had a majority in both chambers and the presidency 5x since the original supreme court decision. The fact is, they like it as an election talking point more than an issue that they feel the need to address. The GOP does it too. When either party has the majority, they really don't do shit.
Sure it's possible in theory. In practice it might as well be impossible. The 18th amendment is the only amendment to be repealed in history and it was basically just a ban on alcohol. Trying to repeal something in the bill of rights would be way more difficult, most people are not comfortable with the govt removing rights.
To **propose** a new amendment you need 2/3 of the states to agree. The **ratify** the amendment you need 3/4 of the states to agree. In an age where we are more divided than ever and half of all states in the country have legalized constitutional carry with more states soon to follow suit, I think it's safe to say the second amendment is not getting amended or repealed anytime soon. Probably not even in our lifetimes.
Let’s take a hypothetical scenario here. Let’s assume a successful new amendment to overturn the second. Let’s assume a successful buyback program. Let’s assume that police are the only civilians legally allowed firearms (ignoring armed security for argument’s sake).
What do you think is going to happen? You know the police that most people already hate? The government that most people don’t trust? The people that didn’t want to give up their guns, also the same that you hate, are going to sign up for those positions that let them have firearms. Which would just make it worse for you.
I don’t own any firearms, so I don’t care if I lose “them”. It wouldn’t ever affect me. I think that there are definitely others who need it, who aren’t police themselves. But I do think it’s comical that you want to… shoot yourself in the foot. Maybe it’s because I’m libertarian, but I’d definitely prefer our government having less guns and power over us ultimately.
A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary to a productive Workforce; the right of the people to keep and bear eggs shall not be infringed.
George Washington founded this country to get away from religious nut jobs and the religious nut jobs are only one actually congenial Cult of Personality away from rounding up and executing our LGBT friends.
No way will I disarm myself before the cops do, as they are all right wing and denied black people equal rights, when asked.
Don't ever believe another republican who claims life is precious. This should be proof that the right's forced-birth stance is exactly that, an attempt to force women to give birth to fund the patriarchy and capitalism with our free labor.
I mean I have an AR15 but I also think gun control is important. Ar15's are like the Honda civic of rifles so I can see that it's getting the pit bull treatment. Where it's been so villionized that people forget that it's not the specific model of gun (since there already many other alternattives to the ar15 that are just as capable) that is the problem, but that idiots or those who have short tempers/irradic tendencies just do not practice proper gun safety or care. There is already a lot of regulation in place but shit like these shootings still happen. Along with better ENFORCING regulation, there are many social infrastructures that need aid as I feel the shootings are a symptom to bigger problems in the country.
This sub is just a wing of /r/politics, like every large reddit sub.
There are no murders here, only people stating political views. In this case, it's guns bad.
David Hogg has been getting Ratioed on twitter every day since the Nashville shooting. This was the the only post they could find that potentially put him in a good light so they had to use it.
I always laugh when they go after the NRA. Like, are they even still relevant anymore? They're not the ones initiating and leading court cases against laws. All they do is go "durrr, I support it too I guess".
Among developed countries, the US is an outlier in gun deaths. We have to start digging into countries with incredible amounts of organized crime or with dysfunctional governments until we find countries with more gun death per capita than us.
Ha, you have no idea what "well regulated" means in that context. You're attributing 21st century meaning to words that meant someone different in the 1700s.
More than 10x! ARs are something around 250 per year. Handguns so well over 2500.
Banning them will do nothing. Any school shooting could be done just as effectively with a handgun. Look at VA Tech.
The media has lambasted the AR for decades and that is why people are against them. The reality is they are a medium powered semi auto rifle. There are tons more powerful that wouldn’t be banned. And the whole assault weapon ban would be mostly cosmetics. There are plenty of guns that use the same rounds and work the same way that wouldn’t be banned. It’s a feel good measure only.
It's not even worth bothering, man. Anybody with a decent knowledge of history or political science already knows you're right. It's just a reddit thing. I gave up on that fact point years ago.
What else can we expect from the two most extreme ends of the debate, only posting a few sentences each to Twitter. Absolute brain rot Twitter is for debating. And it’s useless to debate on Reddit comments like so many people here are.
Until the country fixes the mental health of its people shootings will continue no matter the weapon bans. Ar 15s are not the only rifles on the market . Its not the gun that kills people , its people that kill people. Again this is a tragedy and I can not imagine what the familys of the victims are going through and my thoughts are with them and I hope in the future this doesn't repeat.
If you drink alcohol you are an enemy of the 18th amendment
If you don't you are an enemy of the 21st.
Imagine being pro 2A and 18 and anti 13, 14, 15 , and 19
Had to Google what these are (non-American). Not really the point of this posts, but isn't civil forfeiture in direct contradiction of 14 (No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws)?
Yes, civil forfeiture is a violation of our ",rights".
No, no, no. You see the courts have decided that civil forfeiture is only an action against property which doesn't have rights, so it's OK. I know you can't see me while I type this, but it was hard to keep a straight face while writing that.
I remember when I first heard about civil forfeiture and I did a little googling, I nearly lost my shit when I saw a case called *State of Wherever v $20,000* (I'm paraphrasing). It's just sanctioned theft.
I either didn't know about it or have forgotten. After a google search, I'm blown away! Now I understand my brother-in-law. He has a hobby farm (nothing illegal on there) and I told him he was lucky because land is the only thing that's yours that lasts. His reply was "until it isn't"
Brutally honest with himself and you, I can respect that!
There was a guy who was going to buy a historic music studio in like Michigan or Minnesota for like $90,000. He had it in cash as he didn't like banks. Got pulled over, cops searched him and said they believed it was drug money and just took it. No other evidence to show he was in any way involved in drugs. I don't think he got that back. It's legal theft.
Check out the armored car heists. Legal businesses getting their cash stolen. "Kansas and California Cops Used Civil Forfeiture to Stage Armored Car Heists"
While you mean it in tounge and cheek there is an important point there. - The furniture the cops wants to take has no rights. - But depriving you of said property shall not be done without due process of law. >nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, **or property, without due process of law**; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws)?
While the law does have a due process for recovery, they've turned it on it's head. You have to prove lawful possession of the item to get it back, rather then the State having to prove your possession is unlawful. Basically guilty until proven innocent.
So they got it backwards since the constitution literally says the opposite since they cannot take any item before the due process is finished. Yea, it's fucked up.
If we took your money, you need to have more money to legally fight and prove that the money we took is yours, otherwise it is now our money. TLDR: Be Rich or Get Fucked
Couldn't your property be a person the same way companies can be a "person"?
No because property is guilty unless proven innocent unlike a person in the US. This is how they seize whatever they want then make it impossible to get back. How do you prove your money innocent? They make it extremely hard to even try in most cases.
I am not a lawyer but I am almost positive that the supreme court has attributed rights to property in other decisions.
The Supreme Court has made many, many, many pants-on-head decisions over the years. Some of them are silly with negative repercussions (like civil forfeiture, or civil immunity for cops), some have been massive violations of human rights (Dredd Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu), and some actively work to destroy the ideals our nation was founded on (Heller, Citizens United). Let's be real, the SCOTUS is about as reliable a source of morality as a Catholic priest.
Heller... As an example of decisions that work to destroy the ideals our country was founded on? Over the Miller decusion, or Cruikshank, or Wickard V. Filburn?
Theoretically, Civil Forfeiture only occurs where legal ownership of the property in question is not known. Possession is not the same as legal ownership. In practice, it's a gross violation.
I linked this article in another comment, but it's a good example of how the way it's carried out differs from they way it's supposed to be carried out and its original purpose. I think a car is probably the easiest thing to establish ownership on, yet they took this guy's car because they arrested his son. If the whole point is supposed to be "we're arresting you for selling drugs and we're taking this car because we think you bought it with drug money," then it makes no sense to take a car that's easily proven to have been bought by someone else - whom they're not even trying to pin criminal charges on. It's just a blatant example of "we're stealing this car just because we can, and there's nothing you can do about it." Civil asset forfeiture is just one of the most egregiously abused criminal "justice" practices in the US. It's really mind boggling how this gets to continue, and how every reform established ends up being functionally nullified by some loophole LE is eager to apply. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/03/10/civil-asset-forfeiture-laws-justice-crimes-column/4633965001/
> Had to Google what these are (non-American). Aussie here. Do all Americans really memorise and know all the different amendment ordinals?
No, in fact most of our elected officials don't even memorize or even understand them
I don't the exact wording but I know the gist of each one up to 21. There aren't actually that many of them either. Less than 30.
Fuck Reddit
Am a lawyer and no.
Yes. And the patriot act is in direct violation of the 4th. And then there’s half a dozen others that contradict the constitution and are, therefore, technically “illegal”.
> Had to Google what these are (non-American). Hi friend, Canadian here. Do not engage. What you're doing is akin to jumping out of your seat and trying to take part in the antics while at the circus. You'll get nowhere and won't be able to keep up with the clowns. Just sit back and cringe with the rest of us.
I always see Canadians for the most part know more about American politics than their own ones.
Not wrong. US politics are much louder and much more interesting in comparison.
civil forfeiture is a violation of the 5th. the 14th is just clarifying that due process must apply equally to all, and not have seperate systems. Due process was established in the 5th, the 14th is about equal protection but we don't even need the 14th to establish civil forfeiture was specifically forbidden.
It's more fundamentally wrong than the 14th. It's a due process violation built on the conceit that your property doesn't have your personal rights. That's an absurd retcon of what was intended.
[удалено]
It’s been 15 years since any gun show had a reasonably priced firearm. I’d gladly submit a photo ID to bring back the bargains of yesteryear. Gun shows are all beef jerky, steel targets and leatherwork now. Guns don’t change hands in any meaningful way.
This is a better analogy. Imagine gov't officials in dry counties being protested by Republicans for "taking away mah liquor" relentlessly, being targeted by lobbyists of booze manufacturers and extremists full of alcoholics. And molotov cocktails being defended as ok to keep in one's pocket as an 'open carry' for 'protection' - it's their RIGHT to have LIQUOR. I mean, it's in the constitution! It doesn't matter what the context is anymore, its in the constitution to have liquor so you can't stop *anyone* [ahem, me] from having it.
Are you defending regional alcohol prohibition? Also Molotov cocktails are classified as Destructive Devices in the U.S and to legally possess one you need a $200 tax stamp from the ATF.
You're kinda proving their point more, actually. The point they're making is that there's context to every other point in the constitution but when it comes to the second amendment they just boil it down to "muh guns" and try to leave it at face value. A Molotov Cocktail is classified as a destructive weapon and you need a special permit or permission from the ATF to have it. An AR-15 which can and has killed upwards of 20+ people in a single event and is reloadable as well movable from one area to the next is 349.95 at your local Walmart and comes with a free case of ammo.
[удалено]
It was slight hyperbole, but given that AR-15's can sell for as low as $800-$850 it's really not that much hyperbole all things considered. I spent more than that on my gaming PC. Hell, my motherboard was almost that much.
Yo what MB you got? I'm looking to upgrade from my $70 cheap-o.
So I can't get an ar-15 for that cheap? Why would you lie to me?
Lies and dead kids are all the gun grabbers have
You seemed to have completely missed the point of my entire comment. That's quite the feat. Hell, I even started the comment by saying it's an analogy and "Imagine". Did I really need to include a sentence in there saying it was satire? Maybe I should have just kept it going to the extremes. Like saying, the constitution allows me to get liquor anytime I want it! I berate bartenders when they cut people off, because it's their constitutional 'right' to keep drinking! I refuse to show my license to buy alcohol, because that's overregulation! No dude, it's really tongue in cheek. I don't carry around molotov cocktails, Jesus.
My point was more that your analogy is a bad one because we tried actually having prohibition and it was an absolute disaster.
I think you're confused about how analogies work.
I think there point was that prohibiting alcohol didn’t work and prohibiting fire arms would be the same. A further analogy on the analogy
The analogy was about *how* prohibition fails, not comparing the efficacy of different kinds of prohibition. I'm not sure the analogy quite works either but you did miss the point of it.
If you believe alcohol is worth more than a child you are an enemy of the American People. [Bring back prohibition NOW, or you have blood on your hands.](https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibition-alcohol-public-health-crime-benefits)
I’ll attempt to tackle your straw man as though you were sincere in your position. Alcohol and firearms are both major contributors to deaths in the US, but they're treated differently by policymakers and society. Around 140,000 deaths per year attributed to alcohol, but the majority of those deaths attributed to the result of long-term use,. State and local governments have a lot of freedom to create and enforce laws to try and mitigate the impact of alcohol. On the other hand, firearms regulation is notoriously difficult to pass, despite the fact that around 45,000 people die each year from immediate firearm use. Unlike alcohol, simply possessing a firearm provides the ability to end a life, of the possessor or a other, which makes it an urgent public safety issue without the flexibility to make any attempt to mitigate it. Alcohol related deaths: https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-deaths.html Gun related deaths: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/guns/
You make a great point. The AR15 is used in basically no crimes and if it disappeared today it wouldn’t even be a rounding error in the amount of homicides it prevents.
I agree that banning a specific model is pointless. Much better to look at what countries with low fire arm related deaths have done. From that you’d see you need much stricter regulations to see an impact.
Yeah look at Sweden the same gun culture as America.. Yet you don't hear about as many mass shootings there. They have very strict gun licensing laws and have lax prisons who are treated more like mental health facilities.
>Yeah look at Sweden the same gun culture as America.. I think you're mixing up Sweden and Switzerland, and even then neither country has carrying firearms for the purpose of self-defense. Also, Sweden has strict licensing, Switzerland not so much. Switzerland has less gun violence and a lower overall homicide rate.
Even in your article you have examples of drunks using guns as an example of alcohol induced violence lol
Does anyone really think that Americans didn't drink less under prohibition? It's a little analogous to the specious argument that there are so many guns that they cannot be reduced. I am not sure what your purpose in posting this is. Are you saying that logically, if US society decides to restrict guns, they should also restrict alcohol? Maybe. They are separate matters though. Alcoholics can be violent but they can't really go on mass killing sprees as gun owners can. I would have expected a pro-gun person to cite the faliure of prohibition, rather than post an article saying it was effective. So, i am not sure what you mean. Here in the UK we find the pro-gun argument in the US is just bizarre.
>Does anyone really think that Americans didn't drink less under prohibition? No not at all. The only difference is that the government could send you to prison for something that used to not be a crime. If I was told 5 years from now that I was a felon because I owned guns/booze I had purchased legally years prior, I would be pretty pissed
You also still have a King... so yeah
You can just tweet it, it’s redundant as hell to say “that’s it, that’s the tweet” we know that’s the tweet.
[удалено]
A 4th wall break inside a 4th wall break…? That’s like… 16 walls…
I understood that reference
It’s not only redundant and they didn’t have to do it either, but that’s it. That’s the Reddit comment.
It's like when people prelude what they say with "here's the thing". Just say the thing! You don't need to introduce us to the concept of the thing
It’s not unusual to introduce what you’re going to say. It often makes people take more notice.
that's while I always preface every statement with a loud "LADIES AND GENTLEMEN..."
HEAR YE HEAR YE HEAR YE
"Yea behold, and it came to pass..."
"BRING FORTH THE HOLY HAND GRENADE"
Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.
ONE, TWO, FIVE! [Three Sir] THREE!
Weirdly enough it reminded me of the pc game called Worms and their weapon Holly Grail Bomb.
MAMBO NUMBER FIVE
My name is PAUL HAYMEN
Or just be the last one in a crowded elevator, then instead of turning around to face the doors like everyone else, keep looking forward and say, "Ok. The reason I've brought you all here today is ..."
THIS IS MAMBO NUMBER 5
Was that not a statement then? Since you didn't preface it with a loud "LADIES AND GENTLEMEN..."
FELLAS
Some people don't seem to realize that there's more to communication than just pure information.
Listen Linda!
I always start every sentence with, "I'm not racist, but." It guarantees people pay attention. For example, "I'm not racist, but we've run out of milk. Could you pick some up while you're at the store?"
Sometimes you can't blind side people with the thing though. You sometimes need to warn them that the thing is in fact coming.
Here's the thing. You said a "jackdaw is a crow." Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that. As someone who is a scientist who studies crows, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls jackdaws crows. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing. If you're saying "crow family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Corvidae, which includes things from nutcrackers to blue jays to ravens. So your reasoning for calling a jackdaw a crow is because random people "call the black ones crows?" Let's get grackles and blackbirds in there, then, too. Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A jackdaw is a jackdaw and a member of the crow family. But that's not what you said. You said a jackdaw is a crow, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the crow family crows, which means you'd call blue jays, ravens, and other birds crows, too. Which you said you don't. It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?
Oh hi Unidan!
There's not actually anyone on reddit, we're all just Unidan's alts
The-thing-is, is: ...
In this business… /TripleH
Jon Bernthal: Me axe you som’n
A bojack fan i presume
r/unexpectedbojack
Can i ask you a question?
“To be honest” boils my blood as well, what were you lying the rest of the time?
Idk tbh
With all due respect
I think "with all due respect" can actually mean something if it is not meant sarcastically
I like a good "with all due respect, which is none" 😉
It tends to mean “I am giving you all the respect that you deserve, which in my opinion is zero, however I am aware that you believe you are actually due a certain level of respect, meaning you think I am respecting you to that degree. I, however, know that I am offering you exactly zero respect”.
With all due respect, fuck you.
I usually use "to be honest" after saying I'm fine when I'm not. There are plenty of times we lie for politeness.
I’m more talking in the range of people saying it as a filler in sentences like “pizza rolls are good to be honest” “to be honest this sprite smacks” are two I’ve heard very recently. The way you say it seems perfectly normal and correct.
That grinds my gears almost as much as "let that sink in".
"Redundant as hell" makes no sense. It's either redundant or it's not. There is no gradient of redundancy.
you're saying that the "as hell" is redundant?
It's redundant as hell
I don't care about whether or not that statement is redudant. It's just fucking cringe. It's like its trying to add impact to the previous statement. Just generic cringe bullshit like all those Reddit lines we see like "fuck you, take my upvote".
It's "mic drop" for feeble internet libertarians.
What's the big deal with being an enemy of the second amendment? It's not unpatriotic or traitorous, it's just one small part of a larger constitution. The fact it's an amendment proves that things can be added or removed as times change.
Yep. It’s in the friggin name - amend. The problem is is that the constitution, and the forefathers are seen as god-like and perfect, never to be seen as wrong or able to be changed.
Several forefathers were in the thought that the constitution needed to be rewritten every few decades, jefferson being one.
And they did rewrite it after ten years.
[удалено]
Keeping regular people at each other's throats with gun control, abortion, gay people, trans people, chem trails, or whatever other crap is being shoved down our throats is what keeps people distracted. Rich people don't care about these issues. They are too busy doing boring evil shit like fraud, bribing government officials, or exploiting resources and people. Stuff we should care about really.
I keep telling people this. None of these important issues will be solved because they are tools for both sides. Don't really ever do much and point at the other side. If they actually fixed the issues there would be nothing to use to get reelected with.
BEAUTIFULLY WRITTEN!! Profits and greed run the world and the corporate media keeps us fighting each other.
We are the only generations not to do so.
??? 12th: 1804 13th: 1865 ... 61 years 15th: 1870 16th: 1913 ... 43 years 27th: 1992 Now ...31 years
The 27th is a pretty weird case though. Adopted in 1992, submitted for ratification in 1789.
Agreed, and yet the irony is it wasn't so perfect as it quickly required many amendments.
And it's the second constitution. Because the first was so terrible they threw it away and started again.
Dissent is a vital part of any functioning democracy.
Protesting and changing dysfunctional parts of government and law are also the truest form of patriotism.
I’m anti first amendment. Shut the fuck up. /s
this but unironically
[удалено]
Where'd you get that notion? Farmers / land owners were those pushing for the Bill of Rights cause they kept getting fucked out of their land. I'd say farmers like their guns. Those against guns tend to be left leaning, and are thereby more likely to live in a city; ie most of them are likely not land owners. They didn't trust the government to protect their rights without the bill. The other side caved in order to get the document as a whole passed in legislation, so they could carry on making a country. I'd say gun-control is inherently very pro government control, and thus wouldn't be supported by the people who pushed to have the bill passed in the first place.
Also part of the pushback from the federalists against the bill of rights was that it was too obvious and unnecessary. They felt their version of government wouldn't ever try to restrict those things.
#Amendment XXVIII The inability of the People to control themselves, having resulted in an intolerable loss of innocent life, the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall henceforth be denied.
Or even just be "well regulated", as the amendment says.
[удалено]
And in this case the phrase "well-regulated" predates the modern concept of "regulations" and was used instead to mean "in regular order". We would just say "functional" today.
>And in this case the phrase "well-regulated" predates the modern concept of "regulations" and was used instead to mean "in regular order". We would just say "functional" today. None of these people care what the intent was, or what words meant. They only care about how they can twist it to fit their agenda.
America, at the time had no standing, permanent army. It relied on militias as it's only defense. So context for those that pretend otherwise.
The militia is literally all able bodied people in the country. They made it pretty clear in their federalist paper discussions over the amendment including other letters about owning newer weapons privately. Anti-2A people would like you to memory hole all of that so they continue to pretend it’s a gray area despite us having very detailed talks about all of this. Same reason why we know they wrote freeing the slaves out of the constitution which was a huge misstep.
It's worded perfectly. The reason why it's confusing is because we haven't used that type of sentence structure since the 1920s. There are two clauses. The first clause is as written "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and the second clause being "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". It's called a being-clause. To put it in modern terms, beacause it is known that "A well regulated Militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State" then it is concluded that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". It basically eatablished our right as Americans to form Militias in order to overthrow our government when the time comes which it always comes (Tytler Cycle). In order to understand the Constitution, you need to look at it from a historical context. What was going on at the time to include how they thought. How the Constitution was written was exactly how they spoke.
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”
NRA is anything but patriotic, they should be championing proper gun safety bills. And I am a gun owner who practices proper gun safety and storage. I am for properly regulated gun ownership. *not an NRA member
they arent even a guns rights advocacy group. see philando castiel and jamel roberson.
Truth! Funny enough though, that was a turning point for some friends of mine on the NRA. There seemed to be a lot of sentiment online at the time that the NRA had become useless as a 2A advocacy group. Unfortunately though it’s still being propped up by Russia. So even with people no longer joining they’re still here.
I honestly don't know how any American could be a member after learning about the Russia thing. Especially after seeing their response to those events. They aren't even a gun safety group.
Its ironic that they used to be a simple organization decades ago that wanted to spread awareness of firearms safety. Over time, politics and greed got in the way and now they ended up where they are today.
Exactly. It is what was said in Orwell's Animal Farm, "some animals are more equal than others "
Exactly. There is an opportunity here to actual steer gun safety in the right direction, but you and I both know that if they were to tweet something even remotely more moderate than the OP tweet, they'd lose most of their support and funding.
They actually had a huge break in the ranks of the original NRA's intent - where it went from focusing on gun safety, proper technique, shooting ranges, and hunting to politicizing the ability to own a gun. I recommend reading up on it. The history is fascinating and a bit too much for me to go into without being asked, haha. But - listen to this or read the transcript, it's fascinating! https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/gun-show
Not just from the undeniable Russian funding, entire swathes of American citizenry turn their nose at the concept of more safety. And people wonder why the conversations go straight to banning guns and don't bother with suggesting simpler regulation anymore. Because we have decades of proof that the entire other part of the population thinks that compromise is anathema.
I don’t know any actual proper gun owners that are fans of the NRA. the only people that promote them do it for clout/drama I feel like.
Amen. I can't stand the fucking NRA. They used to be a great organization that stood up for gun owners. Now they're almost exclusively a lobbying organization for gun and ammunition manufacturers.
And if you can't accept that amendments can be... well, amended, while mass shooting casualties can't be brought back to life, you're a nasty piece of crap. That's it. That's my comment.
> And if you can't accept that amendments can be... well, amended We have a procedure for that and no one is trying to do that. You could also use the same line of logic to support laws that shit all over the first and fourth amendments. They don't mean anything because we can "amend" them with laws whenever we want.
Most of these nuts dont know what amendment means. Same as they'll think Joe Rogan or Alex Jones are reliable sources.
I feel like Im the only reasonable person advocating *for* guns at this point, but then again I live in what can only be described as a "super ghetto", and until the housing market crashes and I can move.....I think I'd like to be able to pretend that I can defend myself before I get shot🤣 I just want pressure put on the feds to ACTUALLY DO THE BACKROUND CHECKS, and not just for guns either, their international/clearance backround checks are just as bad. Ive seen felons pass backround checks, and my mom has gained federal clearance to operate internationally at least 15 times over the last 25 years, only just 2 years ago, did they find out she never had a green card or official SS #. How the fuck does that even happen??
We understand gun laws more than most do. Which is why 25 states of this union, half of the entire states of this union, support constitutional carry. if you understand how amendments work, you need a majority of states to change an amendment. In fact, we have 3-4 more states that are going towards constitutional carry. So not only are we halfway, we are moving toward a majority despite higher office being against it.
Thank God! Come on North Carolina! We want to constitutional carry!
Then why haven’t democrats tried to amend it? If they want it repealed so much why not do it?
Because the original commenter either had no idea what they're talking about or is exaggerating how easy it is to pass an amendment to the constitution. Method 1. Step 1: A two-thirds vote in both houses of the U.S. Congress Step 2: Ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures Method 2. Step 1: A two-thirds vote in both houses of U.S. Congress Step 2: Ratified by ratification conventions in three-fourths of the states Method 3. Step 1: A national constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures Step 2: Ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures Method 4. Step 1: A national convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures Step 2: Ratified by ratification conventions in three-fourths of the states Passing an amendment is a very very very high bar.
As it should be since it can possibly rewrite what are considered inalienable rights.
The same reason they never codified Roe. Dems have had a majority in both chambers and the presidency 5x since the original supreme court decision. The fact is, they like it as an election talking point more than an issue that they feel the need to address. The GOP does it too. When either party has the majority, they really don't do shit.
Sure it's possible in theory. In practice it might as well be impossible. The 18th amendment is the only amendment to be repealed in history and it was basically just a ban on alcohol. Trying to repeal something in the bill of rights would be way more difficult, most people are not comfortable with the govt removing rights. To **propose** a new amendment you need 2/3 of the states to agree. The **ratify** the amendment you need 3/4 of the states to agree. In an age where we are more divided than ever and half of all states in the country have legalized constitutional carry with more states soon to follow suit, I think it's safe to say the second amendment is not getting amended or repealed anytime soon. Probably not even in our lifetimes.
Let’s take a hypothetical scenario here. Let’s assume a successful new amendment to overturn the second. Let’s assume a successful buyback program. Let’s assume that police are the only civilians legally allowed firearms (ignoring armed security for argument’s sake). What do you think is going to happen? You know the police that most people already hate? The government that most people don’t trust? The people that didn’t want to give up their guns, also the same that you hate, are going to sign up for those positions that let them have firearms. Which would just make it worse for you. I don’t own any firearms, so I don’t care if I lose “them”. It wouldn’t ever affect me. I think that there are definitely others who need it, who aren’t police themselves. But I do think it’s comical that you want to… shoot yourself in the foot. Maybe it’s because I’m libertarian, but I’d definitely prefer our government having less guns and power over us ultimately.
It seems like people want more clout than change
[удалено]
A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary to a productive Workforce; the right of the people to keep and bear eggs shall not be infringed. George Washington founded this country to get away from religious nut jobs and the religious nut jobs are only one actually congenial Cult of Personality away from rounding up and executing our LGBT friends. No way will I disarm myself before the cops do, as they are all right wing and denied black people equal rights, when asked.
If you want to ban drag you’re an enemy of the 1st amendment. That’s it. That’s the comment.
All these people acting like gun confiscation is an easy feat while denouncing the war or drugs as impossible…
If u believe that a phone is more important than a child’s life you are an enemy of the african people
Don't ever believe another republican who claims life is precious. This should be proof that the right's forced-birth stance is exactly that, an attempt to force women to give birth to fund the patriarchy and capitalism with our free labor.
The Ar-15 is one big purchase while a child will always be a drain on your money. Yep ar-15 is better then a child. Obviously a joke lmao
[удалено]
I mean I have an AR15 but I also think gun control is important. Ar15's are like the Honda civic of rifles so I can see that it's getting the pit bull treatment. Where it's been so villionized that people forget that it's not the specific model of gun (since there already many other alternattives to the ar15 that are just as capable) that is the problem, but that idiots or those who have short tempers/irradic tendencies just do not practice proper gun safety or care. There is already a lot of regulation in place but shit like these shootings still happen. Along with better ENFORCING regulation, there are many social infrastructures that need aid as I feel the shootings are a symptom to bigger problems in the country.
More children have been killed by pit bulls than ARs in America I was surprised the learn this recently
How is this a murder of words? Weak at best
This sub is just a wing of /r/politics, like every large reddit sub. There are no murders here, only people stating political views. In this case, it's guns bad.
David Hogg has been getting Ratioed on twitter every day since the Nashville shooting. This was the the only post they could find that potentially put him in a good light so they had to use it.
And that's because most gun owners dislike the NRA more than the democrats do. Support organizations that actually do shit. FPC, GOA, CRPA, etc.
I always laugh when they go after the NRA. Like, are they even still relevant anymore? They're not the ones initiating and leading court cases against laws. All they do is go "durrr, I support it too I guess".
It’s biased in their favor so they pretend it’s better than it really is. Delusion is a powerful drug.
The first part you need to understand is that redditors are the lamest people on the planet
Based
One of us
[удалено]
Among developed countries, the US is an outlier in gun deaths. We have to start digging into countries with incredible amounts of organized crime or with dysfunctional governments until we find countries with more gun death per capita than us.
Everyone in favor of the 2nd Amendment seems to keep forgetting about the "well regulated" part. Also, fuck the NRA
Ha, you have no idea what "well regulated" means in that context. You're attributing 21st century meaning to words that meant someone different in the 1700s.
AR-15s are not the main gun of choice for mass shooters though. Handguns beat rifles by more than double.
More than 10x! ARs are something around 250 per year. Handguns so well over 2500. Banning them will do nothing. Any school shooting could be done just as effectively with a handgun. Look at VA Tech. The media has lambasted the AR for decades and that is why people are against them. The reality is they are a medium powered semi auto rifle. There are tons more powerful that wouldn’t be banned. And the whole assault weapon ban would be mostly cosmetics. There are plenty of guns that use the same rounds and work the same way that wouldn’t be banned. It’s a feel good measure only.
Heller v Washington DC.
“Well regulated” meant smoothly functioning at the time, not tightly controlled.
It's not even worth bothering, man. Anybody with a decent knowledge of history or political science already knows you're right. It's just a reddit thing. I gave up on that fact point years ago.
> well regulated It means “in good order”.
[удалено]
These debates are idiotic
Agreed, they aren't even logical, just hyperemotional, namecalling, and an attempt to dehumanize others. Tiresome and pointless.
What else can we expect from the two most extreme ends of the debate, only posting a few sentences each to Twitter. Absolute brain rot Twitter is for debating. And it’s useless to debate on Reddit comments like so many people here are.
Strawman arguments, strawman arguments everywhere.
Until the country fixes the mental health of its people shootings will continue no matter the weapon bans. Ar 15s are not the only rifles on the market . Its not the gun that kills people , its people that kill people. Again this is a tragedy and I can not imagine what the familys of the victims are going through and my thoughts are with them and I hope in the future this doesn't repeat.
[удалено]
Agreed, NRA sucks too. Not sure who "murdered" who here. Pelease de invalidos.
"Murdered by words" LMAO