• spyd3r@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Now only the police and criminals will have guns, and law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of both.

      • Fades@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        True, and I’m cool with that but people take issue with things like that because it puts a financial barrier around the ability to defend themselves. Which doesn’t really hold weight when the gun itself is a financial barrier lol

        • Saganaki@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Genuine question: Why don’t 2A people also complain about driver’s licenses then? I really don’t understand. It’s the same barrier (if not even worse).

          • Zatore@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            The argument may be that driving isn’t in the constitution. You don’t need a permit to travel, just to drive a car on public roads. I like my guns but I’m fine with permitting if you are carrying in public.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              Well as long as the SCOTUS is being text only your guns aren’t in it either. It should be guns that exists in 1791 and only if you are in a well-regulated militia. Which I am fine with. We should start a militia, that is well regulated, and open to adults to join where they get 1791 guns to do whatever it is militias are supposed to do.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                should be guns that exists in 1791 and only if you are in a well-regulated militia.

                You are a member of the well regulated militia envisioned by the constitution. Everyone is.

                If you’re talking about a government-organized entity, you are not talking about the militia. You are talking about an “Army” or a “Navy”.

                Congress has the power to determine what part of the militia can be called forth, and the circumstances under which they can be. Under that authority, they enacted 10 USC § 246 which basically says they intend to call the National Guard first, and if necessary, able bodied male citizens ages 17 to 45.

                They don’t define the constitutional meaning of “Militia” when they create the two classes mentioned in this law. They could change the requirement from “citizen” to “person subject to US law” or “able bodied” to “sound minded”, or “male” to “person”, or “17-45” to “16-60”.

                The largest group they could theoretically draw is the entirety of “We The People”, and that is what the Constitution means when it refers to the Militia in Article I Section 8 clauses 15 and 16, as well as the 2nd Amendment.

                When called to serve, as the National Guard is called today and the unorganized militia was called in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, and many, many other wars, individuals are not called forth to the militia. They are called forth from the militia, to serve in “armies” or the “Navy”.

                The only regulation most of us ever see is an obligation to register for Selective Service. If you don’t think that the militia you are a part of is sufficiently regulated, I want to know what additional regulations you feel you need imposed upon you.

                You don’t get to make those additional regulations conditions of gun ownership, as that would violate the 2nd amendment. But you can impose additional training requirements on yourself and the rest of We The People. You could obligate every high school student in the nation to take a class on safe gun handling and the laws governing use of force, for example.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  You are a member of the well regulated militia envisioned by the constitution. Everyone is.

                  I see. So in that case according to the 13th amendment I should be compensated for my service.

                  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    You are.

                    Your normal compensation is the enjoyment of “a free State”.

                    If you are called forth to serve in the armed forces, your compensation is your paycheck.