Here we go again...
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
1046 points (95.0% liked)
Memes
45753 readers
2570 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hmmm, so all of those "well regulated militia means the national guard, the only people who should have guns are the cops and the national guard because they're the only ones responsible enough" people are going to finally admit that cops and weekend warriors aren't actually all that special and the training they recieve doesn't make them good people it only makes them more effective should they decide to be bad people?
People who say that actually want a complete and total ban on guns, but acknowledge the constitution says what it says and amendments are literally impossible in today's political climate.
Also, one could argue a "well regulated" militia wouldn't send guns home with its members. It could be kept at a central facility.
I know they do, I was actually specifically calling that out, as they always say "nuh uh" when you point out that they do in fact want a total ban on self defense.
One could argue anything, doesn't make them actually correct. "The militia" is defined "as all able bodied males age 17-45," not as "the national guard, which is a military branch not a militia." As such, this argument says to me that "all able bodied males age 17-45" should be able to own guns and nobody else, no women, nobody in a wheelchair or with anything that would disqualify one medically from service like colorblindness, etc. Of course, that is ridiculous, but that's why I prefer the "actually knows english" approach to that particular argument.
It's still not necessary to qualify it that way. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" stands on its own with the preceding sentence explaining Why.
Regardless of semantics, the Supreme Court has confirmed individual rights to bear arms in triplicate and that matter is settled.
Nothing is settled with this supreme court.
OK well go tell them about that and see what they have to say about it.
We really need to get them to review Harlow V Fitzgerald, and present them with the full text of section 1983 with the 16 missing words, as the 1871 Congress passed that law.
Wtf. I just googled that. How has that been allowed to continue foe a hund and fifty fucking years?? Jesus H. Christ.
Well the case I referenced occurred in 1982, but I think it was mainly because no one took the time to look at the Congressional Record, and compare it to the text in the Federal Register.
I don't know much about that, but if that would get rid of qualified immunity for police then I concur.
That's the case that caused QI in 1982. The 16 missing words explicitly outlaw any sort of immunity for any government officials.
Agree 100%.
That's an interesting idea. Maybe in situations like this, the governor should activate the militia to hunt this guy down. Allow the community to protect itself instead of relying only on the cops. Lots of things could go wrong, but still, it could show the intent of the 2a.
That's like, horror movie levels of scary.
Sounds like a legal nightmare
In a sense this is already in effect to the degree that is...necessary, or maybe the word I should use is "appropriate." If anyone who is carrying arms runs into this guy, knows what he looks like and gets a positive ID, and knows what he's done, while it isn't 100% legal to draw on him unless he's presenting an active threat (i.e he has a gun out), no DA in the country would charge you with brandishing. Then from there you say freeze, he reaches for his gun, shit happens.
The problem with deputizing the entire county for a manhunt though is giving people real authority can have some ill effects, and is pretty much guaranteeing mob justice to become a norm again. I'd say we're at the happy medium of "nobody will question you if you do find him, but I'm not going to imbue you with the authority of the state per se."
Maybe you should differ between those people in active service and ex-soldiers with PTSD and mental issues that makes them hear voices...
Maybe they should differ. I think that anyone who hasn't proven themselves a danger to others should be able to own one, even people with PTSD which shouldn't be stigmatized simply because some people with it do violent things. Most people with PTSD do not.
Unfortunately a fact that few are willing to recognize is that if you have been homeless in the US for more than 4 weeks there is a very high (like high 90s percent) chance that you have PTSD. It's not just the military, though us vets certainly have it as well. I'll also wager that anyone that has spent any amount of time in our jails also has PTSD. The point I'm making is that despite the common person thinking that PTSD is just exclusive to the military, it is in fact, not.
I haven't actually looked into it, but I would wager that globally we have better than 6 billion people walking around with some form of PTSD.
That and survivors of rape, assault (sexual or otherwise,) b&e, the list of potential causes is a mile long. I'd wager your wager is not at all unreasonable.