Walz’s stance isn’t even that restrictive. He’s signed bills for better background checks, which is pretty reasonable. We have background checks for all kinds of other dangerous situations, its not a new concept or a difficult thing to pass. He’s signed a bill to remove guns from those who pose a danger to themselves or others. Is Rittenhouse implying here that he poses a danger to himself or the general public? If Walz’s policies should take the guns away from Rittenhouse then that’s what I get out of this. Kyle is acknowledging, even advertising, that he is a continued danger to those around him.
In context of the time period it merely meant that the militia, which was every able bodied man in the country, should be well supplied in arms and ammunition. Not that the government should “regulate” the militia like a military.
The real source of the problem. If we had done regular updating of the Constitution like some of the Founders wanted we wouldn’t still be arguing over if 18th century phrasing still applies.
Honestly at this point, if somebody’s best criticism is something is “unconstitutional”, it’s tough to not question why their best defense is a 250 year old piece of paper that was never meant to be dogmatic.
The real problem is enshrining so many explicit rights in the constitution to begin with. The American constitutional framers couldn’t have known better because they were so early to do it they didn’t really have a model to follow, but I think history has shown that it was an error.
When Australia came to framing its constitution over the last decade of the 19th century, they had the benefit of looking at all the countries that came before, and considered putting a bill of rights into the Australian constitution and made a deliberate decision not to. It’s better for the legislature to decide what’s right for the current conditions than to be stuck with trying to interpret some text from a century ago in a completely different context. We have the benefit of a much, much less politicised judiciary as a result.
Example: the right to free speech is explicit a good and pretty well irrevocable thing, however some constraints such as using a public space to promote hate, speech meant to cause mass panic or harm or similar abuses are not protected as an exception to the broad basic right.
A part of the issue with the second is the population is so fiercely militaristic (we make such a monument of our military as being the greatest of heros) and individualistic that people will twist the wording any way they like to claim they should have the right to a tank rather than to thin what is reasonable for the general population.
Then there are the folks thinking they can revolt against a tyrannical government armed with globe covering drones because they have 100 rifles in their basement, but those are more especially deluded exceptions.
You act like human nature has changed. Crimes still occur and the right and ability to defend yourself and your property is still very much relevant. What is your opinion of the police? Do you trust them to come and protect you if someone breaks into your house, or do you expect them to come and shoot you?
I seem to read this as you thinking I’m not in favor of gun ownership, just because I suggest clarifying the main rule that gives that right that we still argue about its meaning today. If it was clearer, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
I did think that since it’s a standard basis for arguing against the 2nd. The only issue with the language is people ignoring the separation between the justification of the right and the right itself. It doesn’t matter what they said the right was for, whether it be for self defense or a militia for defense of the nation. The right stands on its own as the right to keep and bear arms.
And that is how a document for rights turns into scripture. “It doesn’t matter why the words say what they say, the words are holy and unchangeable.” The Founders themselves would disagree with your assessment, they said as much that the Constitution is imperfect and can’t possibly predict the needs for the future.
As for the idea that someone questioning the Second Amendment must be against gun ownership, that shows the echo chamber you’re coming from. So many gun owners are left wing/liberal/socialist/whatever label you want, but aren’t as vocal as the right because they understand that with ownership of dangerous things comes responsibility and regulation. Sure seems like a parallel with how the right views other things too…they only like regulation when it works in favor of their beliefs, not for the greater good of the public.
You do realize that there were private warships, correct? You act like these things were never allowed. They were allowed for those who could afford them. If you can afford a tank or a warthog go right ahead. Also maybe do a little research. There is no M15.
And they helped us win conflicts. Private warships. Privateers. Cannons, and bombs, and gatling guns in private hands with no issue until people like Reagan got afraid of the blacks and started cracking down on inner cities.
Back when the us was struggling with resources and didnt have a large standing army?..
Also, it was a problem decades prior. Reagan merely expanded the NFA from 1934, created to curb the violent crimes from organized criminals, by prohibiting the sale of new manufactured automatic weapons.
Walz’s stance isn’t even that restrictive. He’s signed bills for better background checks, which is pretty reasonable. We have background checks for all kinds of other dangerous situations, its not a new concept or a difficult thing to pass. He’s signed a bill to remove guns from those who pose a danger to themselves or others. Is Rittenhouse implying here that he poses a danger to himself or the general public? If Walz’s policies should take the guns away from Rittenhouse then that’s what I get out of this. Kyle is acknowledging, even advertising, that he is a continued danger to those around him.
Walz owns guns. He’s a hunter. Trying to paint him as anti-gun is pretty silly.
My feelings does not care about your facts and logic. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Most things requiring background checks weren’t guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, so it’s not quite comparable.
The Bill of Rights literally says “well-regulated”.
The current laws are a violation of the constitution because they are clearly not well-regulated by any reasonable definition.
In context of the time period it merely meant that the militia, which was every able bodied man in the country, should be well supplied in arms and ammunition. Not that the government should “regulate” the militia like a military.
The real source of the problem. If we had done regular updating of the Constitution like some of the Founders wanted we wouldn’t still be arguing over if 18th century phrasing still applies.
Honestly at this point, if somebody’s best criticism is something is “unconstitutional”, it’s tough to not question why their best defense is a 250 year old piece of paper that was never meant to be dogmatic.
Oh come on. Everyone gets a vote now. If you suppress someone’s vote, it’s unconstitutional.
14th, 1868
edit: or shit: 26th, 1971
14th what?
Oh, you mean the 14th Amendment, as in the document can be updated and changed.
The real problem is enshrining so many explicit rights in the constitution to begin with. The American constitutional framers couldn’t have known better because they were so early to do it they didn’t really have a model to follow, but I think history has shown that it was an error.
When Australia came to framing its constitution over the last decade of the 19th century, they had the benefit of looking at all the countries that came before, and considered putting a bill of rights into the Australian constitution and made a deliberate decision not to. It’s better for the legislature to decide what’s right for the current conditions than to be stuck with trying to interpret some text from a century ago in a completely different context. We have the benefit of a much, much less politicised judiciary as a result.
Explicit isn’t so much a problem, but nuance.
Example: the right to free speech is explicit a good and pretty well irrevocable thing, however some constraints such as using a public space to promote hate, speech meant to cause mass panic or harm or similar abuses are not protected as an exception to the broad basic right.
A part of the issue with the second is the population is so fiercely militaristic (we make such a monument of our military as being the greatest of heros) and individualistic that people will twist the wording any way they like to claim they should have the right to a tank rather than to thin what is reasonable for the general population.
Then there are the folks thinking they can revolt against a tyrannical government armed with globe covering drones because they have 100 rifles in their basement, but those are more especially deluded exceptions.
You act like human nature has changed. Crimes still occur and the right and ability to defend yourself and your property is still very much relevant. What is your opinion of the police? Do you trust them to come and protect you if someone breaks into your house, or do you expect them to come and shoot you?
I seem to read this as you thinking I’m not in favor of gun ownership, just because I suggest clarifying the main rule that gives that right that we still argue about its meaning today. If it was clearer, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
I did think that since it’s a standard basis for arguing against the 2nd. The only issue with the language is people ignoring the separation between the justification of the right and the right itself. It doesn’t matter what they said the right was for, whether it be for self defense or a militia for defense of the nation. The right stands on its own as the right to keep and bear arms.
It’s a deliberate misinterpretation.
And that is how a document for rights turns into scripture. “It doesn’t matter why the words say what they say, the words are holy and unchangeable.” The Founders themselves would disagree with your assessment, they said as much that the Constitution is imperfect and can’t possibly predict the needs for the future.
As for the idea that someone questioning the Second Amendment must be against gun ownership, that shows the echo chamber you’re coming from. So many gun owners are left wing/liberal/socialist/whatever label you want, but aren’t as vocal as the right because they understand that with ownership of dangerous things comes responsibility and regulation. Sure seems like a parallel with how the right views other things too…they only like regulation when it works in favor of their beliefs, not for the greater good of the public.
In the context of the time period, it was a replacement for a standing army.
As we have one, then obviously that amendment no longer has any meaning then? So we should just remove it. Cool.
I’m more for disbanding the standing military than disarming the citizenry.
Why not both?
Removed by mod
How many gun owners are part of a militia?
Every single one.
plus trained and disciplined. Not just supplied, able.
That was the reason for the right, not a command.
Ok fine. Lets go with that. I expect now that every man to be given an M15, a pack of HE grenades, atleast 2 Abrams tanks, and an A10 warthog.
You do realize that there were private warships, correct? You act like these things were never allowed. They were allowed for those who could afford them. If you can afford a tank or a warthog go right ahead. Also maybe do a little research. There is no M15.
Warships… that had to sail isolated oceans and had to protect themselves in a lawless ocean. Thats much different.
Everything is fine until only the wealthy owns their own private army and decides taxes are “unfair”.
It does exist. Its based on the M14. https://gatdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/13068-SA.1..jpg
And they helped us win conflicts. Private warships. Privateers. Cannons, and bombs, and gatling guns in private hands with no issue until people like Reagan got afraid of the blacks and started cracking down on inner cities.
Back when the us was struggling with resources and didnt have a large standing army?..
Also, it was a problem decades prior. Reagan merely expanded the NFA from 1934, created to curb the violent crimes from organized criminals, by prohibiting the sale of new manufactured automatic weapons.
lol