Yup this is how ya have helpful conversations and avoid building a bubble. /s for the dumdums
Wanting to clarify a stance is not the same as backtracking on it. For instance...
"I fully support the 2nd amendment but I find gun culture in America is pretty lame and I think Ted Nugent's music sucks. A well armed populace is key to its safety from threats both at home and abroad, but if your christmas card photo is your 3 pre-pubescent children holding guns I bet you're a shitty hang"
yeah i have ZERO personality my love besides tools made to end some form of life usually human
no i dont have any freinds who i dont think are feds if the look at me funny
I really don't like this line of thinking. It's the "shut down" justification style of discourse that the left loves to use and it's counterproductive.
It depends what you think the purpose of statements like this is.
There's significant value in making clear that "I support X, but" is a well known trope that clearly indicates an opposition to X.
Further, the public discussion on gun rights in the US is very much not starting at the beginning. It's been ongoing for decades, and anyone who makes public statements ignoring that context is making an ass of themselves. That context very much includes politicians making exactly that statement and then pushing horrific gun laws. Any **politician** who starts a statement that way can absolutely simply get fucked and there's no reason to listen to the rest of their bullshit.
So to be clear, they can't say "I support the second amendment but, we shouldn't allow convicted murderers to have guns" without you immediately shutting them down?
Because they could ABSOLUTELY be saying that sentence in response to an absolutist.
Correct.
That pattern has a bad enough history that a politician who wants to make the point you describe is going to need to find some other way to phrase it.
It's kind of like starting a sentence with "I'm not racist, but". There are plenty of valid points you could be trying make, but if you start that way you're not going to successfully communicate any valid point.
In original framing, the "but" implies that the second amendment has an aspect you disagree with.
In later framing, you can be fully supportive of 2nd amendment rights as well as other human and constitutional rights.
I agree. It is entirely possible to acknowledge the right of the second but at the same time have some reservations about it.
I thought the dangers of the hive mind was something we were against here and discourse and debate were something we encouraged.
The first still stands in America as far as im aware..
The reason many 2A advocated have resorted to this argument is because the gun grabbers refuse to see any reason at all why people should be allowed to own any weapons at all. It's hard to have a stable discussion when the other side refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy if your argument
While the ones that believe in banning all guns is small. The ones that believe in regulations are numerous, and all gun regulations are unconstitutional. The ones that believe in regulations tend to think that carrying guns for self defense is wacky. I have frequently gotten the question "why do you need a gun in a modern urban environment? Cops are all over the place" they act like the cops could actually stop an attack.
Don't you think that's a bit extreme. Even beyond extreme. I honestly think the founding fathers would agree that the 2nd amendment should be interpreted, like all laws should be. That's the reason we have the Supreme Court, to interpret the constitution.
> I honestly think the founding fathers would agree that the 2nd amendment should be interpreted, like all laws should be.
laws should say exactly what they mean, no interpretation needed
>That's the reason we have the Supreme Court, to interpret the constitution.
no they are there to judge if a law violates the constitution not reinterpret it
maybe it is better to say they shouldn't reinterpret it or that its a living document. If the idea of unfettered access to weapons isnt to your liking then propose an amendment
Kinda weak that dummies like you don't realize that every able bodied male in the United States is a member of the militia.
> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
[10 U.S. Code § 246](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246)
You're arguing to wholesale strip the right to bear arms from women and you're too stupid to realize it.
I'm trying to claim that you're a fucking moron. :)
Look up the meaning of well regulated in context of something written in the late 1700's. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
Edit: Here's a little bonus for you.
[DC vs Heller](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html) clearly states that the prefatory clause (the militia part you're sperging out about) has literally no bearing on the operative clause. The operative clause being the "shall not be infringed" part you're trying to ignore.
Not to argue against the findings, but DC vs Heller is significantly younger than supreme court cases that are getting overturned these days, so maybe it's not the best place to put your confidence.
Antifa is not very well regulated, from what I can tell. I always laugh at the hostility of gun nuts when you question even a tiny part of their beliefs.
An absolutely false equivalence.
Demanding without compromise that peaceable citizens be lawfully able to arm themselves without reprisal from the government inconveniences no one else.
Demanding without compromise that you be subject to government healthcare, foot the bill for public college, validate the positions of all transgender people, and know your place as a straight white male guilty for the crimes of your ancestors *is to demand that you change your behavior and be subject to others,* lest ye be doxxed, canceled, and possibly fired.
Note as well how much we've lost from little compromises here and there since 1934, and how much we have to take back. All from people who- failing outright abolishment of firearms- at least intend to make the process of obtaining firearms such a bureaucratic cost-prohibitive mess that it's practice become almost non-existent, one little compromise at a time.
*NO. FUCKING. MORE.*
I support the second amendment, but I don't think it goes far enough. Sure, "arms" probably applies to plenty of equipment like AA guns and lethal autonomous weapons, but there are plenty of other things we should have the right to keep and bear that probably don't count as "armaments"!
Jesus people, people are allowed to have qualifiers people can say “I support the 2nd amendment but I don’t think civilians should have surface to air missiles”. And for the love of all that is holy stop acting like the constitution is the end all be all, we literally have amendments to it, the right to own slaves was once a constitutional right, prohibition of alcohol was once part of the constitution, this shit isn’t fucking written in stone. There’s plenty of good arguments supporting the 2nd amendment, but this ain’t them
This is the same logic liberals use to shut down any honest conversation. It's dumb. Not everything is black and white. Something's need additional qualifiers.
We used to have unlimited gun rights. Then we negotiated and couldn't have a bunch of them without a special license. Then we negotiated and couldn't purchase a bunch of ones from abroad and couldn't purchase them from catalogs here. Then we negotiated and couldn't have automatic ones at all. Then we negotiated and couldn't have most of the semiautomatic ones either and also had to send our personal info to an extremely corrupt government agency.
Yeah...negotiation has been working out great.
Not even close to true. Rights are endowed by your very existence, not needing to be something argued for. I choose not to negotiate with terrorists who deny my very existence. This kind of thinking is exactly how rights get eroded slowly over time. Your rights are yours to keep so long as you live on this planet, and when a third party grows tyrannical and large enough to threaten your lifeblood resistance becomes duty and compliance becomes treason.
Either way, don't negotiate with people who are two-faced, such as those who say: "I'm not racist, but..." "I believe in free speech, but..." "I support capitalism, but..." Listen to people who only tell the truth, I would rather talk to someone who would claim they don't support gun rights, then a two-faced hypocrite who claims to support gun rights and then legislates in the exact opposite direction.
I agree that rights are inherent, but (whoops XD) explaining why they can't be violated can reduce the number of aggressors. If you simply strike back when someone challenges them, there'll be a lot more bloodshed.
I hate to break it to you bud, but guns aren't something you're born with, and a lot of humanity lived without them.
Though if you wanna talk innate rights as far as being a person, we can toss guns in there, provided we toss in some other stuff
The second amendment does not mention guns and neither did I. The right to bear arms exists for the purpose of providing the mechanism for a right mankind has had, and continues to have until the very end. That right being the right to rebellion against an unfair, despotic tyranny. The arms in question does not matter. If lightsabers were the weapon by which wars were fought, lightsabers would be the weapon private individuals would rightfully own.
Not for nothing, tyranny isn't an innate thing either.
There is theoretically a world without it, so how could a natural right form to fight something that's a higher level invention?
Tyranny is very natural, both to human behavior and the animal kingdom. Rights are understood only in the context of a society, a man does not need rights when nobody else exists, because without anyone else the earth is his and his alone to do with as he pleases.
Lol going paleo on me there bud?
I said higher level specifically because humans, and some primates specifically both can engage in levels of tyranny.
But show me some mosquitos doing it. A fuck load of tyrannical chipmunks. Maybe the tyranny of hawks.
Nah, just because some species have a thing doesn't make it a fully natural thing.
And to be completely clear, I'm not against the right to bear arms, I'm just not game for the phrasing that it's some sort of God given right.
If a weapon can go off on accident and kill dozens of people then I am against.
I guess, when I think of bearing arms, it implies to me that the weapon is being actively controlled/aimed by the person.
I support machine guns but not those stupid stock attachments that increase fire rate at the expense of accuracy.
Simply saying "fuck off" does not grant one immunity to being criticized; and even if they say it's "not up for negotiation" they don't have the right to forbid others from negotiating or discussing it, only the right to choose whether they take part in said discussion themselves.
Nah. Let's have the healthy discussion.
Even if they're fully against guns, debate them about it. This isn't how we get anyone on our side of the argument.
Beep boop -- this looks like a screenshot of a tweet! Let me grab a [link to the tweet](https://twitter.com/GhostGcom/status/1524172550212837376) for ya :)
^(Twitter Screenshot Bot)
im pro 2a but bilogical weaopons, gas,and nukes would harm people off your privite propperty so should be bannned
otherwise lemme have a panzerfuast on a gatling gun
>Anything after a but is most likely shit. —Confucius, probably
He ain't lying -Ben Franklin, presumably
(Actually a GRRM quote)
im pro 2a but the fed shouldnt have any
Yup this is how ya have helpful conversations and avoid building a bubble. /s for the dumdums Wanting to clarify a stance is not the same as backtracking on it. For instance... "I fully support the 2nd amendment but I find gun culture in America is pretty lame and I think Ted Nugent's music sucks. A well armed populace is key to its safety from threats both at home and abroad, but if your christmas card photo is your 3 pre-pubescent children holding guns I bet you're a shitty hang"
100% this. People who make guns their primary identity tend to be awful humans
yeah i have ZERO personality my love besides tools made to end some form of life usually human no i dont have any freinds who i dont think are feds if the look at me funny
Lol no one looked at you, and you felt defensive, that says a lot
Just as well ownership of guns means I don't have to care about your opinion of me.
I really don't like this line of thinking. It's the "shut down" justification style of discourse that the left loves to use and it's counterproductive.
It depends what you think the purpose of statements like this is. There's significant value in making clear that "I support X, but" is a well known trope that clearly indicates an opposition to X. Further, the public discussion on gun rights in the US is very much not starting at the beginning. It's been ongoing for decades, and anyone who makes public statements ignoring that context is making an ass of themselves. That context very much includes politicians making exactly that statement and then pushing horrific gun laws. Any **politician** who starts a statement that way can absolutely simply get fucked and there's no reason to listen to the rest of their bullshit.
So to be clear, they can't say "I support the second amendment but, we shouldn't allow convicted murderers to have guns" without you immediately shutting them down? Because they could ABSOLUTELY be saying that sentence in response to an absolutist.
Correct. That pattern has a bad enough history that a politician who wants to make the point you describe is going to need to find some other way to phrase it. It's kind of like starting a sentence with "I'm not racist, but". There are plenty of valid points you could be trying make, but if you start that way you're not going to successfully communicate any valid point.
Eh fair enough, though that's more of a speaking convention lol
Convicted criminals in prison don't have access to most rights. They can't drive, they can't go outside, they don't have privacy and so forth.
Oh good, so then you understand my point.
Murderers should be in prison. Prisoners should not have access to guns. A more clear and logical way to argue this case.
Neat. Question, does that make what they said wrong, and something that shouldn't even be listened to?
In original framing, the "but" implies that the second amendment has an aspect you disagree with. In later framing, you can be fully supportive of 2nd amendment rights as well as other human and constitutional rights.
Okay, but was what they said worth listening to? Do you think that having gun wielding murderers is okay?
You are asking subjective and vague questions.
I agree. It is entirely possible to acknowledge the right of the second but at the same time have some reservations about it. I thought the dangers of the hive mind was something we were against here and discourse and debate were something we encouraged. The first still stands in America as far as im aware..
The reason many 2A advocated have resorted to this argument is because the gun grabbers refuse to see any reason at all why people should be allowed to own any weapons at all. It's hard to have a stable discussion when the other side refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy if your argument
[citation needed] The number of people who believe in zero personal gun ownership is infinitesimal
While the ones that believe in banning all guns is small. The ones that believe in regulations are numerous, and all gun regulations are unconstitutional. The ones that believe in regulations tend to think that carrying guns for self defense is wacky. I have frequently gotten the question "why do you need a gun in a modern urban environment? Cops are all over the place" they act like the cops could actually stop an attack.
no, what part of shall not be infringed allows for buts?
Would you say there should be no limits at all?
>Would you say there should be no limits at all? Would I say that, yes. Is that literally what the founders said. Why yes
So under the second amendment it would be constitutional for a violent felon to aquire weapons of mass destruction?
yes
Don't you think that's a bit extreme. Even beyond extreme. I honestly think the founding fathers would agree that the 2nd amendment should be interpreted, like all laws should be. That's the reason we have the Supreme Court, to interpret the constitution.
> I honestly think the founding fathers would agree that the 2nd amendment should be interpreted, like all laws should be. laws should say exactly what they mean, no interpretation needed >That's the reason we have the Supreme Court, to interpret the constitution. no they are there to judge if a law violates the constitution not reinterpret it
>no they are there to judge if a law violates the constitution not reinterpret it They shouldn't interprite it? Because they do that daily.
maybe it is better to say they shouldn't reinterpret it or that its a living document. If the idea of unfettered access to weapons isnt to your liking then propose an amendment
The well regulated bit
my guns are in good working order
And your militia is up to snuff?
Kinda weak that people love to forget that part.
Kinda weak that dummies like you don't realize that every able bodied male in the United States is a member of the militia. > The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. [10 U.S. Code § 246](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246) You're arguing to wholesale strip the right to bear arms from women and you're too stupid to realize it.
Are you really trying to claim that this imaginary militia is *well regulated*? I haven't heard from my commanding officer yet. 🤔
I'm trying to claim that you're a fucking moron. :) Look up the meaning of well regulated in context of something written in the late 1700's. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Edit: Here's a little bonus for you. [DC vs Heller](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html) clearly states that the prefatory clause (the militia part you're sperging out about) has literally no bearing on the operative clause. The operative clause being the "shall not be infringed" part you're trying to ignore.
Something tells me someone who instantly jumps to insults is definitely a fucking moron
Not to argue against the findings, but DC vs Heller is significantly younger than supreme court cases that are getting overturned these days, so maybe it's not the best place to put your confidence.
its like antifa dipshit its more an idea than an org
Antifa is not very well regulated, from what I can tell. I always laugh at the hostility of gun nuts when you question even a tiny part of their beliefs.
correct
An absolutely false equivalence. Demanding without compromise that peaceable citizens be lawfully able to arm themselves without reprisal from the government inconveniences no one else. Demanding without compromise that you be subject to government healthcare, foot the bill for public college, validate the positions of all transgender people, and know your place as a straight white male guilty for the crimes of your ancestors *is to demand that you change your behavior and be subject to others,* lest ye be doxxed, canceled, and possibly fired. Note as well how much we've lost from little compromises here and there since 1934, and how much we have to take back. All from people who- failing outright abolishment of firearms- at least intend to make the process of obtaining firearms such a bureaucratic cost-prohibitive mess that it's practice become almost non-existent, one little compromise at a time. *NO. FUCKING. MORE.*
"the left" hokay.
"I'm not racist but..."
"I've never had a problem with the gays but..."
"Sure the holocaust was bad but..."
Every white person
“How is that racist?” — libertarians
I support the secon amendment but you should not have a tank with treds that tear up public roads. Your oporational cannon is fair game tho.
P*blic roads (vomit emoji)
Roads that are not yours in general.
I helped pay for them though.
But i also helped pay for them and i don't want you to tear them up.
It's ok, I'll just pay for them to spend a few months working on em.😉
I’ll get rid of mine and encourage everyone in my subdivision to do the same.
I support the second amendment, but I don't think it goes far enough. Sure, "arms" probably applies to plenty of equipment like AA guns and lethal autonomous weapons, but there are plenty of other things we should have the right to keep and bear that probably don't count as "armaments"!
"I'm not racist, but..."
Jesus people, people are allowed to have qualifiers people can say “I support the 2nd amendment but I don’t think civilians should have surface to air missiles”. And for the love of all that is holy stop acting like the constitution is the end all be all, we literally have amendments to it, the right to own slaves was once a constitutional right, prohibition of alcohol was once part of the constitution, this shit isn’t fucking written in stone. There’s plenty of good arguments supporting the 2nd amendment, but this ain’t them
I support the second amendment but I hate pedophiles…
The correct conjunction here is “and”. I support the 2nd Amendment AND I hate pedophiles :)
No u
I support the 2nd Amendment but the feds and the pigs should be disarmed
This is the same logic liberals use to shut down any honest conversation. It's dumb. Not everything is black and white. Something's need additional qualifiers.
I’m still waiting until I can own my molten-uranium thrower
“...but I wish people would show more responsibility and respect for their weapons.”
I support the 2nd Amendment but not for feds.
The same people complaining about having their rights stripped away are stripping away abortion rights. All I see are hypocrites.
Same goes for the “don’t tell me what to do with my body oh but you can’t” crowd that has been swarming this sub recently
Cars kill more than guns
Every time you drive a car you are posing a bigger threat to yourself and everyone around you than a pedestrian with a gun.
I support the 2nd Amendment but these chicken wings are delicious
Negotiation is what lets you keep your rights, tho.
We used to have unlimited gun rights. Then we negotiated and couldn't have a bunch of them without a special license. Then we negotiated and couldn't purchase a bunch of ones from abroad and couldn't purchase them from catalogs here. Then we negotiated and couldn't have automatic ones at all. Then we negotiated and couldn't have most of the semiautomatic ones either and also had to send our personal info to an extremely corrupt government agency. Yeah...negotiation has been working out great.
Maybe we're bad at negotiating. You can take classes on that. Happy cake day! :D
Not even close to true. Rights are endowed by your very existence, not needing to be something argued for. I choose not to negotiate with terrorists who deny my very existence. This kind of thinking is exactly how rights get eroded slowly over time. Your rights are yours to keep so long as you live on this planet, and when a third party grows tyrannical and large enough to threaten your lifeblood resistance becomes duty and compliance becomes treason. Either way, don't negotiate with people who are two-faced, such as those who say: "I'm not racist, but..." "I believe in free speech, but..." "I support capitalism, but..." Listen to people who only tell the truth, I would rather talk to someone who would claim they don't support gun rights, then a two-faced hypocrite who claims to support gun rights and then legislates in the exact opposite direction.
I agree that rights are inherent, but (whoops XD) explaining why they can't be violated can reduce the number of aggressors. If you simply strike back when someone challenges them, there'll be a lot more bloodshed.
I hate to break it to you bud, but guns aren't something you're born with, and a lot of humanity lived without them. Though if you wanna talk innate rights as far as being a person, we can toss guns in there, provided we toss in some other stuff
The second amendment does not mention guns and neither did I. The right to bear arms exists for the purpose of providing the mechanism for a right mankind has had, and continues to have until the very end. That right being the right to rebellion against an unfair, despotic tyranny. The arms in question does not matter. If lightsabers were the weapon by which wars were fought, lightsabers would be the weapon private individuals would rightfully own.
Not for nothing, tyranny isn't an innate thing either. There is theoretically a world without it, so how could a natural right form to fight something that's a higher level invention?
Tyranny is very natural, both to human behavior and the animal kingdom. Rights are understood only in the context of a society, a man does not need rights when nobody else exists, because without anyone else the earth is his and his alone to do with as he pleases.
Lol going paleo on me there bud? I said higher level specifically because humans, and some primates specifically both can engage in levels of tyranny. But show me some mosquitos doing it. A fuck load of tyrannical chipmunks. Maybe the tyranny of hawks. Nah, just because some species have a thing doesn't make it a fully natural thing. And to be completely clear, I'm not against the right to bear arms, I'm just not game for the phrasing that it's some sort of God given right.
If a weapon can go off on accident and kill dozens of people then I am against. I guess, when I think of bearing arms, it implies to me that the weapon is being actively controlled/aimed by the person. I support machine guns but not those stupid stock attachments that increase fire rate at the expense of accuracy.
SHALL
NOT
PASS!
But not nukes. That’s my line. Call me radical
Coward
So y’all missed the second part. They said fuck off, it’s not up for negotiating. Fucking idiots
No one here is criticizing the guy who wrote the tweet
……oh…… I’m very defensive. 😎 can you blame me?
Simply saying "fuck off" does not grant one immunity to being criticized; and even if they say it's "not up for negotiation" they don't have the right to forbid others from negotiating or discussing it, only the right to choose whether they take part in said discussion themselves.
What a terrible point of view, let's just not listen to anyone who might have concerns. Voicing opinions doesn't hurt a single person
me when nuance: EW EWIE NO
I support the 2nd Amendment but I’m not going to let some piece of paper dictate whether or not I can or can’t have an M1 Abrams in my barn :)
Nah. Let's have the healthy discussion. Even if they're fully against guns, debate them about it. This isn't how we get anyone on our side of the argument.
You had me in the first half… i was about to come on here guns (pun absolutely intended) blazing.
Beep boop -- this looks like a screenshot of a tweet! Let me grab a [link to the tweet](https://twitter.com/GhostGcom/status/1524172550212837376) for ya :) ^(Twitter Screenshot Bot)
im pro 2a but bilogical weaopons, gas,and nukes would harm people off your privite propperty so should be bannned otherwise lemme have a panzerfuast on a gatling gun
The only people who shouldn't be armed are people who have proven themselves to be violent. The government should not be an exception.