Do you understand why owning guns was a right for citizens in 1789?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The USA no longer has state militias. States are secured in different ways in 2022. The right is established so citizens could form and defend the state from outside forces. The forces are no longer a threat.
Wait a second. Just because you don't think we do things the same way does not mean our rights can be changed without a constitutional amendment. We still have the right to defend our state the way we did in 1789. Have you read the supreme court cases that affirm the individual right to have weapons? Where do you think they got it wrong?
This has nothing to do with what I said. Justices are being selected by Republicans for the purpose of the court to make policy favorable to them. That is unethical and bad faith.
Unfortunately this is the system. Dems do it too, not sure how to stop it other than vote better people in office.
Nor was Dred Scott. Our nation has certainly evolved morally over time. And this includes the functional rights of 1789 that are obsolete today. The republicans are not going to select justices that are open to new arguments about open gun rights. I don't have a problem with a right to own guns, but I believe the USA needs a federal set of limits of who gets them and for what purpose.
I agree that we should keep guns away from some people with due process. But you don't need any reason to exercise a right. If the government gets to choose who gets a gun based on the reason you want one then you have given them the means to take away a right at any time. Do you need a reason to exercise you freedom of religion or speech?
Which political actors are most authoritarian in the USA?
Dems, but again what are the reasons for opposition? You don't seem to care.
Which political party has a Voting Rights bill that the other party opposes?
Dems? However more dems opposed the voting rights act of 1965, Senate 17 dems opposed, 2 republicans opposed, House 62 dems opposed, 23 republicans opposed.
Who is lying about election fraud?
Both, Hillary still thinks she won the election of 2016.
Who wants to limit mail in ballots and drop boxes that make voting easier?
Rep, it also make cheating easier.
Which political [party is looking to get secretaries of state and election officials in place in certain states who are in a position to decertify election results?
no one.
That number is 1. And we are way passed that number. After Sandy Hook where 20 children of 6-7 years old and 6 teachers were killed I thought this is the breaking point. It wasn't. The NRA went on a fund raising tour.
And how would more gun restrictions eliminate another one happening? Maybe if someone in the school had a gun... The shooter entered the school at 9:35 am shot 20+ children/people and killed himself at 9:40 am. The police got there at 9:37 am. The police had no chance to save anyone, maybe if a teacher or administrator or an full time on duty police officer was on site things would have been different.
The idea that a heavily armed public is going to stop mass shooters is absurd. The Buffalo, NY killer shot 4 people in the parking lot and caught them by surprise. Even if these 4 people had guns they had no chance to hide, pull a gun, aim, and shoot before being hit. The same in any mass shooting where the killers show out by surprise and open fire. People are getting murdered before any others have a chance to run and hide. And IF any of these people are brave enough, and cool under fire enough, to pull a gun and shoot back, well look at how often the police miss their targets in gun fights. And you want a mom with three kids in tow to stand her ground and fire back like she's in Ukraine, nor her neighborhood grocer?
I NEVER said anything would stop these shootings. But without an right to own and carry a gun there is not chance for anyone in these situations. It is absurd to think that more gun laws will stop these shootings.
Do you really think that a person who is willing to mass murder strangers is going to think through whether the people he targets are armed or not?
Not the point. If they are not armed they will be heavily disadvantaged, with a gun they have a better chance to defend themselves if they choose to.
No. I suggest making access to these dangerous guns more difficult. People can still get them, but they need to jump through hoops and prove they are sound thinkers and have a good reason to own them.
Again you don't need a reason to exercise your rights. So criminals follow the laws?
Is it really more important that an 18 year old racist get an assault rifle than the lives of 10 victims, and their families? There are people alive right now who will be the next victim of a mass killer. Would you do anything to stop him if you could?
Of course, taking away guns from citizens makes them more likely to get killed if a shooter starts shooting. Do you really think an 18 yo person cannot get an illegal rifle? The problem you have is that the laws failed to recognize him as a threat when they should have. I don't trust the government to protect me, I will do that myself.
