The mass shooting last month in Maine — perpetrated by an Army reservist allowed to keep his guns reportedly bought days before he underwent psychiatric evaluations due to his erratic behavio…
This is such a bullshit article. Yeah the NRA is a terrible organization and there are a lot of reasons to attack them. But attacking the educational, gun safety and shooting sports programs that they offer or fund is complete bullshit and is detrimental to the public good.
This is like saying we shouldn’t offer driving classes because one day a student might get into an accident.
I agree not there by accident at all! We should have well regulated militias in every State County and City!
Well regulated meant well supplied, trained and fully manned in the late 1700. I’d love to see local armories in every city with with ranges fully stocked with state supplied ammunition and firearms that are available to the public!
The NRA and school shootings are the subject of the article, and gun control is an effective solution to the latter that the NRA continuously tries to block via any means necessary.
To use your example, it is like if those that trained people to drive also tried to block any sort of driving license program, believing that literally anyone should be allowed behind the steering wheel of a car.
The article focuses on the funding of gun safety, marksmanship and 4A courses by the NRA. Which is arguably one of the better applications that the NRA supports. You are either terrible at English comprehension or more likely simping hard for the anti 2A crowd.
Your analogy is terrible, US citizens have a 2A right to bear arms. This is written into the constitution. There is no such clause for a drivers license.
Firstly , Its in the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution. Secondly, it is my opinion that District of Columbia v. Heller is bad law and needs to be looked at again with a modern and ethical perspective (You as an individual are not a well regulated militia). Other countries dont have nearly as many preventable problems with firearms as the US does, but we are unwilling to discuss the problem in good faith because of a single line.
Your comprehension of the English language is as far reaching as your grasp of 2A rights.
I will try to spell it out simply. The Second AMENDMENT to the Constitution was part of a package known as the Bill of Rights which was passed after the Constitution was ratified as citizens were upset that basic freedoms weren’t enshrined in the Constitution. The First AMENDMENT to the constitution was the right to free speech which was important to Americans. Funny enough they thought gun rights were important as the next AMENDMENT to the Constitution featured the right to bear arms. There were many other AMENDMENTS guaranteed with the Bill of Rights but these were the first two.
Amendment change or modify the Constitution and are considered part of that governing document when ratified.
Millions of 2A supporters will not compromise on any of those rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
First, attacking the person, not the proposition. I feel like I hit a nerve, so that started off well.
Next paragraph, I don’t know who to thank for that, chatGPT Wikipedia. The location in the documents is not the issue at hand, other than "well actually"ing someone on the internet.
But that last line… And the part I take issue with.
How many 2A supporters can say with a straight face that a flintlock musket and modern weapon are even remotely comparable. The intent of these modern tools is to commit harm to your fellow man, which they do with much more efficiency than they did in the past. If the founders had the ability to see into the future, I’m confident they would have phrased the 2A differently.
Furthermore, if fear of a tyrannical government is your excuse to not take a moment of reflection on our relationship to the 2A, then you must be naive as you think I am… Revolution or whatever you want to call it does not work that way anymore. The last 60ish years of asymmetric conflict the US has been involved in should be a good enough example of that. (Best get used to dystopias, your in one)
Lastly, the part that is most frustrating is that this is a partially solved problem in countries that took action like Switzerland and Australia (that took very different paths to get to where they are today, but I want to focus on Aus). In 1996, Australia, in the wake of the worst mass shooting in their countries history, they collectively decided that the number of arms in the country was too damn high and did something about it. [Ref]
All that I propose is a good faith attempt at serious federal regulation with a focus on their current need as tools, ethics and actual results/consequences. Unfortunately, as long as the NRA exists, America will collectively sit on its hands and this all comes off as wishful thinking.
Really? You’re unable to find the correlation between this article, which talks about a school shooting, and the NRA, which has repeatedly resisted gun control efforts at every step of the way, to ridiculous degrees.
Sure, the NRA offering gun safety lessons is laudable, but in the context of also being the single organisation most obstructive of gun law reform, even when gun laws as they currently stand make such incidents ridiculously easy to commit, it doesn’t exactly wash the blood off the NRA’s hands. It’s like lauding Hitler for building the autobahn avd ignoring all the other things he did.
Your analogy is terrible, US citizens have a 2A right to bear arms.
The US constitution dies not grant an unlimited and absolute right to bear arms. There are plenty of guns and other weaponry that you are not allowed to own as a civilian, and plenty of other restrictions such as red flag laws, and licensing programs such as open carry permits.
Why would a general firearms license not fall under that purview?
This is such a bullshit article. Yeah the NRA is a terrible organization and there are a lot of reasons to attack them. But attacking the educational, gun safety and shooting sports programs that they offer or fund is complete bullshit and is detrimental to the public good.
This is like saying we shouldn’t offer driving classes because one day a student might get into an accident.
Correlation is not causation.
Out of all the things to criticise the NRA for, this is the last
Driving a car is not a valid comparison to using a gun.
You are correct guns are constitutionally protected and should not be regulated or licensed.
“well regulated militia”. 3 words that are not there by accident.
I agree not there by accident at all! We should have well regulated militias in every State County and City!
Well regulated meant well supplied, trained and fully manned in the late 1700. I’d love to see local armories in every city with with ranges fully stocked with state supplied ammunition and firearms that are available to the public!
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf
The problem is that the NRA also actively blocks things that will actually deal with the problem, like gun controls.
Gun control wasn’t the subject of the article nor was it what I posted about. Why are you trying to change the subject?
The NRA and school shootings are the subject of the article, and gun control is an effective solution to the latter that the NRA continuously tries to block via any means necessary.
To use your example, it is like if those that trained people to drive also tried to block any sort of driving license program, believing that literally anyone should be allowed behind the steering wheel of a car.
The article focuses on the funding of gun safety, marksmanship and 4A courses by the NRA. Which is arguably one of the better applications that the NRA supports. You are either terrible at English comprehension or more likely simping hard for the anti 2A crowd.
Your analogy is terrible, US citizens have a 2A right to bear arms. This is written into the constitution. There is no such clause for a drivers license.
Firstly , Its in the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution. Secondly, it is my opinion that District of Columbia v. Heller is bad law and needs to be looked at again with a modern and ethical perspective (You as an individual are not a well regulated militia). Other countries dont have nearly as many preventable problems with firearms as the US does, but we are unwilling to discuss the problem in good faith because of a single line.
Your comprehension of the English language is as far reaching as your grasp of 2A rights.
I will try to spell it out simply. The Second AMENDMENT to the Constitution was part of a package known as the Bill of Rights which was passed after the Constitution was ratified as citizens were upset that basic freedoms weren’t enshrined in the Constitution. The First AMENDMENT to the constitution was the right to free speech which was important to Americans. Funny enough they thought gun rights were important as the next AMENDMENT to the Constitution featured the right to bear arms. There were many other AMENDMENTS guaranteed with the Bill of Rights but these were the first two.
Amendment change or modify the Constitution and are considered part of that governing document when ratified.
Millions of 2A supporters will not compromise on any of those rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
First, attacking the person, not the proposition. I feel like I hit a nerve, so that started off well.
Next paragraph, I don’t know who to thank for that, chatGPT Wikipedia. The location in the documents is not the issue at hand, other than "well actually"ing someone on the internet.
But that last line… And the part I take issue with.
How many 2A supporters can say with a straight face that a flintlock musket and modern weapon are even remotely comparable. The intent of these modern tools is to commit harm to your fellow man, which they do with much more efficiency than they did in the past. If the founders had the ability to see into the future, I’m confident they would have phrased the 2A differently.
Furthermore, if fear of a tyrannical government is your excuse to not take a moment of reflection on our relationship to the 2A, then you must be naive as you think I am… Revolution or whatever you want to call it does not work that way anymore. The last 60ish years of asymmetric conflict the US has been involved in should be a good enough example of that. (Best get used to dystopias, your in one)
Lastly, the part that is most frustrating is that this is a partially solved problem in countries that took action like Switzerland and Australia (that took very different paths to get to where they are today, but I want to focus on Aus). In 1996, Australia, in the wake of the worst mass shooting in their countries history, they collectively decided that the number of arms in the country was too damn high and did something about it. [Ref]
All that I propose is a good faith attempt at serious federal regulation with a focus on their current need as tools, ethics and actual results/consequences. Unfortunately, as long as the NRA exists, America will collectively sit on its hands and this all comes off as wishful thinking.
Really? You’re unable to find the correlation between this article, which talks about a school shooting, and the NRA, which has repeatedly resisted gun control efforts at every step of the way, to ridiculous degrees.
Sure, the NRA offering gun safety lessons is laudable, but in the context of also being the single organisation most obstructive of gun law reform, even when gun laws as they currently stand make such incidents ridiculously easy to commit, it doesn’t exactly wash the blood off the NRA’s hands. It’s like lauding Hitler for building the autobahn avd ignoring all the other things he did.
The US constitution dies not grant an unlimited and absolute right to bear arms. There are plenty of guns and other weaponry that you are not allowed to own as a civilian, and plenty of other restrictions such as red flag laws, and licensing programs such as open carry permits.
Why would a general firearms license not fall under that purview?