Ok, I’m gonna need a citation for that one. I mean, sure, we’re not “unique” in that regard, but it’s fairly uncommon.
hperrin
joined 8 months ago
Ok, let’s try it and see if you’re right.
The second amendment has four clauses, each separated with commas. The way I interpret it (the way it was originally interpreted for over 200 years) is that it guarantees states the right to maintain well regulated militias of its citizens, and that the federal government can’t take away the firearms of those militias.
It’s only relatively recently (2008) that we’ve reinterpreted the amendment to basically forget about the first two clauses and the third command. That’s why the NRA only has the second half adorning their office buildings.
The text:
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.
How I interpret it:
- 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.
How republicans interpret it:
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
You must be right since every other country who’s already solved this problem solved it in the way you’re saying doesn’t work.
You’ll never convince me that guns aren’t the problem, because places that don’t have guns don’t have the problem. The evidence is thoroughly and definitively not on your side.
I get why the artificial blood thing is really cool and definitely headline worthy, but why is the “compatible with all blood types” headline worthy? Wouldn’t making it incompatible involve developing additional parts to the mix, and thus be harder?
Well it doesn’t matter what you make illegal, because criminals will just get it anyway. That’s why every other country has the exact same gun death rate as the USA, even though guns are illegal in most of them, right?
By that logic, why should anything be illegal?
Yes. Specifically, assault pistol. This new definition adds assault long gun.
No, it redefines it. It repeals the old definition and enacts a new definition. That is redefining. Did you read it?
What do you think happens when the cops show up? (If the cops have the balls to walk through the door and try to save the kids, that is.)
If I’ve learned anything from Pascal’s Wager, it’s that we should definitely believe one (and only one) of them, because if they’re right and they are god, we’ll get rewarded!
So the majority of countries either don’t allow guns at all or don’t allow guns without a permit and a good reason. A few allow guns with a permit and no reason necessary. Three (that I could see) don’t require a permit. I mean, yeah. Strict gun laws work, and a lack of gun laws leads to gun violence. Is there any more proof you need?