this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
973 points (96.5% liked)
The Onion
4438 readers
122 users here now
The Onion
A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.
Great Satire Writing:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I am aware this is satire. But this line is a direct quote from so many people, with a completely straight dace
“But they could use a knife or a bat or a car!”
Without seeing the fact that having such free access to “tools” designed for the sole purpose of killing many people in as little time as possible.
Anyone against gun control is completely smooth brained. Anyone who complains about gun control, that the government shouldn’t control and regulate access, that they need multiple guns for “self defence” should not be allowed access to any gun.
Another common one is
except that never happens in any other developed nation.
Sure. From other people with guns. And not a single shooting has been ~stopped~ prevented by “good guy with gun™️”.
/rant
The second amendment is nominally there to allow people to form state militias in case the United States get invaded. With that in mind (and ignoring the many ways in which this kind of militia is completely irrelevant for defense purposes these days) we can come up with a reasonable compromise.
Anyone is allowed to own any gun they want. Access to ammunition is strictly regulated; only the state and shooting ranges are allowed to own ammo at all and the latter are under very strict supervision. Unlawful possession of ammunition is a felony.
In case the US Army is overrun each state will conscript all gun owners and issue them ammunition from the stockpile so they can go out and engage any enemy forces susceptible to infantry attack.
I'm sure all fans of the second amendment are going to love this plan. /s
That’s pretty much the setup that early colonists had, and it makes a lot of sense.
Ammo and muskets were kept in an armory, cuz it was dangerous to have powder laying around your candlelit home and muskets required frequent maintenance by skilled craftsmen.
Firearms were also somewhat collectively-owned, because they were primarily a means of collective defense.
Think about it: You’ve got the British in the ocean to the East, rival colonies to the North and South, indigenous tribes to the West, and the ever-present possibility of a mob of outlaws literally taking over your town.
It’s a very different world, and a very different relationship to weaponry.
btw. i believe this is somewhat similar to how Switzerland handles assault rifles nowadays. There are situations where you are allowed to have an assault rifle at home or even carry it in public but the ammo has to be locked away at a central storage that is guarded. They can very quickly hand out the ammo to the holders if necessary, i.e. for training on the shooting range. I am not Swiss so this is only hearsay though.
I want to add to this, because it's never mentioned.
As with most problems in the world (prove me wrong), it can be traced back to British colonialism. The British usually disarmed everyone in their colonies, but American colonists were allowed to have guns and form militias because they were actively forcing Natives off their land.
Basically everyone had guns or access to them, and every colony had militias. Without them, there's no chance the colonists could have then taken on the strongest empire in the world.
So now the line is that we need guns to fight tyranny, or whatever.
But... We did that. We won. We have a "democracy" now. We rounded up or killed all the Natives and fulfilled our Manifest Destiny™️. We have the most powerful military in the fucking visible universe.
Does my dumbass alcoholic neighbor Randy really need an AR to fight the gubmint?
In regards to your last point: I remember reading that there was one shooting stopped by a good guy with a gun. Then the cops showed up and killed him because he was armed.
You spelled "black" as armed. But otherwise right on the money.
John Hurley was not black
https://www.cpr.org/2023/09/28/arvada-police-good-samaritan-shooter-settlement/
My bad. I distinctly remember ANOTHER case were a good (black) guy with a gun was immediately executed by police as they arrived on the scene. I believe he might have been an armed security guard, but I don't have the mental strength to look it up in detail right now. I'd have to wade through dozens of such articles to find the right one and I'm already depressed enough.
Arvada, Colorado. The good guy killed the bad guy who had just killed a cop. The good guy was standing near the cop's body with a gun when more cops came in and killed the good guy.
Not entirely true. There was that guy in Colorado who drew his weapon, and took out an active shooter. Then the police rolled in, mistook him for the threat, and promptly killed him. Yay, armed society! /s
Man, you shouldn't have included this last line. Everyone replying to you is completely ignoring the relevant and accurate content of your comment in favour of "Well Ackshually" pointing out the handful of times a good person with a gun did successfully stop a shooting.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62217263
At least you didn’t end with “/facts” ?
Here’s the most famous one from just last year:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/19/us/eli-dicken-indiana-mall-shooting-bystander/index.html
As long as progressives refuse to educate themselves on this issue and continually lie to try to score points the right will own it…lock, stock, and barrel.
Fight facts with more facts and we might see some sanity emerge.