1103
submitted 9 months ago by ZWho63@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml

Here we go again...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 9 months ago

Hmmm, so all of those "well regulated militia means the national guard, the only people who should have guns are the cops and the national guard because they're the only ones responsible enough" people are going to finally admit that cops and weekend warriors aren't actually all that special and the training they recieve doesn't make them good people it only makes them more effective should they decide to be bad people?

[-] charles@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

People who say that actually want a complete and total ban on guns, but acknowledge the constitution says what it says and amendments are literally impossible in today's political climate.

Also, one could argue a "well regulated" militia wouldn't send guns home with its members. It could be kept at a central facility.

[-] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 9 months ago

I know they do, I was actually specifically calling that out, as they always say "nuh uh" when you point out that they do in fact want a total ban on self defense.

One could argue anything, doesn't make them actually correct. "The militia" is defined "as all able bodied males age 17-45," not as "the national guard, which is a military branch not a militia." As such, this argument says to me that "all able bodied males age 17-45" should be able to own guns and nobody else, no women, nobody in a wheelchair or with anything that would disqualify one medically from service like colorblindness, etc. Of course, that is ridiculous, but that's why I prefer the "actually knows english" approach to that particular argument.

[-] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

It's still not necessary to qualify it that way. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" stands on its own with the preceding sentence explaining Why.

Regardless of semantics, the Supreme Court has confirmed individual rights to bear arms in triplicate and that matter is settled.

[-] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 months ago
[-] tastysnacks@programming.dev 2 points 9 months ago

Nothing is settled with this supreme court.

[-] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

OK well go tell them about that and see what they have to say about it.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

We really need to get them to review Harlow V Fitzgerald, and present them with the full text of section 1983 with the 16 missing words, as the 1871 Congress passed that law.

[-] Dick_Justice@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Wtf. I just googled that. How has that been allowed to continue foe a hund and fifty fucking years?? Jesus H. Christ.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Well the case I referenced occurred in 1982, but I think it was mainly because no one took the time to look at the Congressional Record, and compare it to the text in the Federal Register.

[-] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I don't know much about that, but if that would get rid of qualified immunity for police then I concur.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

That's the case that caused QI in 1982. The 16 missing words explicitly outlaw any sort of immunity for any government officials.

[-] tastysnacks@programming.dev 2 points 9 months ago

That's an interesting idea. Maybe in situations like this, the governor should activate the militia to hunt this guy down. Allow the community to protect itself instead of relying only on the cops. Lots of things could go wrong, but still, it could show the intent of the 2a.

[-] Dick_Justice@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

That's like, horror movie levels of scary.

[-] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

In a sense this is already in effect to the degree that is...necessary, or maybe the word I should use is "appropriate." If anyone who is carrying arms runs into this guy, knows what he looks like and gets a positive ID, and knows what he's done, while it isn't 100% legal to draw on him unless he's presenting an active threat (i.e he has a gun out), no DA in the country would charge you with brandishing. Then from there you say freeze, he reaches for his gun, shit happens.

The problem with deputizing the entire county for a manhunt though is giving people real authority can have some ill effects, and is pretty much guaranteeing mob justice to become a norm again. I'd say we're at the happy medium of "nobody will question you if you do find him, but I'm not going to imbue you with the authority of the state per se."

[-] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

Sounds like a legal nightmare

[-] Treczoks@lemm.ee 10 points 9 months ago

Maybe you should differ between those people in active service and ex-soldiers with PTSD and mental issues that makes them hear voices...

[-] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 9 months ago

Maybe they should differ. I think that anyone who hasn't proven themselves a danger to others should be able to own one, even people with PTSD which shouldn't be stigmatized simply because some people with it do violent things. Most people with PTSD do not.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Unfortunately a fact that few are willing to recognize is that if you have been homeless in the US for more than 4 weeks there is a very high (like high 90s percent) chance that you have PTSD. It's not just the military, though us vets certainly have it as well. I'll also wager that anyone that has spent any amount of time in our jails also has PTSD. The point I'm making is that despite the common person thinking that PTSD is just exclusive to the military, it is in fact, not.

I haven't actually looked into it, but I would wager that globally we have better than 6 billion people walking around with some form of PTSD.

[-] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 months ago

That and survivors of rape, assault (sexual or otherwise,) b&e, the list of potential causes is a mile long. I'd wager your wager is not at all unreasonable.

[-] Satiric_Weasel@beehaw.org 2 points 9 months ago

I have seen no indication that he had left the service, every report I have seen thus far has indicated that he was an active member of the US Army reserve serving as Sergeant First Class assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 304th Infantry Regiments in Saco, Maine.

[-] JokeDeity@lemm.ee -4 points 9 months ago

Why? No one, zero people, who join the military or the police, do so without the intention of using force over others. These aren't good people, I'm not going to concern myself with what category of shitty to put them under.

[-] deranger@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Many of the soldiers I know who only set foot into a hospital and only to pay for college.

Your post is ignorant as fuck

[-] JokeDeity@lemm.ee -4 points 9 months ago

Cry about it bootlicker.

this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
1103 points (95.2% liked)

Memes

44808 readers
3217 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS