U.S. Senate Republicans moved to block a ban on assault-style weapons put forward by Democrats on Wednesday, as the United States recorded the highest number of mass shootings for the second year in a row.
According to the article it’s the same AWB from the Clinton years.
They can fuck right off. It’s not what we need. We need to ban external magazines. This cosmetic shit is bullshit and just posturing to make gun owners suffer.
We need to withhold all federal funding from states that do not send information to the NICS system and we need universal background checks.
Banning external magazines works because every rifle can be retrofitted by welding a magazine in place and loading with stripper clips.
Edit - ITT people who think they have a right to carry guns everywhere but are too afraid to write a reply.
Edit 2 - And apparently most of the ones willing to reply fall into the camp of pretending to care as they’ve laser focused on one word. No I’m not going to change it. Being a nuisance is not the objective. Cathartic release is not the objective. Cutting gun violence is the fucking objective.
Christ winces bearing the weight of humanity’s original sin on the cross when contemplating the thought of having to go to the range to shoot non moving targets at a faster rate.
And it would be nice to do something about that instead of making laws that do nothing but piss off a demographic. I gave you three great alternatives and you still tried to pretend like I said let’s kill those kids.
Nah dude. Other nations have long “done sometime” (or if they hadn’t, they did immediately after experiencing one shooting) about this problem. I guess those Aussies just don’t have the stomach for dead kindergartners… Pussies.
You could not care less about those dead kids, unless you’re directly affected. If you did, you’d recognize that their lives are far more valuable than your ability to play dress up and go pew pew. You would actually be interested in a solution rather than keeping things the way they are. Where the number one cause of death among young people is firearms.
No. America will never do anything about it because people like you.
You’re not being rid of the second until the political landscape seriously changes. You’re not getting the second re-interpreted with all of it’s words until SCOTUS flips. These are harm reduction things we can make stick right now.
If you want to refuse that then you’re the one sacrificing people. You’re just as bad as the NRA.
This cosmetic shit is bullshit and just posturing to make gun owners suffer.
“Suffer” in what way? Having to find a new hobby? Having to use a different boom toy instead of the cool boom toy they want to use? Those poor, poor gun owners!
Compared to the actual suffering of the dying kids and their parents, who do you think has it worse?
The old AWB literally bans certain guns by name and certain cosmetic parts. That’s it. They can rename the childkiller 2000 into childkiller 3000 while reworking the buttstock to fit around the thumb hole clause. It literally drives more gun sales, not less.
And it grandfathers in all the guns already out there. It’s a fucking nuisance law, not a solution. It’s not even a step in the right direction because I can buy an AWB legal hunting rifle and run it with old 30 round magazines for the same effect as the scary black gun with a fore grip and flash hider.
How do you read shit like “make external magazines illegal and weld all the guns so they can’t take them” and think this guy likes the gun lobby?
Think for half a second. Read beyond the fucking title.
It sounds like you possibly didn’t read my question. “Suffer” in what way, exactly? How do you read "‘Suffer’ in what way?’ and go on a tangent about renaming guns? Did you not say “This cosmetic shit is bullshit and just posturing to make gun owners suffer.”? Did I misinterpret what you said?
You lost the entire context of it and just went with the catharsis of gun nuts having to spend more money on less than perfect guns. The point was the catharsis doesn’t help victims of gun violence.
I asked for clarification on something you said. The context of my question is what you said, which is why I conveniently quoted it for you. My question does not relate to the general point you’re making but to this one sentence which I believe I made more than clear through my following-up questions. You seem to prefer to pretend not to understand that in order to worm out of the question, possibly because you’re aware that what you said is a slight exaggeration.
Yes, it was already obvious you have a problem addressing a stupid thing you said. I’m sure you’re not really all that black and white, you’re just having a hard time being wrong and admitting it.
No one- and I mean no one- has it harder than someone who has 12 rifles that look like they were designed for military use but can’t buy a 13th because of some stupid law that is designed to cause them literal physical pain.
Oh my God dude, you too? You usually actually read posts. How about instead of concentrating on being a nuisance to gun owners and the industry we pass some laws that work. Like maybe these things from that comment you responded to-
Stop sending any federal funds to states that don’t give prohibited possesor information to the National Instant Background Check System
Ban and make illegal all external magazines. Existing weapons to be retrofitted by welding a block and installing an internal magazine.
Institute Universal Background Checks.
No, instead we’re over here discussing if the Remington 21a hunting rifle can be sold with thumb hole, fore grip, and pistol grip. Or if Remington has to design weird shapes and bumps to provide the same functionality without actually being those things. Meanwhile, the kids you care so much about and the gun suicides that make up more than half of gun deaths are still happening.
This is what pisses me off about the 2A debate. One side wants to sacrifice people for their ego and the other side wants to do no more than pretend they’re doing something about it.
external magazines - you have no clue what you’re talking about.
universal background checks.
Again you have no idea what you’re talking about. My heart aches for people like you full of opinions on a topic, yet completely lacking in basics of said topic.
No expertise at all. Just a decade in the military doing grunt jobs. Nothing happens until we materially affect the speed with which semi auto weapons can fire, and their spread in the country. Revolvers and bolt action weapons are perfectly fine, even as militia weapons.
Oh so now you have to score expert on the shooting range to understand how semi auto weapons function? The gatekeeping just keeps getting deeper and deeper. I guess years of Infantry training and combat experience are just nothing compared to that guy who got 36/40 on the range.
No, you couldn’t. Familiarize yourself with 10 U.S. Code § 246 which actually defines exactly what the militia (both organized militia and unorganized militia) are:
Fun fact, that’s because of a SCOTUS ruling in the 1940’s. They just arbitrarily decided that the militia was everyone.
If we want to get originalist about this the well regulated militias refers to men of a town who were in good standing and drilled regularly under official supervision. They were also subject to call up by the town, county, state, and federal governments.
The only things we have with that structure are the Reserves and National Guard.
Well perfect. Looks like we’ve got a definition for “organized militia” (literally another word for “well-regulated militia”. Don’t waste your time I’m not going to get into a semantics argument about this). “Unorganized militia” became obsolete when we created a standing army.
Here is the definition you linked to since it appears as though you stopped reading about 2/3 through:
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;
So it looks like we do have a well-regulated militia, and it’s called the National Guard. Thanks for the additional evidence that the Heller decision was bullshit!
You won’t debate the semantics because you would lose said debate and because you know it is germane.
I imagine you know full well that the meaning of “well-regulated” as used in the BOR and “organized” as used in the USC are not the same, and your suggestion that they are is nonsense. The former refers to training and armament. The latter is used to describe the part of the militia that is also part of the National Guard and that which is not.
As you seem to think I have not read it, here is the entirety of it:
(a)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.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
I suggest it is you who either did not read it, or doing so, did not understand it. If you are
A) a citizen of the Unites States
B) Male and
C) in the age range of 17-45 (with some variance for NG)
then you are a member of the unorganized militia.
If only we had 2 centuries of precedence to back any of this up. Oh wait, we do…
Heller completely changed how we interpret the second amendment, in a way we never had previously. You can pretend that this is what was intended, but the actual reality is that the interpretation of 2a to refer to individual ownership of firearms started with Heller in 2003.
Is that so? I’ll be wanting a citation for that assertion. In the interim, you might read the following. It presents an actual informed, expert opinion on the subject at hand:
An individual right to own a gun for personal protection is an idea that is deeply rooted in American culture. But for most of U.S. history, there was little actual legal framework to support any such interpretation of the Second Amendment. It wasn’t until a relatively recent Supreme Court decision that this all changed.
[…]
the case that bears his name redefined gun ownership, as it marked the first time the Supreme Court affirmed an individual right to gun ownership that was separate from the “militia clause” in the Second Amendment.
“for most of U.S. history, there was little actual legal framework to support any such interpretation of the Second Amendment. It wasn’t until a relatively recent Supreme Court decision that this all changed.”
The article you linked to bases its premise on that statement, which is demonstrably incorrect. Any review of the debates on the BoR of the day, in particular of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers will have little difficulty in discerning the intent of the founders. Concerning court interpretations, as I am not as erudite as most, I’ll refer you to this. It is taken from a constitutional commentary from the University of Minnesota Law School (https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1275&context=concomm):
"From the enactment of the Bill of Rights through most of the twentieth century, the second amendment seems to have been understood to guarantee to every law-abiding responsible adult the right to possess most ordinary firearms. Until the mid-twentieth century courts and commentaries (the two earliest having been before Congress when it voted on the second amendment) deemed that the amendment “confirmed [the people] in their right to keep and bear their private arms,” or “their own arms.”
In a 1939 case which is its only full treatment, the Supreme Court accepted that private persons may invoke the second amendment, but held that it confines their freedom of choice to militia-type weapons, i.e., high quality handguns and rifles, but not “gangster weapons” such as sawed-off shotguns, switchblade knives and (arguably) “Saturday Night Specials. " In the 1960s this individual right view was challenged by scholars who argued that the second amendment guarantee extends only to the states’ right to arm formal military units. This states’ right view attained predominance, and was endorsed by the ABA, the ACLU and such texts as Lawrence Tribe’s American Constitutional Law. During the 1980s, however, a large literature on the amendment appeared, much of it rejecting the states’ right view as inconsistent with the text and with new research findings on the legislative history, the attitudes of the authors, the meaning of the right to bear arms in antecedent American and English legal thought, and the role that an armed citizenry played in classical liberal political philosophy from Aristotle through Machiavelli and Harrington to Sidney, Locke, Rousseau and their various disciples. Indicative of the current Supreme Court’s probable view is a 1990 decision which, though focusing on the fourth amendment, cites the first and second as well in concluding that the phrase “right of the people” is a term of art used throughout the Bill of Rights to designate rights pertaining to individual citizens (rather than to the states).”
There is an easily traced history regarding the Second, clearly showing the intent to protect a naturally-existing right of the individual against incursion by government.
According to the article it’s the same AWB from the Clinton years.
They can fuck right off. It’s not what we need. We need to ban external magazines. This cosmetic shit is bullshit and just posturing to make gun owners suffer.
We need to withhold all federal funding from states that do not send information to the NICS system and we need universal background checks.
Banning external magazines works because every rifle can be retrofitted by welding a magazine in place and loading with stripper clips.
Edit - ITT people who think they have a right to carry guns everywhere but are too afraid to write a reply.
Edit 2 - And apparently most of the ones willing to reply fall into the camp of pretending to care as they’ve laser focused on one word. No I’m not going to change it. Being a nuisance is not the objective. Cathartic release is not the objective. Cutting gun violence is the fucking objective.
Christ winces bearing the weight of humanity’s original sin on the cross when contemplating the thought of having to go to the range to shoot non moving targets at a faster rate.
Lol “suffer.” Man, take your head out of your ass and go fuck yourself. People, CHILDREN, are fucking dying.
And it would be nice to do something about that instead of making laws that do nothing but piss off a demographic. I gave you three great alternatives and you still tried to pretend like I said let’s kill those kids.
Nah dude. Other nations have long “done sometime” (or if they hadn’t, they did immediately after experiencing one shooting) about this problem. I guess those Aussies just don’t have the stomach for dead kindergartners… Pussies.
You could not care less about those dead kids, unless you’re directly affected. If you did, you’d recognize that their lives are far more valuable than your ability to play dress up and go pew pew. You would actually be interested in a solution rather than keeping things the way they are. Where the number one cause of death among young people is firearms.
No. America will never do anything about it because people like you.
You’re not being rid of the second until the political landscape seriously changes. You’re not getting the second re-interpreted with all of it’s words until SCOTUS flips. These are harm reduction things we can make stick right now.
If you want to refuse that then you’re the one sacrificing people. You’re just as bad as the NRA.
“Suffer” in what way? Having to find a new hobby? Having to use a different boom toy instead of the cool boom toy they want to use? Those poor, poor gun owners!
Compared to the actual suffering of the dying kids and their parents, who do you think has it worse?
The old AWB literally bans certain guns by name and certain cosmetic parts. That’s it. They can rename the childkiller 2000 into childkiller 3000 while reworking the buttstock to fit around the thumb hole clause. It literally drives more gun sales, not less.
And it grandfathers in all the guns already out there. It’s a fucking nuisance law, not a solution. It’s not even a step in the right direction because I can buy an AWB legal hunting rifle and run it with old 30 round magazines for the same effect as the scary black gun with a fore grip and flash hider.
How do you read shit like “make external magazines illegal and weld all the guns so they can’t take them” and think this guy likes the gun lobby?
Think for half a second. Read beyond the fucking title.
It sounds like you possibly didn’t read my question. “Suffer” in what way, exactly? How do you read "‘Suffer’ in what way?’ and go on a tangent about renaming guns? Did you not say “This cosmetic shit is bullshit and just posturing to make gun owners suffer.”? Did I misinterpret what you said?
You lost the entire context of it and just went with the catharsis of gun nuts having to spend more money on less than perfect guns. The point was the catharsis doesn’t help victims of gun violence.
I asked for clarification on something you said. The context of my question is what you said, which is why I conveniently quoted it for you. My question does not relate to the general point you’re making but to this one sentence which I believe I made more than clear through my following-up questions. You seem to prefer to pretend not to understand that in order to worm out of the question, possibly because you’re aware that what you said is a slight exaggeration.
Also, what do you believe “catharsis” means?
No what you’re missing is I don’t care about the single sentence. If that was all there was to the post then that’s all I would have posted.
Yes, it was already obvious you have a problem addressing a stupid thing you said. I’m sure you’re not really all that black and white, you’re just having a hard time being wrong and admitting it.
No one- and I mean no one- has it harder than someone who has 12 rifles that look like they were designed for military use but can’t buy a 13th because of some stupid law that is designed to cause them literal physical pain.
Those dead kids wish they had it so bad.
Oh my God dude, you too? You usually actually read posts. How about instead of concentrating on being a nuisance to gun owners and the industry we pass some laws that work. Like maybe these things from that comment you responded to-
Stop sending any federal funds to states that don’t give prohibited possesor information to the National Instant Background Check System
Ban and make illegal all external magazines. Existing weapons to be retrofitted by welding a block and installing an internal magazine.
Institute Universal Background Checks.
No, instead we’re over here discussing if the Remington 21a hunting rifle can be sold with thumb hole, fore grip, and pistol grip. Or if Remington has to design weird shapes and bumps to provide the same functionality without actually being those things. Meanwhile, the kids you care so much about and the gun suicides that make up more than half of gun deaths are still happening.
This is what pisses me off about the 2A debate. One side wants to sacrifice people for their ego and the other side wants to do no more than pretend they’re doing something about it.
As long as gun owners don’t suffer. That’s the main thing. We have to end their suffering! Poor gun owners!
Right. Clearly you don’t want to actually do anything. Just complain. Great.
I just want to end the suffering! Of gun owners! Because they’re the real victims.
Again you have no idea what you’re talking about. My heart aches for people like you full of opinions on a topic, yet completely lacking in basics of said topic.
No expertise at all. Just a decade in the military doing grunt jobs. Nothing happens until we materially affect the speed with which semi auto weapons can fire, and their spread in the country. Revolvers and bolt action weapons are perfectly fine, even as militia weapons.
“here durr, I served my opinion matters more” you supported the corporate machine while likely pushing 3 MOA chump.
Lmao. Sure buddy. Whatever you want to believe.
What I KNOW is serving doesn’t make you an expert marksman. Most barely pass basic quals, so don’t spout that like some sort of badge of honor.
Oh so now you have to score expert on the shooting range to understand how semi auto weapons function? The gatekeeping just keeps getting deeper and deeper. I guess years of Infantry training and combat experience are just nothing compared to that guy who got 36/40 on the range.
We could just ban all guns, unless you’re part of a well organized militia. No need to worry about cosmetics or any real particulars that way.
No, you couldn’t. Familiarize yourself with 10 U.S. Code § 246 which actually defines exactly what the militia (both organized militia and unorganized militia) are:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
I don’t have demographic data to reference, but I imagine the United States has a LOT of male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45.
Fun fact, that’s because of a SCOTUS ruling in the 1940’s. They just arbitrarily decided that the militia was everyone.
If we want to get originalist about this the well regulated militias refers to men of a town who were in good standing and drilled regularly under official supervision. They were also subject to call up by the town, county, state, and federal governments.
The only things we have with that structure are the Reserves and National Guard.
Well perfect. Looks like we’ve got a definition for “organized militia” (literally another word for “well-regulated militia”. Don’t waste your time I’m not going to get into a semantics argument about this). “Unorganized militia” became obsolete when we created a standing army.
Here is the definition you linked to since it appears as though you stopped reading about 2/3 through:
So it looks like we do have a well-regulated militia, and it’s called the National Guard. Thanks for the additional evidence that the Heller decision was bullshit!
You won’t debate the semantics because you would lose said debate and because you know it is germane.
I imagine you know full well that the meaning of “well-regulated” as used in the BOR and “organized” as used in the USC are not the same, and your suggestion that they are is nonsense. The former refers to training and armament. The latter is used to describe the part of the militia that is also part of the National Guard and that which is not.
As you seem to think I have not read it, here is the entirety of it:
(a)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.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
I suggest it is you who either did not read it, or doing so, did not understand it. If you are
A) a citizen of the Unites States B) Male and C) in the age range of 17-45 (with some variance for NG) then you are a member of the unorganized militia.
If only we had 2 centuries of precedence to back any of this up. Oh wait, we do…
Heller completely changed how we interpret the second amendment, in a way we never had previously. You can pretend that this is what was intended, but the actual reality is that the interpretation of 2a to refer to individual ownership of firearms started with Heller in 2003.
Is that so? I’ll be wanting a citation for that assertion. In the interim, you might read the following. It presents an actual informed, expert opinion on the subject at hand:
https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
Just one I found real quick:
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/14/1113705501/second-amendment-supreme-court-dick-heller-gun-rights
[…]
(Emphasis mine)
“for most of U.S. history, there was little actual legal framework to support any such interpretation of the Second Amendment. It wasn’t until a relatively recent Supreme Court decision that this all changed.”
The article you linked to bases its premise on that statement, which is demonstrably incorrect. Any review of the debates on the BoR of the day, in particular of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers will have little difficulty in discerning the intent of the founders. Concerning court interpretations, as I am not as erudite as most, I’ll refer you to this. It is taken from a constitutional commentary from the University of Minnesota Law School (https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1275&context=concomm):
"From the enactment of the Bill of Rights through most of the twentieth century, the second amendment seems to have been understood to guarantee to every law-abiding responsible adult the right to possess most ordinary firearms. Until the mid-twentieth century courts and commentaries (the two earliest having been before Congress when it voted on the second amendment) deemed that the amendment “confirmed [the people] in their right to keep and bear their private arms,” or “their own arms.”
In a 1939 case which is its only full treatment, the Supreme Court accepted that private persons may invoke the second amendment, but held that it confines their freedom of choice to militia-type weapons, i.e., high quality handguns and rifles, but not “gangster weapons” such as sawed-off shotguns, switchblade knives and (arguably) “Saturday Night Specials. " In the 1960s this individual right view was challenged by scholars who argued that the second amendment guarantee extends only to the states’ right to arm formal military units. This states’ right view attained predominance, and was endorsed by the ABA, the ACLU and such texts as Lawrence Tribe’s American Constitutional Law. During the 1980s, however, a large literature on the amendment appeared, much of it rejecting the states’ right view as inconsistent with the text and with new research findings on the legislative history, the attitudes of the authors, the meaning of the right to bear arms in antecedent American and English legal thought, and the role that an armed citizenry played in classical liberal political philosophy from Aristotle through Machiavelli and Harrington to Sidney, Locke, Rousseau and their various disciples. Indicative of the current Supreme Court’s probable view is a 1990 decision which, though focusing on the fourth amendment, cites the first and second as well in concluding that the phrase “right of the people” is a term of art used throughout the Bill of Rights to designate rights pertaining to individual citizens (rather than to the states).”
There is an easily traced history regarding the Second, clearly showing the intent to protect a naturally-existing right of the individual against incursion by government.
Thanks! I’ll look it over after I get home.
I don’t actually care. Guns are dumb. I’m just being obtuse for the sake of shitting in gun ownership.
State militia. Those were the well regulated militias being referenced. Johnny’s anti government friends club does not count.