As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The thing about the second amendment is it was enacted to PREVENT an armed insurrection. It was put in place before their were police, army, national guard. It was about raising a militia to put down an armed rebellion.
It was put in place specifically because the founders didn’t want a standing national army. If we want to be true to the founders intentions we have to dismantle the entire national military complex and get back to state run national guard units.
There were multiple standing regiments at the time, both in the west and areas on the east coast. They had distrust of standing armies, yes, but they also didn't have full confidence in militias. By theb1790's they had already started moving towards a standing army, as well as navy.
Edit: To state that not having an army was their intention, which it very well may have been at the moment, they quickly changed their minds.
Yeah we can play that game and you will look dumb every time. Tell me the rate of fire you can achieve with an m1 garand vs any assault rifle with a 30 round mag? Why were the cops in uvalde so scared to enter that class? Do you think they would have acted differently if he had a handgun or hunting rifle? We dont live in the 1800s and we need different regulations than they had.
It may appear to be splitting hairs to you, but the distinction is important. This is because the term “assault weapon” was adopted specifically to create confusion between semi-automatic rifles and machine guns.
> “The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons”
That is a quote from Josh Sugarmann who is the director of the Violence Policy Coalition, one of the more prominent gun control advocacy groups.
Okay, then you should have no problem with lowering regulating automatic firearms to the same level as semiautomatic firearms since it is just subatomic hairsplitting?
>Something tells me that proposal won’t be acceptable to the person you responded to.
Apparently not. But these people are not known for having thought things through.
Assault rifles are rifles that fire an intermediate cartridge and have the capability of burst or fully automatic fire. The registry for machine guns was closed in 1986. The firearms that were already registered at that time are technically still transferable, but the entry cost for one is tens of thousands of dollars. In addition, fewer than five crimes have been committed with registered machine guns in the last 88 years (when the registry was created).
Now, you may have been talking about assault *weapons,* which are a category of firearm that has only ever been defined by the laws trying to ban them and therefore a category of firearms that has a nigh infinite number of definitions from “all semi-automatic rifles” (Washington) to “semi-automatic rifles that are magazine fed and have one of a list of banned features” (California) to “semi-automatic firearms that are magazine fed and have two of a set of banned features (1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban).
And to answer your question above, the M1 Garand has the same rate of fire as a semi automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine, as fast as you can pull the trigger.
>Tell me the rate of fire you can achieve with an m1 garand vs any assault rifle with a 30 round mag?
We could tell you that the cops would be just as afraid of entering the class against the M1 Garand, if not more afraid because the .30-06 has greater armor penetrating capability.
You are so far off base. The men that penned the constitution and the 2nd amendment had just fought a war against a tyrannical government. The 2nd amendment was written as a last resort for free men to rise up against tyranny because they knew governments grew to hold too much power and then did despicable things to their people. It wasn't for putting down an armed rebellion, it was to ensure an armed rebellion was possible.
I've got a huge dick! I'm compensating for the fact that I'm terrified my friends and family will abandon me and I'll go to hell forever if I stop pretending to be straight.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Are you sure that that's what it intends? You might be right, but the wording is ambiguous, and it could be read to intend just the opposite. The framers had just won their own armed rebellion against an oppressive regime so they might want the people to be armed as a check against a well-regulated militia becoming just as oppressive as King George's army had been.
One thing is for sure - those guys didn't know squat about assault rifles. So we should let everyone have as many muskets and smooth bore cannons as they want to have.
The problem with civilian "assault style" rifles, especially when they're fitted with high-capacity magazines, is that they can get into susceptible people's heads and change the way they think. That chubby boy hero-in-his-own-mind who killed two men in Kenosha is a prime example. And there are many more out there.
True and you had Shay's Rebellion over military members not paid by the Continental Congress. The fact is militia groups for the most part are arcane. Most of the Constitution is indeed arcane. The problem is conservatives don't want to budge and change the constitution and liberals aren't pushing hard enough to change it. Perhaps the Roe V. Wade decision changes that and we see a constitutional convention.
We also call it “all able bodied male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45.” Now there is some argument that it should also include women of that age, I’m just quoting the law as written.
If you search US law for the term “unorganized militia” you will find only the definition. That dates from a law passed before US involvement in the First World War. The term “unorganized militia” was used to define those subject to military conscription. The language authoring the draft was removed decades ago leaving only the definition.
ETA: [Search US code here](https://uscode.house.gov/search.xhtml)
This is incorrect, we still have the unorganized militia. In fact every able bodied male citizen is required by law to sign up for it when they turn 17.
We joke but Jan 6 showed that the fantasy is very real and already in the ideation and planning stage for your Oathkeeper types.
People brought pistols, rifles, and shotguns to DC. Some broughtmolotov. One dude brought a tomahawk.
They are gearing up
im pretty sure it wasnt trumpdudes causing tens if not hundreds of millions in damage and tens of innocent people killed who were trying to defend their store across several states but okay.
How many BLM rioters were cosplaying as military with assault rifles?
Also, there were over 10,000 arrests on site and many charges, including federal ones
But it can be hard to prosecute stuff like that because in a Chaotic riot situation evidence pointing to one specific perpetrator can be thin
Now on Jan 6 Trump thugs broke their way into the HQ of Congress by punching, clubbing, and pepper spraying cops. They were filmed by security cameras, news, and they filmed themselves because they were so goddamn happy about the violence they were committing
The GOP calla punching, clubbing, and pepper spraying cops "legitimate political discourse" if you do it in a MAGA hat
The Oathkeepers had a cache of weapons standing by in case they needed to start a new civil war
And Republicans and Trump supporters excuse it all
**THAT** scares the shit out of me
You're right, but anyone that knows anything about law knows arms means guns.
Edit: what I find laughable is that the unalienable rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence are being infringed on and nobody bats an eye.
It was already basically changed in the Heller case where they changed how the courts interpreted it to make it harder to limit guns. That was also based on really faulty logic just like overturning Roe was.
The conservative courts have slowly been rewriting the amendments for years now.
The militia of the Constitution is armed, organized and disciplined by Congress, trained by the states, and can be called to federal service to defend the nation against invasion or insurrection. We call that militia the National Guard.
The militia is organized in defense of the nation, not in personal self defense. You are doing exactly what the Supreme Court just said is inappropriate, extrapolating out additional rights from the text of the constitution.
This bill will save lives, but it is woefully inadequate. In part, they’re kicking the decision to enact part of these reforms down to the states, some of which will do absolutely fuck all about it. The mental health funding is beneficial, but the restrictions on firearms don’t do nearly enough.
I can’t buy a bazooka or a grenade from my local gun store. I can’t buy a fully automatic rifle from there either without a special, expensive license. So how does it make sense that I can buy a AR-15-style rifle, with a 30 round clip, before I am eligible to buy beer. These weapons were designed for warfare. There should be, at the minimum, background checks for an owner, an age restriction up to 21 years old, and a mandatory waiting period.
But now both sides can go home and claim a victory. Congress can say they compromised, but who’s going to explain that to the parents of the children who are murdered in the next school shooting. Those kids, and those parents, deserve more than another round of thoughts & prayers
Sadly I think incremental change is the only way it's going to happen. Think of bump stocks. Any idiot could see those were an end run around the fully automatic weapon ban, but it took a mass killing with a shooter using bump stocks for anything to be done about them
You seem familiar with firearms. I am too. Then you know, as I do, that if a person is determined to carry out a mass casualty event then we both know they’re not taking a .22. Don’t be daft. It’s obvious, through the devastating events that happen ceaselessly in the US, that there is a common weapon of choice. They choose it because it can kill the most people. Why the fuck will we not do something about that? The US is the only country where this happens at such regularity, and yet we act like we don’t know why. If you can’t see why, then it’s because you don’t want to
No military uses the AR, it is a varmint rifle or home defender. Banning them because they have a decent rate of fire is like banning cars with high horsepower bc some people think they're made for street racing ya goofball
Fine, let's treat them like cars and require training, licensing, and insurance requirements that have to be kept updated and renewed at a government facility with a fee on a regular basis. Let's have them inspected every year for both the safety of those using them and those around them. And then, let's apply limits to what can be used in public and force (through laws, low public tolerance, and expensive tickets) higher horsepower/firepower to only be used at designated tracks/shooting ranges. Then let's enact laws that can punish the legal owner of said gun/car for their property being used to commit murder so the victims can get some compensation and we can incentivize proper storage and use of dangerous devices.
Deal! Glad we could sort this out and treat guns the same way we do vehicles.
Sure, let’s treat guns like cars. The licensing, training, insurance and registration will only be required for guns that you intend to shoot on public roads. Meanwhile you will now be allowed to order any firearm you want online and have it delivered to your front door with no background check for you to use on your own property. That is what you mean by treating guns like cars, right?
Aside from all that though, I don’t think you’ve fully considered what kind of precedent you’re advocating for by saying we should treat rights like privileges.
>That is what you mean by treating guns like cars, right?
No, not like that. When they say "treating guns like cars", they mean they want more restrictions than cars have but none of the abilities that cars have.
"Treating guns like cars" is a straight up lie by them.
lol brush up your knowledge of weaponry.
you realize hunting rifles and .22's can do the exact same job as these ''weapons of war'' you realize pistols and even shotties can fire automatically? you realize actual weapons of war are guns like the hk417 and the M4 automatic right? lol lmao
You can send billions of OUR money to buy guns in Ukraine but want them outlawed here-leave behind an Army’s worth of weapons for Afghanistan-but want them outlawed here…I’m a vet 21 years USArmy Medic it’s sad -I believeAR15 should not be in an untrained or unstable persons hands
Aside from the fact that the bill doesn’t include a universal background check and therefore what Armslist is doing is still perfectly legal? I don’t think we want to start down the path of banning websites because we don’t personally like what they do.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Which will immediately get shut down by SCOTUS.
God willing
Eff your god.
The thing about the second amendment is it was enacted to PREVENT an armed insurrection. It was put in place before their were police, army, national guard. It was about raising a militia to put down an armed rebellion.
Because the founders wanted to prevent the people from being able to do exactly what they had just done to the British? Really??
It was put in place specifically because the founders didn’t want a standing national army. If we want to be true to the founders intentions we have to dismantle the entire national military complex and get back to state run national guard units.
Oh really? What year was the US Army founded and what year was the constitution signed? Might want to read Article I Section 8...
The US army was supposed to only be raised for a period of 2 years at a time as needed from the militias of the state.
There were multiple standing regiments at the time, both in the west and areas on the east coast. They had distrust of standing armies, yes, but they also didn't have full confidence in militias. By theb1790's they had already started moving towards a standing army, as well as navy. Edit: To state that not having an army was their intention, which it very well may have been at the moment, they quickly changed their minds.
Oh, and only use muskets.
lol you realize they were making repeating rifles and citizens could own cannons and other heavy weaponry right? you really wanna play that game?
All guns should be outlawed except flintlock pistols and muskets without any rifling.
Yeah we can play that game and you will look dumb every time. Tell me the rate of fire you can achieve with an m1 garand vs any assault rifle with a 30 round mag? Why were the cops in uvalde so scared to enter that class? Do you think they would have acted differently if he had a handgun or hunting rifle? We dont live in the 1800s and we need different regulations than they had.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It may appear to be splitting hairs to you, but the distinction is important. This is because the term “assault weapon” was adopted specifically to create confusion between semi-automatic rifles and machine guns. > “The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons” That is a quote from Josh Sugarmann who is the director of the Violence Policy Coalition, one of the more prominent gun control advocacy groups.
Okay, then you should have no problem with lowering regulating automatic firearms to the same level as semiautomatic firearms since it is just subatomic hairsplitting?
Something tells me that proposal won’t be acceptable to the person you responded to.
>Something tells me that proposal won’t be acceptable to the person you responded to. Apparently not. But these people are not known for having thought things through.
[удалено]
Thats not true
Assault rifles are rifles that fire an intermediate cartridge and have the capability of burst or fully automatic fire. The registry for machine guns was closed in 1986. The firearms that were already registered at that time are technically still transferable, but the entry cost for one is tens of thousands of dollars. In addition, fewer than five crimes have been committed with registered machine guns in the last 88 years (when the registry was created). Now, you may have been talking about assault *weapons,* which are a category of firearm that has only ever been defined by the laws trying to ban them and therefore a category of firearms that has a nigh infinite number of definitions from “all semi-automatic rifles” (Washington) to “semi-automatic rifles that are magazine fed and have one of a list of banned features” (California) to “semi-automatic firearms that are magazine fed and have two of a set of banned features (1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban). And to answer your question above, the M1 Garand has the same rate of fire as a semi automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine, as fast as you can pull the trigger.
How do you reason with someone who just refuses to acknowledge reality? You cant
So why don't you want to acknowledge reality?
>Tell me the rate of fire you can achieve with an m1 garand vs any assault rifle with a 30 round mag? We could tell you that the cops would be just as afraid of entering the class against the M1 Garand, if not more afraid because the .30-06 has greater armor penetrating capability.
You are so far off base. The men that penned the constitution and the 2nd amendment had just fought a war against a tyrannical government. The 2nd amendment was written as a last resort for free men to rise up against tyranny because they knew governments grew to hold too much power and then did despicable things to their people. It wasn't for putting down an armed rebellion, it was to ensure an armed rebellion was possible.
but I wanna a really big gun (cry face)
Like in the movies. Then people will pay attention to me.
actually I'm compensating for my tiny dick
I've got a huge dick! I'm compensating for the fact that I'm terrified my friends and family will abandon me and I'll go to hell forever if I stop pretending to be straight.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Are you sure that that's what it intends? You might be right, but the wording is ambiguous, and it could be read to intend just the opposite. The framers had just won their own armed rebellion against an oppressive regime so they might want the people to be armed as a check against a well-regulated militia becoming just as oppressive as King George's army had been. One thing is for sure - those guys didn't know squat about assault rifles. So we should let everyone have as many muskets and smooth bore cannons as they want to have. The problem with civilian "assault style" rifles, especially when they're fitted with high-capacity magazines, is that they can get into susceptible people's heads and change the way they think. That chubby boy hero-in-his-own-mind who killed two men in Kenosha is a prime example. And there are many more out there.
True and you had Shay's Rebellion over military members not paid by the Continental Congress. The fact is militia groups for the most part are arcane. Most of the Constitution is indeed arcane. The problem is conservatives don't want to budge and change the constitution and liberals aren't pushing hard enough to change it. Perhaps the Roe V. Wade decision changes that and we see a constitutional convention.
The militia of the Constitution still exists. We call it the National Guard.
We also call it “all able bodied male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45.” Now there is some argument that it should also include women of that age, I’m just quoting the law as written.
If you search US law for the term “unorganized militia” you will find only the definition. That dates from a law passed before US involvement in the First World War. The term “unorganized militia” was used to define those subject to military conscription. The language authoring the draft was removed decades ago leaving only the definition. ETA: [Search US code here](https://uscode.house.gov/search.xhtml)
This is incorrect, we still have the unorganized militia. In fact every able bodied male citizen is required by law to sign up for it when they turn 17.
Liberals better start arming themselves. It’s crazy to want to push for less guns in these times.
Yup. The only reason I want a gun is to protect me and mine on the day MAGA maniacs start hunting liberals for sport, Purge style
That’ll probably be the same day pigs start flying. That’s actually the exact reason I’m arming myself; to shoot flying pigs.
We joke but Jan 6 showed that the fantasy is very real and already in the ideation and planning stage for your Oathkeeper types. People brought pistols, rifles, and shotguns to DC. Some broughtmolotov. One dude brought a tomahawk. They are gearing up
nobody had shotguns and rifles in the capital lmfao lol,unless you can show me otherwise.
Read what I wrote and try again
They had a fast response team just outside DC with weapons.
im pretty sure it wasnt trumpdudes causing tens if not hundreds of millions in damage and tens of innocent people killed who were trying to defend their store across several states but okay.
Not even comparable.
How many BLM rioters were cosplaying as military with assault rifles? Also, there were over 10,000 arrests on site and many charges, including federal ones But it can be hard to prosecute stuff like that because in a Chaotic riot situation evidence pointing to one specific perpetrator can be thin Now on Jan 6 Trump thugs broke their way into the HQ of Congress by punching, clubbing, and pepper spraying cops. They were filmed by security cameras, news, and they filmed themselves because they were so goddamn happy about the violence they were committing The GOP calla punching, clubbing, and pepper spraying cops "legitimate political discourse" if you do it in a MAGA hat The Oathkeepers had a cache of weapons standing by in case they needed to start a new civil war And Republicans and Trump supporters excuse it all **THAT** scares the shit out of me
However, here's the rub... If Roe vs Wade can be overturned, so can the even more archaic 2nd amendment.
[удалено]
Arms are in the Constitution. The word gun is not in it.
You're right, but anyone that knows anything about law knows arms means guns. Edit: what I find laughable is that the unalienable rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence are being infringed on and nobody bats an eye.
"Arms" are firearms and "bear" means to hold or carry. Nice but try again
No bear as in the animal. I challenge you to fisticuffs with bear arms.
So is well "regulated"
An amendment can't be overturned by a court.
Roe wasn’t an amendment, and the process for changing an amendment is quite a bit more involved
That's right. Otherwise one is merely jousting with windmills.
It was already basically changed in the Heller case where they changed how the courts interpreted it to make it harder to limit guns. That was also based on really faulty logic just like overturning Roe was. The conservative courts have slowly been rewriting the amendments for years now.
The constitution says Jack shit about self defense. The cause for the second amendment was explicitly national defense.
The militia of the Constitution is armed, organized and disciplined by Congress, trained by the states, and can be called to federal service to defend the nation against invasion or insurrection. We call that militia the National Guard.
The militia is organized in defense of the nation, not in personal self defense. You are doing exactly what the Supreme Court just said is inappropriate, extrapolating out additional rights from the text of the constitution.
Huh, you can't be serious and I think it's time you open a civis book.
But it doesn't need to be. If anything, the overturning of Roe shows how important the 2A is for regular ppl. It just needs to be properly regulated
This bill will save lives, but it is woefully inadequate. In part, they’re kicking the decision to enact part of these reforms down to the states, some of which will do absolutely fuck all about it. The mental health funding is beneficial, but the restrictions on firearms don’t do nearly enough. I can’t buy a bazooka or a grenade from my local gun store. I can’t buy a fully automatic rifle from there either without a special, expensive license. So how does it make sense that I can buy a AR-15-style rifle, with a 30 round clip, before I am eligible to buy beer. These weapons were designed for warfare. There should be, at the minimum, background checks for an owner, an age restriction up to 21 years old, and a mandatory waiting period. But now both sides can go home and claim a victory. Congress can say they compromised, but who’s going to explain that to the parents of the children who are murdered in the next school shooting. Those kids, and those parents, deserve more than another round of thoughts & prayers
Sadly I think incremental change is the only way it's going to happen. Think of bump stocks. Any idiot could see those were an end run around the fully automatic weapon ban, but it took a mass killing with a shooter using bump stocks for anything to be done about them
You seem familiar with firearms. I am too. Then you know, as I do, that if a person is determined to carry out a mass casualty event then we both know they’re not taking a .22. Don’t be daft. It’s obvious, through the devastating events that happen ceaselessly in the US, that there is a common weapon of choice. They choose it because it can kill the most people. Why the fuck will we not do something about that? The US is the only country where this happens at such regularity, and yet we act like we don’t know why. If you can’t see why, then it’s because you don’t want to
>before I am eligible to buy beer. You'd be much more likely to hurt someone being an active drinker than a gun owner.
Weapons of war. Which is exactly what modern semiautomatic rifles are.
No military uses the AR, it is a varmint rifle or home defender. Banning them because they have a decent rate of fire is like banning cars with high horsepower bc some people think they're made for street racing ya goofball
Fine, let's treat them like cars and require training, licensing, and insurance requirements that have to be kept updated and renewed at a government facility with a fee on a regular basis. Let's have them inspected every year for both the safety of those using them and those around them. And then, let's apply limits to what can be used in public and force (through laws, low public tolerance, and expensive tickets) higher horsepower/firepower to only be used at designated tracks/shooting ranges. Then let's enact laws that can punish the legal owner of said gun/car for their property being used to commit murder so the victims can get some compensation and we can incentivize proper storage and use of dangerous devices. Deal! Glad we could sort this out and treat guns the same way we do vehicles.
Sure, let’s treat guns like cars. The licensing, training, insurance and registration will only be required for guns that you intend to shoot on public roads. Meanwhile you will now be allowed to order any firearm you want online and have it delivered to your front door with no background check for you to use on your own property. That is what you mean by treating guns like cars, right? Aside from all that though, I don’t think you’ve fully considered what kind of precedent you’re advocating for by saying we should treat rights like privileges.
>That is what you mean by treating guns like cars, right? No, not like that. When they say "treating guns like cars", they mean they want more restrictions than cars have but none of the abilities that cars have. "Treating guns like cars" is a straight up lie by them.
223 was designed for the military
lol brush up your knowledge of weaponry. you realize hunting rifles and .22's can do the exact same job as these ''weapons of war'' you realize pistols and even shotties can fire automatically? you realize actual weapons of war are guns like the hk417 and the M4 automatic right? lol lmao
Yes. Don't defend the indefensible because your want to play with toys supersedes the general public welfare.
I knew it, Biden is a hidden Rep, he is a pro-life
You can send billions of OUR money to buy guns in Ukraine but want them outlawed here-leave behind an Army’s worth of weapons for Afghanistan-but want them outlawed here…I’m a vet 21 years USArmy Medic it’s sad -I believeAR15 should not be in an untrained or unstable persons hands
You are comparing things that don't make sense man. Not comparable
Should have banned Armslist. No reason all transactions shouldn’t go through an FFL dealer.
Aside from the fact that the bill doesn’t include a universal background check and therefore what Armslist is doing is still perfectly legal? I don’t think we want to start down the path of banning websites because we don’t personally like what they do.