The US Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Hawaii law requiring licensed permit holders to obtain a property owner's express permission before carrying a firearm onto private property open to the...
I mean in reality they are allowed in federal buildings, just not for citizens. They’re also banned at sporting events. I don’t think anyone is arguing guns aren’t dangerous any more then people argue cars aren’t dangerous, but we’re still allowed to legislate where you can and can’t drive. No ones saying ‘If cars are so safe why can’t I drive on the sidewalk?’ Because most people understand not everything should be allowed everywhere.
Property owners are still free to make their property gun free zones, this decision just means you don’t need express consent to enter if there’s no signage or rules stating that.
but we’re still allowed to legislate where you can and can’t drive. No ones saying ‘If cars are so safe why can’t I drive on the sidewalk?’
Just from a legal standpoint, that’s an especially bad example because nobody, anywhere in this country, has any right to drive anywhere, especially not a constitutionally-protected one. Driving is a privilege bestowed by the states.
In fact, if something so dangerous as driving a car is a highly regulated privilege, and not right, then maybe carrying a gun should be too.
What drives the rest of the world crazy, is Americans have the right to bare arms in order to stop a tyrannical government. Well guess what kind of government you have right now, and people aren’t doing shite.
The 2A was explicitly and deliberately written to affirm the right of the “Militia” (i.e. the People) to defend the “free State” (i.e. themselves against tyranny).
The thing was written by people who had literally just finished rebelling against their legitimate government. You cannot credibly say they weren’t pro-rebellion.
the “Militia” (i.e. the People well-regulated militias)
Fixed it for you.
to defend the “free State” (i.e. themselves against tyranny the state against its enemies).
Fixed that too.
People don’t tend to write laws in code, actually.
When you write “security of a free state” and “well-regulated militia” in a legally binding text, what you mean ISN’T “defense against an oppressive state” and “well-regulated militias” ISN’T “everyone, regardless of whether they’re in a well-regulated militia”.
To quote someone who was as wrong about it as you are but could turn a phrase sometimes, your interpretation is pure applesauce.
the “Militia” (i.e. the People well-regulated militias)
Fixed it for you.
Bullshit, I was right the first time. “Militia” means “every able-bodied adult male” and “well-regulated” means “well-trained.”
People don’t tend to write laws in code, actually.
Fuck your ahistorical revisionism. We know exactly what they meant when they wrote this shit because they explained themselves in the Federalist papers. Federalist #46, for instance, specifically discusses the militia as a check against Federal power.
Bottom line is this: I’m right, you’re wrong, the end, bye-bye.
No. Militia is a specific thing. Militia means militia. If they had meant “every able-bodied male”, that’s what they would have written, except they’d probably go with “man” like in the founding documents.
“well-regulated” means "well-trained.
Again, regulation and training are different things, ESPECIALLY in a government context.
Besides, if the founding fathers intended to limit gun ownership to people who has had sufficient training ti responsibly store and handle them (which would be a great idea), WHY do pro-gun people only ever state so when trying to explain away the requirement for regulation in the text? Very curious 🤔
You’re using the meme wrong. Using the word “actually” doesn’t automatically make you the ackchyually guy regardless of context.
Then again, misunderstanding intention, meaning, and context in order to misrepresent the words of others seems to be your favorite thing 🙄
Fuck your ahistorical revisionism
Right back at you.
I’m not revising anything. I’m explaining the literal and obvious meaning of language meant to be literal and obvious.
When writing law, having the literal text be the same as the intention is RULE ONE.
The only way your interpretation can possibly be correct is if the founding fathers were EXTREMELY bad at legislating.
We know exactly what they meant when they wrote this shit because they explained themselves in the Federalist papers.
The Federalist Papers weren’t law, they were the equivalent of opinion columns.
When the law says one thing and an opinion piece says another, you go with what the law says.
Bottom line is this: I’m right, you’re wrong, the end, bye-bye.
and the ammo sexuals are 100% in goose step with the tyrannical government, because they think their end goal is being able to hunt down gays, liberals, trans people, etc like game animals.
Well if were speaking legally one of those is legally protected by an amendment to the constitution and one is a privilege added far after the writing of the document. Its not the fault of the firearm that no one called a constitution convention about cars.
rebut what? the fact that you completely misunderstood what I said?
I don’t feel like debating someone who clearly doesn’t understand me or the subject under discussion. it would bee exhausting and pointless, and I have better things to do.
“Hmph! Had enough of my wit?” they smugly replied with crossed arms, staring directly into the lifeless, beady eyes of a strawman. But rather than straw, it was excrement. And rather than the shape of a man, it instead was a toddler. Baffled onlookers wrinkled their noses before finding another place to be.
Unbothered by the foul odor or soiling on their hands and trousers, their chuckles echoed off the walls of an empty room. “These kids never learn,” they smirked.
‘This shouldn’t be allowed everywhere’ and ‘This should be allowed nowhere’ are not the same arguement though, I don’t see how my quote fits your argument at all tbh.
Why are guns only allowed places where they are not, yet they champion their rights every where else. They can’t have it both ways. Either we are responsible people with the rights to carry guns places, or we shouldn’t have them. I don’t know why there is this grey zone, that is conveniently where they happen to be at all times, yet we are the ones constantly put in danger due to the lax gun laws and regulations
Either we are responsible people with the rights to carry guns places, or we shouldn’t have them.
So your saying we should be able to carry guns either nowhere or everywhere?
Do you also believe we should be allowed to shout ‘fire!’ either everywhere or nowhere or do you think its okay that you can’t do that in crowded places when there’s no fire?
It is not a fringe opinion in the American gun space that all firearms should be allowed anywhere, all existing gun laws should be dismantled, and any politician who tries to legislate guns should be tried for treason, or just shot.
So then why are they banned in federal buildings? If they are not dangerous allow them everywhere, hypocrites
they area also banned at REPUBLICAN events like cpac.
I mean in reality they are allowed in federal buildings, just not for citizens. They’re also banned at sporting events. I don’t think anyone is arguing guns aren’t dangerous any more then people argue cars aren’t dangerous, but we’re still allowed to legislate where you can and can’t drive. No ones saying ‘If cars are so safe why can’t I drive on the sidewalk?’ Because most people understand not everything should be allowed everywhere.
Property owners are still free to make their property gun free zones, this decision just means you don’t need express consent to enter if there’s no signage or rules stating that.
Just from a legal standpoint, that’s an especially bad example because nobody, anywhere in this country, has any right to drive anywhere, especially not a constitutionally-protected one. Driving is a privilege bestowed by the states.
In fact, if something so dangerous as driving a car is a highly regulated privilege, and not right, then maybe carrying a gun should be too.
What drives the rest of the world crazy, is Americans have the right to bare arms in order to stop a tyrannical government. Well guess what kind of government you have right now, and people aren’t doing shite.
That was only ever pro-gun misinformation to make unchecked private gun ownership sound not just reasonable, but HEROIC.
The 2A was explicitly and deliberately written to provide assistance for national defense AGAINST rebellions as an alternative to a standing army.
The 2A was explicitly and deliberately written to affirm the right of the “Militia” (i.e. the People) to defend the “free State” (i.e. themselves against tyranny).
The thing was written by people who had literally just finished rebelling against their legitimate government. You cannot credibly say they weren’t pro-rebellion.
Fixed it for you.
Fixed that too.
People don’t tend to write laws in code, actually.
When you write “security of a free state” and “well-regulated militia” in a legally binding text, what you mean ISN’T “defense against an oppressive state” and “well-regulated militias” ISN’T “everyone, regardless of whether they’re in a well-regulated militia”.
To quote someone who was as wrong about it as you are but could turn a phrase sometimes, your interpretation is pure applesauce.
Bullshit, I was right the first time. “Militia” means “every able-bodied adult male” and “well-regulated” means “well-trained.”
Fuck your ahistorical revisionism. We know exactly what they meant when they wrote this shit because they explained themselves in the Federalist papers. Federalist #46, for instance, specifically discusses the militia as a check against Federal power.
Bottom line is this: I’m right, you’re wrong, the end, bye-bye.
Nope. You just weren’t.
No. Militia is a specific thing. Militia means militia. If they had meant “every able-bodied male”, that’s what they would have written, except they’d probably go with “man” like in the founding documents.
Again, regulation and training are different things, ESPECIALLY in a government context.
Besides, if the founding fathers intended to limit gun ownership to people who has had sufficient training ti responsibly store and handle them (which would be a great idea), WHY do pro-gun people only ever state so when trying to explain away the requirement for regulation in the text? Very curious 🤔
You’re using the meme wrong. Using the word “actually” doesn’t automatically make you the ackchyually guy regardless of context.
Then again, misunderstanding intention, meaning, and context in order to misrepresent the words of others seems to be your favorite thing 🙄
Right back at you.
I’m not revising anything. I’m explaining the literal and obvious meaning of language meant to be literal and obvious.
When writing law, having the literal text be the same as the intention is RULE ONE.
The only way your interpretation can possibly be correct is if the founding fathers were EXTREMELY bad at legislating.
The Federalist Papers weren’t law, they were the equivalent of opinion columns.
When the law says one thing and an opinion piece says another, you go with what the law says.
Right back at you.
Except that, like so many others, they changed their tune as soon as they were the ones in power. See: whiskey rebellion
(this ignores even the vaguest hints of nuance, of course)
and the ammo sexuals are 100% in goose step with the tyrannical government, because they think their end goal is being able to hunt down gays, liberals, trans people, etc like game animals.
Well if were speaking legally one of those is legally protected by an amendment to the constitution and one is a privilege added far after the writing of the document. Its not the fault of the firearm that no one called a constitution convention about cars.
woosh
Ran out of rebuttal already?
rebut what? the fact that you completely misunderstood what I said?
I don’t feel like debating someone who clearly doesn’t understand me or the subject under discussion. it would bee exhausting and pointless, and I have better things to do.
So yes.
well, if you’re just going to keep making things up that I didn’t say, then you hardly need me to participate.
bye, troll. and blocked.
“Hmph! Had enough of my wit?” they smugly replied with crossed arms, staring directly into the lifeless, beady eyes of a strawman. But rather than straw, it was excrement. And rather than the shape of a man, it instead was a toddler. Baffled onlookers wrinkled their noses before finding another place to be.
Unbothered by the foul odor or soiling on their hands and trousers, their chuckles echoed off the walls of an empty room. “These kids never learn,” they smirked.
You literally have no rebuttal, argument, or defense.
You are replying to someone without reading their comment in the slightest
That’s precisely my argument. I don’t think people need to be carrying them at all
‘This shouldn’t be allowed everywhere’ and ‘This should be allowed nowhere’ are not the same arguement though, I don’t see how my quote fits your argument at all tbh.
Why are guns only allowed places where they are not, yet they champion their rights every where else. They can’t have it both ways. Either we are responsible people with the rights to carry guns places, or we shouldn’t have them. I don’t know why there is this grey zone, that is conveniently where they happen to be at all times, yet we are the ones constantly put in danger due to the lax gun laws and regulations
So your saying we should be able to carry guns either nowhere or everywhere?
Do you also believe we should be allowed to shout ‘fire!’ either everywhere or nowhere or do you think its okay that you can’t do that in crowded places when there’s no fire?
It is not a fringe opinion in the American gun space that all firearms should be allowed anywhere, all existing gun laws should be dismantled, and any politician who tries to legislate guns should be tried for treason, or just shot.
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, because that is exactly the mindset the gun lobby has.
[Edit] And are spending their lobbying money on to try and get approved into legislation, I should add.
deleted by creator
Wow what a shit take
deleted by creator