At least 157 people were killed and 270 were injured last year in unintentional shootings by children, according to Everytown, an advocacy group for firearm safety.
We need to start training infants how to use guns! It is the only solution!
.
.
/S if it wasn’t clear enough
you’re not funny, btw
He’s just flexing for his tribe, lol.
Probably one of the “I hate cops, I hate guns, and I also can’t fight” crew.
I hate the system that allows for cops to basically do what they want with 0 repercussions.
Forgotten Weapons and Grand Thumb are regular watching for me sometimes Brandon H (it’s something mexican) It’s ok, he would be fine with that. I have 0 interest in owning guns though. I don’t find shooting overly fun and I’ve dealt with tinnitus my entire life so don’t need more of it.
Paint balling is fun as fuck.
Who the fuck needs to fight? If I want to hit someone I’ll go play Rugby, a real sport unlike American "Foot"ball
Who the fuck needs to fight?
Lol. I’m talking about self-defense.
You can’t fight. You don’t own a gun. And you hate cops. So, who protects you when someone wants to hurt you? The fairy-godmother?
Lmao.
Go suck Tate ya alpha male cuck
Who?
This is why you should teach gun safety to kids in schools. In the US, kids are going to find guns, because some owners are going to be lazy, careless, or just tired and not thinking straight. Things like, if you find a gun, get an adult, a gun is always loaded, even if you think you unloaded it, or never, ever point a gun at something you don’t intend to shoot.
Parents should teach their kids this stuff, just like parents should be teaching their kids of sex and healthy relationships. But parents aren’t, and so schools need to step into the gap.
I never understood why firearms safety classes were done away with in schools. Nearly every middle and high school had a shooting club for most of the US’s history.
Because guns scary bad.
And I mean that seriously.
People in urban areas–which is most of the country’s population–almost exclusively experience firearms as being part of a criminal act. Most people that live in cities don’t know people that hunt, or compete in marksmanship, but they hear about murders and shootings in their city all the time. Why do you need training in firearms in schools when the only use–the only use they have consistent exposure to–is criminal?
You can look at electoral maps and see this; most of the geographical area is red/Republican/conservative (typically pro-2A), while most of the population centers where people actually live are blue/Democratic/more liberal. If you went back 50 or 100 years, you’d see more people living in rural areas, which ended up meaning that there were more people that were exposed to hunting, etc.
pro 2a is revisionist.
Historically the 2nd amendment was never a personal amendment like the 1st but a states rights amendment like the 10th amendment. Eg the feds cannot disarm lawful state militias.
This kind of oversimplification leaves out how corporate gun manufacturers have embarked on a decades long venture to reinterpret the 2nd amendment to basically be “you have a god given right to sell guns” and the republican policy here is simply the current pro-corporate policy. If corporations shift on this republican politicians will as well (and they have, people forget Ronald Reagan introduced gun control)
Incorrect. It was understood not only as a right, but a requirement. The people were expected to be in the militia, and they were expected to furnish their own arms. (Or course, the founders had very different ideas about who “people” were; the rules didn’t apply to women and black/indigenous people.)
slaves, immigrants, women were all barred from gun ownership legally within the life span of the founders and courts upheld these rulings. Guns rights were NEVER a personal right
Again: you’re simply wrong. Slaves, immigrants, and women were barred from all rights within the lifespan of the founders. If you extend your argument, you can say that the freedom of the press wasn’t a right either, since slaves, women, and immigrants didn’t have the right to read or publish what they wanted.
The problem with this view is that the body of the constitution already gives government the power to raise and arm and army, and to enact taxes to pay for it. There’s no need for an amendment to say that the gov’t has the right to be armed when that right was already stated. It’s redundant. You could, perhaps, argue that it’s a right that was being reserved for the states, but it doesn’t say that the states have the right to militias, it says the people. Moreover, the remaining nine amendments that form the bill of rights all concern individual rights, or individual and state rights (e.g. 10A). It would be very strange to see an amendment that not only says “people” but means “states”, and is the only amendment in the bill of rights that applies only to states.
Take, for instance, the National Firearms Act of 1934. It was originally going to be a ban on handguns, short-barreled rifles (because they were effectively handguns, and would circumvent the ban), and machine guns. It was turned into a tax because lawmakers were pretty sure that a ban couldn’t pass court review–while a tax could, since it was an enumerated power–which very strongly implies that it was recognized, even in the 1930s, as an individual right, rather than a right that existed for the gov’t.
I could probably come up with a list of references if you were interested in reading more. I would not suggest anything by Michael Bellesiles, because his historical “research” was found to be deeply flawed bordering on outright fraudulent.
Militia service was for a long time a privelege (restricted to men of certain age) and the right to bear arms was always intended to be a give and take: you could own arms but you would be legally required to show up in an emergency to help and you would be trained to do so. That was always the intention.
People would call it communism or something today but for whatever reason the arms stuck around and the militia as a community resource disappeared. Realistically the idea of personal arms without any obligation to society is a completely new fiction and that is one defined by corporate intervention.
At its core the 2nd amendment was always an exchange: You get guns but if you fail to fulfill your obligations as a gun owner you lose this privelege: This is why to this day felons can be legally barred from gun ownership. Other amendments - due process etc aren’t lost when you commit a crime.
However today I can’t tell you how many gun owners complain like whiny children over the most basic obligations like licensure, training, etc. What those obligations are were up to the states but largely the second amendment was an exchange “everyone who can fulfill this basic obligation can have guns”
