A gun isn’t a citizen or a person - it’s a weapon of war that has been regulated in almost every other civilized society. Other weapons with similar effects can be similarly regulated. This isn’t a problem that can’t be solved. It’s just a question of will and personal sacrifice.
A specific maker of a gun by a specific company isn’t a citizen or a company but the owner, traders and producers are. You’re really unto something with the similar effects having guns. You know how you wrote that down? With an abstract description of its function. As was proposed, but you objected
And of course that problem can be solved. And it will require work and personal sacrifice. And the first will needed is *yours* to sacrifice your unreflected imagination of what laws are, how they are made and how they work
well, our constitution requires the right to 'bear arms' 'not be infringed'. you can't Mean Words your way out of that. it requires intelligence and precision to achieve the thing you are asking for.
As long as people can not have their own tanks, destroyers, ICBM, nuclear warheads and fighter drones this interpretation of the condition is anyway not true. And tbh it never was, this is just some populist fairy tale for wannabe „I depend on nobody“ people who deny that we live in a society
No, the original constitution doesn’t say that - the 2nd amendment says that - “amendment”. It was added to the constitution in the exact same way other things can and have been added to the constitution. The entire concept is to have a “living document” that adapts to changing times and growth
Look who *suddenly* cares about the importance of precise legal language 🙃 Really you should just stop talking until you figured out a more or less consisting way of taking part in a discourse. Have a snickers or a coffee or something
I’m quite comfortable with exactly what I’ve said - in the wake of yet another shooting (and I’ll add that I’ve been in a mass shooting in America) I find it truly offensive when people publicly eye-roll about a lack of technical precision in the broader general gun discourse- 1/2
Yeah, good for you, but people who are actually involved in implementing laws can’t write down vague ideas but need to find specific and useable formulations. If you want to just sit in a bar at 2am discussing stuff, sure, go on. But most of us want to deliver and get somewhere
You made a mistake and then you had some trouble admitting it. No big deal, happens to the best of us once in a while. But now can we please go back to a serious discussion?
„Ban AR-15!“ is a good slogan for a protest sign. But it isn’t policy and cannot be.
It doesn’t help the conservation, but it is generally dismissive of people who don’t use the preferred gun pronouns - aka the side of the debate that doesn’t love gun culture.
I worked a lot on antisemitism and I can write down the name and concepts of at least five conceptually different types of Jew hate. Knowing these does not make me an antisemite culture lover
I understand that you want everyone to take part in political discussions. It’s a good goal. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of people isn’t equipped for the political technical discussions. But they can level up. Trying to bring the level down isn’t going to accomplish that
it's bullshit I can't keep home defense vx
if somebody breaks into my house the caesium-137 source is going to get aerosolized. it's a free county damn it.
Even the Heller decision says you can regulate, BUT you are absolutely correct that you need precise language. And a court that doesn't ignore that precise language.