[Discussion] Mass Shooting at Uvalde Elementary School

[Js1 85,396]

37 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Let's build moats around every school.

Filled with sharks with laser beams. Or hungry sea bass 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12,301]

39 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Let's build moats around every school.

this has been my idea for awhile now. moats and drawbridges. i fully expect it to gain traction as a potential solution because simulation.

[fattyflattie 4,639]

59 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Never mind, I looked it up.

So as long as it takes twice as long to mow down a fourth grade class as it would with a binary trigger, then that weapon is ok? Is that the logic?

No, that’s not my logic. But that doesn’t change the fact I think they are useless and not needed in any fashion.  
 

52 minutes ago, Homercles said:

I’m actually amazed and pleased fatty is in favor of banning them.  I’m down with that.  Yes you can still kill people with a bolt/slide action, and yes we still need better age/background checks…but many more opportunities to intervene and/or shooter to make mistakes if they’re cycling the action manually.  

You’d likely be surprised where I fall on ALOT of it.  I would LOVE for there to be some common sense actions put in place (f2f loopholes, more stringent background checks, easing into red flag requirements, licensing, proven safe storage, raise age on some firearms, some type of class/recert).  I think this problem can be slowed, but unfortunately don’t think it will ever be solved.  But slowing it is a hell of a start. And we should be following our rules already on the books without fault, yesterday.  

[Chopper 17,238]

15 hours ago, LW Goatman said:

“Give”, lol.

Probably used "give" to differentiate from "take" which is what we have now, where the insurance, hospital and pharma companies rob you, and then bend you over and fuck you dry straight up the ass.

Edited May 30, 2022 by Chopper

[hobbes2702 13,045]

41 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

No, that’s not my logic. But that doesn’t change the fact I think they are useless and not needed in any fashion.  
 

You’d likely be surprised where I fall on ALOT of it.  I would LOVE for there to be some common sense actions put in place (f2f loopholes, more stringent background checks, easing into red flag requirements, licensing, proven safe storage, raise age on some firearms, some type of class/recert).  I think this problem can be slowed, but unfortunately don’t think it will ever be solved.  But slowing it is a hell of a start. And we should be following our rules already on the books without fault, yesterday.  

I would love all this stuff but I continue to vote against all of it

[fattyflattie 4,639]

4 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I would love all this stuff but I continue to vote against all of it

It’s almost like people vote on more than one issue.  Crazy. Cats and dogs living together!!!

[hobbes2702 13,045]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

It’s almost like people vote on more than one issue.  Crazy. Cats and dogs living together!!!

You don’t vote on any issues. You vote on grievances 

[aggie08 21,505]

10 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

It’s almost like people vote on more than one issue.  Crazy. Cats and dogs living together!!!

You want sensible gun control, and you want the Republican party to cease being beholden to the MAGA cult.

Both of those things have the same solution.

So what issues could possibly be more important right now that you can't temporarily put aside to help contribute to that solution? What issues are more important than dead kids?

 

[Blotto 23,559]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

You don’t vote on any issues. You vote on grievances 

Many in the GQP probably dont like reading about kids getting slaughtered in classrooms, but they REALLY don't like reading that their taxes might go up. 

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

He knows, but just can’t bring himself to do it.

[Hawndoh 2,386]

8 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

You want sensible gun control, and you want the Republican party to cease being beholden to the MAGA cult.

Both of those things have the same solution.

So what issues could possibly be more important right now that you can't temporarily put aside to help contribute to that solution? What issues are more important than dead kids?

 

He worries his taxes might go up ever so slightly. 

[Bookman 4,639]

1 hour ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

this has been my idea for awhile now. moats and drawbridges. i fully expect it to gain traction as a potential solution because simulation.

Kind of makes it difficult to escape.

Maybe we can set up a tunnel system like they have at the banks. You push a button and you're transported to someplace safe, like Canada.

[fattyflattie 4,639]

22 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

You don’t vote on any issues. You vote on grievances 

Ok.  

[Willfully Horn 8,027]

3 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

I'm not trying to be the call a clip a magazine guy, but there are so few fully automatic weapons in private hands.  It's a .000000001% type deal.  And it takes some big time background checks.  And a lot of money.  And time.  And special taxes.  There have not been any mass murders I can think of where a full auto firearm was used.

To me, ff, you’ve made a great case to include these weapons of war into the same special permit status as fully automatic firearms.

[Bookman 4,639]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Did you read the post I was responding to?

I obviously read what you quoted, which has to do with the text of the second amendment and is correctly arguing that the first part should be given meaning. This is true under any theory of textual interpretation. What do the founder's expectations have to do with that?

[po elvis 2,075]

2 hours ago, Bookman said:

Let's build moats around every school.

Or don’t prop open a door.

[Dahobbs 17,625]

24 minutes ago, po elvis said:

Or don’t prop open a door.

Yeah, obviously that is the most important issue here. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5,562]

1 hour ago, Hawndoh said:

He worries his taxes might go up ever so slightly. 

But let's retrofit every school in the nation to become hardened bunkers. How? With what money? How about tax the shit out gun purchases like we do yes cigarettes. Pay for the mental health crisis. 

[Sawbonz 27,578]

1 hour ago, Bookman said:

I obviously read what you quoted, which has to do with the text of the second amendment and is correctly arguing that the first part should be given meaning. This is true under any theory of textual interpretation. What do the founder's expectations have to do with that?

I’m not arguing the first part doesn’t have meaning. I’m arguing that it is not clear that the first part is the predicate for the second part, unless a comma splice makes that so in legal writing.
 

And since the founders are the ones who ratified the document, I think it is important to consider whether they would expect a citizen to own a firearm when one tries to determine whether they intended to allow an individual the right to keep and bear a firearm other than “as part of”’ a well regulated militia. I guess that’s only material if you assume their intent matters.

[po elvis 2,075]

22 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, obviously that is the most important issue here. 

Its pretty high up there in what went wrong in this specific case. I don't blame a teacher at all for being complacent and not thinking something like this was going to happen though, because the chances were close to zero.

But going forward, there has to be an abundance of caution and a vigilance. I imagine campus police has seen doors propped open before and just walked by not thinking twice.

[F250 28,777]

1 hour ago, po elvis said:

Its pretty high up there in what went wrong in this specific case.

No it isn't. Propping open a door isn't something that went wrong, it's only being framed as a causation when it wasn't.

The cause was the 18 year old shooter and what enabled him was the lack of gun restrictions in Texas.

 

[Pato del Muerto 52,522]

One survivor said he shot out the glass

in the door, so I doubt a closed door would have been an impediment. Certainly not an 80 minute impediment. 

[freyguy 4,278]

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

One survivor said he shot out the glass

in the door, so I doubt a closed door would have been an impediment. Certainly not an 80 minute impediment. 

yet the cops....oh never mind...

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

7 hours ago, ClubWhatever said:

It needs to be amended.  The destructive capability of arms has advanced to the point where public safety considerations that didn’t exist before must now be factored in.   But will it?   No.  Not in our lifetimes.  

 

6 hours ago, tbone_ said:

This. We’ve proven as a species we can’t handle the right as it exists today.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/rant-second-amendment-repeal/
 

On 5/29/2022 at 2:17 PM, midtown said:

This is when the debate or any compromise breaks down and the middle of the road firearm owners say "well we better just keep letting the NRA protect our rights."  As soon as someone says this I  think you lose support from a very large percentage of Americans who do feel as if the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms is constitutional.  

I think this is a big part of where discussions break down. Gun owners don’t trust gun control advocates. Their true goals are always much more aggressive than something reasonable like no rifle purchases until 21. See today’s POTUS comments about 9mm handguns. 

[Chopper 17,238]

20 hours ago, midtown said:

I will fully admit I was wrong. I am shocked that the Supreme Court had never ruled on the second amendment in history. Have they ever not heard a case that was 2nd amendment related in order to leave a ruling in place from a lower court? Is it possible or likely that there simply have not been many cases that even made it that far because the 2nd amendment is so accepted as fact?

I'm claiming no specific expertise, just to be clear, and maybe someone already answered and I missed it. But the Heller decision in 2008 came about because someone challenged Washington DC's ban on ownership of handguns, which had been the law in DC since the early or mid 1970s. Given the date the problem DC was probably targeting was the proliferation of cheap handguns, i.e. the Saturday Night Special. 

The (extremely) sad thing is that even if you willingly buy into the right wing's argument that a citizen militia is necessary to protect the government, today the extremists use their "right" to buy guns in order to attack the government and bring about social chaos.

[Dahobbs 17,625]

1 hour ago, po elvis said:

Its pretty high up there in what went wrong in this specific case. I don't blame a teacher at all for being complacent and not thinking something like this was going to happen though, because the chances were close to zero.

But going forward, there has to be an abundance of caution and a vigilance. I imagine campus police has seen doors propped open before and just walked by not thinking twice.

You're a fucking idiot if you think a propped open door is a significant contributor or anywhere close to the primary, secondary, or even tertiary cause of this event. It is a fucking elementary school, not a goddamn prison or military base. 

 

 

Edited May 30, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Bookman 4,639]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

I’m not arguing the first part doesn’t have meaning. I’m arguing that it is not clear that the first part is the predicate for the second part, unless a comma splice makes that so in legal writing.
 

And since the founders are the ones who ratified the document, I think it is important to consider whether they would expect a citizen to own a firearm when one tries to determine whether they intended to allow an individual the right to keep and bear a firearm other than “as part of”’ a well regulated militia. I guess that’s only material if you assume their intent matters.

The states ratified the Constitution, not the founders. And the "intent" should be found by looking at the words that were used.

[MrBig 5,414]

15 minutes ago, Chopper said:

I'm claiming no specific expertise, just to be clear, and maybe someone already answered and I missed it. But the Heller decision in 2008 came about because someone challenged Washington DC's ban on ownership of handguns, which had been the law in DC since the early or mid 1970s. Given the date the problem DC was probably targeting was the proliferation of cheap handguns, i.e. the Saturday Night Special. 

The (extremely) sad thing is that even if you willingly buy into the right wing's argument that a citizen militia is necessary to protect the government, today the extremists use their "right" to buy guns in order to attack the government and bring about social chaos.

D.C. v Heller confirmed the Constitutional right to own firearms independent of militia affiliation. Gun control advocates arguing that the 2A is limited to a “well-regulated militia” are neutered by this SC ruling. 

[Sawbonz 27,578]

31 minutes ago, Bookman said:

The states ratified the Constitution, not the founders. And the "intent" should be found by looking at the words that were used.

Many of the founders (framers) wrote it so without them there wouldn’t have been anything to ratify.
 

Honestly I don’t know if most (or any) were members of their respective state delegations that ratified it.

Is it your assertion that they weren’t integral to ratification? 

And again I don’t know how you read the 2nd amendment as unambiguously limiting the right to bear arms to participants of a well regulated militia by looking at the words used. Is that how SCOTUS interpreted it?

Edited May 30, 2022 by Sawbonz

[Neonmoon 38,129]

The founders weren’t fucking deities. They were human. They had some good ideas. They had some shitty ones. They weren’t omniscient. It’s fucking weird people are beholden to words written by man a long time ago. Shit changes. Bacon is delicious. No one needs a gun. 

[DaysOff 7,951]

You want sensible gun control, and you want the Republican party to cease being beholden to the MAGA cult.
Both of those things have the same solution.
So what issues could possibly be more important right now that you can't temporarily put aside to help contribute to that solution? What issues are more important than dead kids?
 

More kids die of influenza than guns. /Sack /texags

[Pato del Muerto 52,522]

7 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

More kids die of influenza than guns. /Sack /texags

Also here’s reasons why you shouldn’t get your kid a flu shot. /same group 

[aggie08 21,505]

1 hour ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/rant-second-amendment-repeal/
 

I think this is a big part of where discussions break down. Gun owners don’t trust gun control advocates. Their true goals are always much more aggressive than something reasonable like no rifle purchases until 21. See today’s POTUS comments about 9mm handguns. 

Ah, well. I guess we should just keep making sure that even the most modest of proposals get stonewalled then. One of these days doing nothing is bound to work.

[Bookman 4,639]

16 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Many of the founders (framers) wrote it so without them there wouldn’t have been anything to ratify.
 

Honestly I don’t know if most (or any) were members of their respective state delegations that ratified it.

Is it your assertion that they weren’t integral to ratification? 

And again I don’t know how you read the 2nd amendment as unambiguously limiting the right to bear arms to participants of a well regulated militia by looking at the words used. Is that how SCOTUS interpreted it?

I'm saying the framer's expectations, even if their collective intent could be ascertained, is irrelevant. All they did was draft the document. If you're going to look beyond the text to find meaning in the words used -- e.g., perhaps you think it's ambiguous -- then what matters is the intent of the states that ratified it.

[aggie08 21,505]

Maybe, just maybe, the more adamant gun owners, and the politicians that depend on their votes, continue to purposely highlight the ideas of the most extreme gun control advocates--that would never, ever get 60 votes in the Senate--as a built-in, convenient excuse to refuse absolutely anything that dares infringe on their "rights."

Edited May 30, 2022 by aggie08

[Chopper 17,238]

58 minutes ago, MrBig said:

D.C. v Heller confirmed the Constitutional right to own firearms independent of militia affiliation. Gun control advocates arguing that the 2A is limited to a “well-regulated militia” are neutered by this SC ruling.

I don't know why you felt the need to respond to me but I wrote the exact same thing earlier. However congrats on your (newly found?) ability to use google. Your brain is fucking neutered.

Also - Heller does not mean that there is no opportunity to regulate guns on a national basis. BUT if you're arguing that the 2008 Heller case makes gun law settled, well tell that to the cunts on the Supreme Court who are setting to overturn years of personal privacy rights, force women who are raped to carry babies to term, remove the ability of gay people to receive the protections of marriage, illegalize in vitro fertilization...they want to go back to the time when someone could be prosecuted for selling a dildo.

Note though I've also argued the powers that be in the republican party are extremists who don't mind even one bit school, church or grocery store massacres. They relish events like those. Repulicans will NEVER work with Democrats on regulating guns. The powers that be in the republican party care ONLY about power -- and their only path to power is by creating social unrest. That's why they do everything they can to supply more weapons to our population and create more opportunity for people to use them.

Edited May 30, 2022 by Chopper

[Eskimohorn 5,635]

You're a fucking idiot if you think a propped open door is a significant contributor or anywhere close to the primary, secondary, or even tertiary cause of this event. It is a fucking elementary school, not a goddamn prison or military base. 
 
 

A suicidal shooter with an AR-15 and the element of surprise can inflict massive casualties even at a military base (especially if they have authorized access) and even some prisons. They wont be able to get out, but if all you want is to commit terror you can do it.

You need to get 500 kids in and out of school every day, without causing lines, it is an impossibility to adequately secure a campus from suicidal operatives with an AR-15, especially when there is no actionable intel that a threat is imminent.

Our plan to prevent more hotel shooters shooting down upon crowds relies on maids to check in on rooms. We are not smart.

This is all theater to help some companies move product.

[Pato del Muerto 52,522]

2 hours ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/rant-second-amendment-repeal/
 

I think this is a big part of where discussions break down. Gun owners don’t trust gun control advocates. Their true goals are always much more aggressive than something reasonable like no rifle purchases until 21. See today’s POTUS comments about 9mm handguns. 

So what?   If one side is being unreasonable, don’t vote for what they are asking.  say what you will vote for, make a bill, vote on it, pass it. 
 

“we won’t vote yes to common sense items like waiting periods and raising the minimum age to purchase because in the future you will want to ban all guns” isn’t the correct way to handle business. 
 

 

[Eskimohorn 5,635]

The founders weren’t fucking deities. They were human. They had some good ideas. They had some shitty ones. They weren’t omniscient. It’s fucking weird people are beholden to words written by man a long time ago. Shit changes. Bacon is delicious. No one needs a gun. 

The framers identified that communities needed firearms for self-defense from natives, armed factions (gangs), and foreign invaders (per Federalist Papers). You stored your powder and weapons in an armory and when attacks came, able-bodied men serving in a militia would step up. They could not solely rely or be dependent on a power thousands of miles away and needed the ability to have well-trained and outfitted militias.

The Texians felt the same way. They needed weapons and their own organized militia to settle Texas. One reason why they revolted.

What the framers did not intend was individuals having individual rights to cannons.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

The founders weren’t fucking deities. They were human. They had some good ideas. They had some shitty ones. They weren’t omniscient. It’s fucking weird people are beholden to words written by man a long time ago. Shit changes. Bacon is delicious. No one needs a gun. 

See. There it is again. That’s a long way from a targeted restriction that could help minimize these incidents. 

Unfortunately for staunch gun control advocates like Neon and POTUS, the Covid lockdowns and all the craziness that followed kind of shut the door on any widespread bans. 
 

1 hour ago, aggie08 said:

Maybe, just maybe, the more adamant gun owners, and the politicians that depend on their votes, continue to purposely highlight the ideas of the most extreme gun control advocates--that would never, ever get 60 votes in the Senate--as a built-in, convenient excuse to refuse absolutely anything that dares infringe on their "rights."

You mean like the President saying who needs a 9mm?

[MrBig 5,414]

1 hour ago, Chopper said:

I don't know why you felt the need to respond to me but I wrote the exact same thing earlier. However congrats on your (newly found?) ability to use google. Your brain is fucking neutered.

Also - Heller does not mean that there is no opportunity to regulate guns on a national basis. BUT if you're arguing that the 2008 Heller case makes gun law settled, well tell that to the cunts on the Supreme Court who are setting to overturn years of personal privacy rights, force women who are raped to carry babies to term, remove the ability of gay people to receive the protections of marriage, illegalize in vitro fertilization...they want to go back to the time when someone could be prosecuted for selling a dildo.

Note though I've also argued the powers that be in the republican party are extremists who don't mind even one bit school, church or grocery store massacres. They relish events like those. Repulicans will NEVER work with Democrats on regulating guns. The powers that be in the republican party care ONLY about power -- and their only path to power is by creating social unrest. That's why they do everything they can to supply more weapons to our population and create more opportunity for people to use them.

I am for gun control. I think assault weapons should be banned. But because of DC v. Heller, I think gun control advocates need to drop the “well-regulated militia” argument, even though it’s fucking obvious that this SC ruling is being misappropriated by gun advocates as a free for all to own any type of gun. 

We are living in a world where the SC is stacked with conservative activists, exemplified by their wives advocating for political outcomes that have no bearing in reality. Ginni wanted the election overturned. That’s not based in reality. Uvalde is reality. The dead children and the dead teachers blown apart by a legally acquired assault weapon is reality. 

It’s fucking disgusting that we need to legislate gun control based on court precedent instead of common sense. Gun control advocates need to get legal scholars to help navigate this thing carefully so we can finally do something about it while the news cycle is still fresh on people’s minds and not get cockblocked throughout the courts.

[tbone_ 14,128]

I think this is a big part of where discussions break down. Gun owners don’t trust gun control advocates. Their true goals are always much more aggressive than something reasonable like no rifle purchases until 21. See today’s POTUS comments about 9mm handguns. 

Confiscate and melt them all down. Repeal the second and make it illegal to own.

Fuck everyone’s hunting hobby and everyone’s ridiculous Clint Eastwood tough guy fantasies.

We have shown that we clearly cannot handle guns as a species. Some can, but too many can’t. Fuck your so called rights.

That’s my stance if it were up to me. Anything that gets us in that direction I’m I support of.

I’ve voted for exactly two Democratic candidates in my life. But that’s over. I’m done with everything Republican until that party, my party, gets is head out of its ass.

1 vote. But that’s how I’m using it. Fuck off.

[aggie08 21,505]

19 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Unfortunately for staunch gun control advocates like Neon and POTUS, the Covid lockdowns and all the craziness that followed kind of shut the door on any widespread bans. 

So, because the gun nuts went even further down the "protection against the government" bullshit rabbit hole during Covid, we have to reach out even further to coddle them and assure them that POTUS isn't going to knock down their door and confiscate their arsenal before we can pass a sensible law or two?

Again, how fucking convenient. Decades of always finding something new to blame shift and kick the can down the road.

How about we stop letting the extreme minority opinion dictate what laws we can and can't pass instead?

Edited May 31, 2022 by aggie08

[Homercles 10,206]

Don’t get into an argument with Immaculate Vibes, you’ll both get dirty and Immaculate will like it

-Thomas Jefferson

[Brisketexan 105,154]

D.C. v Heller confirmed the Constitutional right to own firearms independent of militia affiliation. Gun control advocates arguing that the 2A is limited to a “well-regulated militia” are neutered by this SC ruling. 

Fuck that shit, stare decisis is dead. Alito out front shoulda told ya. Take over the court, and rule how we want. Those are the rules now. Let’s play.

Maybe, just maybe, the more adamant gun owners, and the politicians that depend on their votes, continue to purposely highlight the ideas of the most extreme gun control advocates--that would never, ever get 60 votes in the Senate--as a built-in, convenient excuse to refuse absolutely anything that dares infringe on their "rights."

I don't know why you felt the need to respond to me but I wrote the exact same thing earlier. However congrats on your (newly found?) ability to use google. Your brain is fucking neutered.
Also - Heller does not mean that there is no opportunity to regulate guns on a national basis. BUT if you're arguing that the 2008 Heller case makes gun law settled, well tell that to the cunts on the Supreme Court who are setting to overturn years of personal privacy rights, force women who are raped to carry babies to term, remove the ability of gay people to receive the protections of marriage, illegalize in vitro fertilization...they want to go back to the time when someone could be prosecuted for selling a dildo.
Note though I've also argued the powers that be in the republican party are extremists who don't mind even one bit school, church or grocery store massacres. They relish events like those. Repulicans will NEVER work with Democrats on regulating guns. The powers that be in the republican party care ONLY about power -- and their only path to power is by creating social unrest. That's why they do everything they can to supply more weapons to our population and create more opportunity for people to use them.

Aggie and Chopper spitting flaming truth. Every word of it.

[F250 28,777]

3 hours ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/rant-second-amendment-repeal/
 

I think this is a big part of where discussions break down. Gun owners don’t trust gun control advocates. Their true goals are always much more aggressive than something reasonable like no rifle purchases until 21. See today’s POTUS comments about 9mm handguns. 

Putting in common sense gun control legislation is an act of congress where they vote on agreed items. This isn't some crypto currency scam where the Dems are going to vanish into the night after selling you some shitcoins.

It's not like AOC is going to jump out of the bushes yelling "Order 66" if some legislation gets passed.

Grow the fuck up.

 

[Brisketexan 105,154]

6 minutes ago, F250 said:

Putting in common sense gun control legislation is an act of congress where they vote on agreed items. This isn't some crypto currency scam where the Dems are going to vanish into the night after selling you some shitcoins.

It's not like AOC is going to jump out of the bushes yelling "Order 66" if some legislation gets passed.

Grow the fuck up.

 

When you realize that everything he told you is not an actual rational position, but just a bullshit excuse to stay the course and do not a goddamn thing (it's not like we haven't seen this play run a thousand times before), it all makes sense.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

6 minutes ago, F250 said:

Putting in common sense gun control legislation is an act of congress where they vote on agreed items. This isn't some crypto currency scam where the Dems are going to vanish into the night after selling you some shitcoins.

It's not like AOC is going to jump out of the bushes yelling "Order 66" if some legislation gets passed.

Grow the fuck up.

 

I understand the legislative process. I was just piggybacking off another poster’s point about the effect of certain people saying you don’t have the right at all, or shouldn’t. In any case, I’m all for reforms being presented and voted on. See everyone’s cards as far as how relevant the reforms are, and how people will vote on them. 
 

 

[aggie08 21,505]

21 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

In any case, I’m all for reforms being presented and voted on. 
 

 

...I, of course, won't actually vote for anyone who publicly supports them, but I am personally for them...sooooo...yay me!

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

23 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

That clause explains the purpose of the amendment. There's no way to seriously dispute that. It should be given meaning. 

I mean it does, and doesn't.  It explains a purpose, and then the language that follows is pretty unequivocal.  Whatever it does, the prefatory phrase is damn near impossible to read as a limitation or condition on the mandatory phrase.

So, as a matter of linguistics and interpretation, it's unavoidable that there is a private right to own guns.

But, to my mind, that does not at all foreclose reasonable restrictions on that right.  Reasonable meaning a lot more than we got right now.  The state absolutely has a compelling interest in public safety and restrictions designed to keep guns out of the hands of the unfit, or to at least slow their acquisition, or limit their lethal capacity, should be constitutional.

I mean, felons can't have guns.  That is not an entirely reasonable restriction, nor is it narrowly tailored.  What the fuck?