Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hambone012 t1_j8x34m7 wrote

Reply to comment by ScratchMoore in Turtle Creek man charged with possessing guns in Pittsburgh's federal building by lod254

I guess we can’t all love the freedom of the constitution.

−5

ScratchMoore t1_j8x3pvg wrote

No one’s constitutional rights are being infringed upon. Anyone can still own any weapon they choose.

Folks aren’t allowed to tell “Fire!” in a crowded theater or spread libel or falsehoods about others with impunity. These are sensible steps that don’t impinge anyone’s freedom of speech. Nothing I mentioned takes away anyone’s freedom to bear arms.

5

LessThanLoquacious t1_j8x6271 wrote

Your solution guarantees that only those that are the least oppressed in our society have access to the tools most needed for defense of self. Bears a striking resemblance to how the rich, white, and right crowd makes it harder for oppressed minorities to vote.

1

blargsamerow t1_j8xmho1 wrote

So the second amendment gives me the right to kill cops in self defense awesome!

3

ScratchMoore t1_j8x6qd6 wrote

How is that?

1

LessThanLoquacious t1_j8xchce wrote

Increasing licensing, non-negligible fees, and things like insurance are prohibitive to ownership.

Just like making people wait at the DMV to be eligibile to vote, people working several jobs are not able to take time off to wait in 3 different lines at 3 different places, and pay 3 different fees to get a license.

−1

ScratchMoore t1_j8xdxlq wrote

Sounds like a great solution to that problem would be to distribute free identification cards to every American adult on their 18th birthday. That way everyone is able to vote without paying a poll tax and they can own weapons without paying for their license as well.

As for insurance, I’m sure there’s a logical way to compensate for that. Perhaps weapons could have a $5 surcharge added to their price? Something like that. For things that already cost hundreds of dollars, another $5 (or some other negotiable term) shouldn’t be a barrier to anybody. I’m open to other solutions or suggestions as well.

3

ChefGuru t1_j8xcw2s wrote

You should probably educate yourself, a little bit. It is legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. That was never actually a law.

−2

ScratchMoore t1_j8xe4u5 wrote

Forgive me, I used an apocryphal example. Libel is still not legal, so my point still stands that sensible regulations are possible when it comes to constitutional rights.

1

ChefGuru t1_j8xifyt wrote

Like the Right to drive a vehicle? Which Amendment gives that Right?

0

ScratchMoore t1_j8xjk6a wrote

None. I never said there was one.

1

ChefGuru t1_j8xjxp3 wrote

It's pretty bad when you have to dissect your argument with a scalpel to try to defend it.

−2

ScratchMoore t1_j8xk6n5 wrote

What solutions do you propose?

I’m curious, since you are so keen to nitpick things I say and volley comments back and forth, how would you like to see the rampant gun violence in America be eradicated?

2

ChefGuru t1_j8xm3c5 wrote

You won't do it by simply removing a single type of tool from the people who want to do harm. How many guns did Timothy McVeigh use? How many guns did the Boston Marathon Bomber use? How many guns did the 9/11 hijackers use? How many guns did the truck driver use in Nice, France? How many guns were used in the deadliest school killing in US history?

When you have a compound fracture broken bone, it doesn't do any good to simply put a bandaid on the skin if you don't treat the cause. The single common denominator in EVERY murder, regardless of the type of weapon used, isn't a gun, it's the person who chose to harm someone else. If you don't treat the person, and the reason for wanting to harm others, you won't stop the killings.

0

ScratchMoore t1_j8xmxqa wrote

I don’t disagree with much, if any, of the things you listed. However, I see no proposals in that response.

How would you like to see the rampant gun violence in America be eradicated? What solutions do you propose?

2

ScratchMoore t1_j8znh3k wrote

Huh. Weird how that question never gets a response. Always “what you’re saying would never work”, never “here is what I think will work”.

Always.

2

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j8y5lmy wrote

"People kill with explosives so there's no point in doing anything to control gun use" is a ridiculous argument.
 
A gun's sole purpose is to kill, full stop.

1

ChefGuru t1_j8y6bba wrote

Wow, I didn't realize that the Olympics (both summer and winter) have MULTIPLE events dedicated to nothing more than murdering people. I think I'll have to watch them, next time.

0

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j8y6jr2 wrote

Yes, that's what practicing your marksmanship is for, so you can more accurately kill.
 
You're more likely to blast the top of your own skull off with your gun than you are to defend yourself or overthrow a tyrannical government with it, so at least the problem will fix itself eventually.

4

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j8x5d8a wrote

The second amendment was never intended to be a suicide pact, and that is essentially what it's become.

5

Zenith2017 t1_j8x4c9b wrote

I'm sure we can do better than worshipping a 250 year old document made in the age of blunderbusses and muskets

3

ChefGuru t1_j8xcld8 wrote

It wasn't all muskets, back then. The first fully automatic firearm had already been invented when the 2nd Amendment was written. And despite Biden lying about the fact that citizens couldn't buy a cannon, back then, civilians could, in fact, purchase, own, and use weapons of war. Considering the government didn't originally want a standing military force, citizens had to have access to higher caliber weapons used in war.

−1

Zenith2017 t1_j8xdd4u wrote

How do you feel about the militia bit?

3

ChefGuru t1_j8xia6i wrote

You know it wasn't taking about an actual established militia unit, like most people think of a militia, today, right? Most citizens in the country are, by default, already militia members.

−2