These are the same people who claim that guns will protect them from tyranny.
Still waiting to see that happen.
One_Disaster_5995 on
Our freedom is too precious to give it up over exceptions like that. It’s a holy sacrifice to lose Charlie Kirk to prove that point, and I can think of a few more sacrifices like that that they should be willing to make. I think Miller should take one for the team, you know, just to prove that point. Freedom!
MynxiMe on
You phrase this like it’s relevant and an actual possibility. 1) truly Homeless ppl have no way to secure their possessions besides on their body. 2) homeless ppl rob each other for things, because there are predators at every level of society. 3) Shelters do checks and searches at times. 4) well.. I’m not a wasting more logic on this. Going back to sleep. Have a great weekend assured that no one is giving a broke, schizo effective and homeless person a gun.
Jash-Juice on
I have an uncle who is schizophrenic, he had many guns. His situation devolved to him seeing demons and sleeping in his truck with a gun.
It’s amazing that nothing happened.
Fun fact only in the west (US) do people with schizophrenia see unpleasant or scary things. Must be something unique to the environment here.
RoninSoul on
Firearms provide protection that the law refuses to give, armed minorities are harder to oppress, and tyrants love nothing more than unarmed targets.
Calling for American citizens to be disarmed during a presidency you believe is fascist is *insane.*
Davngr on
We should just move to a popular vote. The small population states have proven to be full of idiots easily manipulated by treasonous propaganda.
Civil-Dinner on
Everyone except Hunter Biden and trans people, apparently.
UberChokolino on
Crack crack pow goes the crackhead
TrogadorDaBurninator on
I know I won’t win this one because even if I’m plausibly correct it doesn’t matter folks have operated with an incorrect interpretation of the 2A so long that being plausibly correct won’t change much on the ground reality.
Like if we are going to be a nation of laws the WORDS that form them and how they are structured is literally critical to that approach being successful. So it’s important, I think, to collectively and objectively agree that the above notion at least makes sense in general to a majority of us or so I would hope before politics would FUBAR that.
Now to the point.
“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”
One sentence, 3 commas. That means each one of those is an adverbial clause. Of which there are like 6 or 7. Of the various type I think there is only 2 that would suggest an innately existing right. However none of the word choices or structure here suggest the innately existing clause is being utilized, imo.
Obviously, if there is a rhetoric major or English major out there, they’d likely be better equipped to judge accuracy here. It seems to me that the clause being utilized is one of the logical/mechanical clauses. Which simply means, in this instance, each part of the sentence being true activates the next part of the sentence.
Now, again even if this is remotely tangible even as an arguement that’s still up for debate it doesn’t matter, kind of a “no putting the genie back in that bottle.” Type scenario, people wouldn’t accept it even I was right.
datSubguy on
Straw man meme
Squidlips413 on
Straw man arguments aren’t going to help anyone. “Everyone” isn’t an absolute. There are already exceptions for felons and people who pose a clear danger to themselves and others.
Inverted_Stick on
Two actual quotes from a former coworker of mine.
“Everyone should be able to own a gun.”
“What, Craig? I wouldn’t trust him with a Super Soaker.”
12 Comments
These are the same people who claim that guns will protect them from tyranny.
Still waiting to see that happen.
Our freedom is too precious to give it up over exceptions like that. It’s a holy sacrifice to lose Charlie Kirk to prove that point, and I can think of a few more sacrifices like that that they should be willing to make. I think Miller should take one for the team, you know, just to prove that point. Freedom!
You phrase this like it’s relevant and an actual possibility. 1) truly Homeless ppl have no way to secure their possessions besides on their body. 2) homeless ppl rob each other for things, because there are predators at every level of society. 3) Shelters do checks and searches at times. 4) well.. I’m not a wasting more logic on this. Going back to sleep. Have a great weekend assured that no one is giving a broke, schizo effective and homeless person a gun.
I have an uncle who is schizophrenic, he had many guns. His situation devolved to him seeing demons and sleeping in his truck with a gun.
It’s amazing that nothing happened.
Fun fact only in the west (US) do people with schizophrenia see unpleasant or scary things. Must be something unique to the environment here.
Firearms provide protection that the law refuses to give, armed minorities are harder to oppress, and tyrants love nothing more than unarmed targets.
Calling for American citizens to be disarmed during a presidency you believe is fascist is *insane.*
We should just move to a popular vote. The small population states have proven to be full of idiots easily manipulated by treasonous propaganda.
Everyone except Hunter Biden and trans people, apparently.
Crack crack pow goes the crackhead
I know I won’t win this one because even if I’m plausibly correct it doesn’t matter folks have operated with an incorrect interpretation of the 2A so long that being plausibly correct won’t change much on the ground reality.
Like if we are going to be a nation of laws the WORDS that form them and how they are structured is literally critical to that approach being successful. So it’s important, I think, to collectively and objectively agree that the above notion at least makes sense in general to a majority of us or so I would hope before politics would FUBAR that.
Now to the point.
“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”
One sentence, 3 commas. That means each one of those is an adverbial clause. Of which there are like 6 or 7. Of the various type I think there is only 2 that would suggest an innately existing right. However none of the word choices or structure here suggest the innately existing clause is being utilized, imo.
Obviously, if there is a rhetoric major or English major out there, they’d likely be better equipped to judge accuracy here. It seems to me that the clause being utilized is one of the logical/mechanical clauses. Which simply means, in this instance, each part of the sentence being true activates the next part of the sentence.
Now, again even if this is remotely tangible even as an arguement that’s still up for debate it doesn’t matter, kind of a “no putting the genie back in that bottle.” Type scenario, people wouldn’t accept it even I was right.
Straw man meme
Straw man arguments aren’t going to help anyone. “Everyone” isn’t an absolute. There are already exceptions for felons and people who pose a clear danger to themselves and others.
Two actual quotes from a former coworker of mine.
“Everyone should be able to own a gun.”
“What, Craig? I wouldn’t trust him with a Super Soaker.”