Should undocumented US migrants enjoy 2nd Amendment rights?

[Novus America]

No, because I am not an accelerationist who wants to see the world burn.

The world wouldn't burn by allowing everybody to enjoy their cconstitutional rights.

But the world burning is your objective. And yes letting literally everyone get literally any possible weapon including WMDs would.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The world wouldn't burn by allowing everybody to enjoy their cconstitutional rights.

No just alot of tragic deaths and injuries by self inflicted gunshots or tragic murders and acts of violence because people with a history of using guns for crime are committing crime with the guns they're allowed to have. Absolutely no problems there.

Absolutely no problems, yes.

[Highever]

No just alot of tragic deaths and injuries by self inflicted gunshots or tragic murders and acts of violence because people with a history of using guns for crime are committing crime with the guns they're allowed to have. Absolutely no problems there.

Absolutely no problems, yes.

Again, that is very nice and super cool in your whimsical bullshit world, but the real world and most sensible people have a few issues with being shot and becoming victims of crime or allowing the mentally ill to needlessly injure or kill themselves because you have a fetish for weapons.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Absolutely no problems, yes.

Again, that is very nice and super cool in your whimsical bullshit world, but the real world and most sensible people have a few issues with being shot and becoming victims of crime or allowing the mentally ill to needlessly injure or kill themselves because you have a fetish for weapons.

Why do you fear death?

[Necroghastia]

No just alot of tragic deaths and injuries by self inflicted gunshots or tragic murders and acts of violence because people with a history of using guns for crime are committing crime with the guns they're allowed to have. Absolutely no problems there.

Absolutely no problems, yes.

So crimes committed using firearms, especially when it comes to repeat offenders, are a-OK in your book.

People accidentally shooting themselves or others because they didn't know how to safely handle a firearm? Perfectly fine.

[Kowani]

"You have been taught by the media that violent criminals including those with firearms related offenses having guns is potentially not a good thing, and that those with severe mental handicaps are not capable of handling guns safely and pose a danger to themselves."

Wow, what absurd concepts these are. Truly unfair and blatant lies. I was also told by the media that blind people cannot see. Such lies.

The idea that the government has a duty to protect people from themselves is one of the foundations of ablism. It needs to be toarn down.

Except, no. It has a duty to protect people from harm. The origin of said harm is irrelevant.

[The Emerald Legion]

I would dare say that American gun owners more than anyone think this is utter nonsense, myself included.

Exactly. I am an American. I own several firearms. And I think that is total nonsense.
I do support reasonable regulations.

I don't support 'reasonable regulations' for the very reason that there is no reasonable regulations to be had that don't obstruct the purpose of the second amendment.

The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that all citizens are capable of taking up arms and waging war at a moment's notice if needed. It's not for hunting. It's not for sport shooting. it's explicit purpose is to ensure that if necessary the American public can operate as an effective military unit.

And judging by the flack the NRA gets, I'm not alone in this belief.

So, given that understanding of the 2nd Amendment, where does that leave us with regards to reasonable regulations? What possible regulations are reasonable under those circumstances?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Absolutely no problems, yes.

So crimes committed using firearms, especially when it comes to repeat offenders, are a-OK in your book.

People accidentally shooting themselves or others because they didn't know how to safely handle a firearm? Perfectly fine.

Well the crime should be treated as any other crime, naturally.

Again, I don't think that the government has any responsibility to protect people from themselves. That's just society's ablism talking.

[Highever]

Again, that is very nice and super cool in your whimsical bullshit world, but the real world and most sensible people have a few issues with being shot and becoming victims of crime or allowing the mentally ill to needlessly injure or kill themselves because you have a fetish for weapons.

Why do you fear death?

r/m14andthisisdeep

[The Emerald Legion]

The world wouldn't burn by allowing everybody to enjoy their cconstitutional rights.

No just alot of tragic deaths and injuries by self inflicted gunshots or tragic murders and acts of violence because people with a history of using guns for crime are committing crime with the guns they're allowed to have. Absolutely no problems there.

I mean. That happens either way. Criminals tend to be able to get guns. Because they are criminals.

[Necroghastia]

So crimes committed using firearms, especially when it comes to repeat offenders, are a-OK in your book.

People accidentally shooting themselves or others because they didn't know how to safely handle a firearm? Perfectly fine.

Well the crime should be treated as any other crime, naturally.

Again, I don't think that the government has any responsibility to protect people from themselves. That's just society's ablism talking.

So no steps should be taken to prevent it from happening again?

I'm not even talking about disabled people, I'm referring to people who weren't educated on how to safely use a gun.

[The Chuck]

Absolutely no problems, yes.

So crimes committed using firearms, especially when it comes to repeat offenders, are a-OK in your book.

People accidentally shooting themselves or others because they didn't know how to safely handle a firearm? Perfectly fine.

I'm just going to point out the fact that GVH may be a bit misinformed about this topic due to living in the UK where knife and vehicular attacks are more prevalent then gun crime even though there is about 2 million legally registered firearms in the UK. I'm going to go on a limb and suggest that maybe the user just isn't as informed as he could be on the crime statistics of the US and some of the crappier areas like St. Louis (I live here). Although Chicago beats us in terms of murder, per capita, we're around 66.7 murders per 100,000 residents which is one of the highest if not the highest murder per capita rate in the US. As such, I think your beliefs in giving criminals firearms is severely misplaced GVH.

[Highever]

No just alot of tragic deaths and injuries by self inflicted gunshots or tragic murders and acts of violence because people with a history of using guns for crime are committing crime with the guns they're allowed to have. Absolutely no problems there.

I mean. That happens either way. Criminals tend to be able to get guns. Because they are criminals.

And just allowing them to buy them with no restrictions at all is somehow fine because, eh, they will probably get them anyway?

[Kowani]

Exactly. I am an American. I own several firearms. And I think that is total nonsense.
I do support reasonable regulations.

I don't support 'reasonable regulations' for the very reason that there is no reasonable regulations to be had that don't obstruct the purpose of the second amendment.

The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that all citizens are capable of taking up arms and waging war at a moment's notice if needed. It's not for hunting. It's not for sport shooting. it's explicit purpose is to ensure that if necessary the American public can operate as an effective military unit.

And judging by the flack the NRA gets, I'm not alone in this belief.

So, given that understanding of the 2nd Amendment, where does that leave us with regards to reasonable regulations? What possible regulations are reasonable under those circumstances?

Bioweapons. Nukes.

[Highever]

So crimes committed using firearms, especially when it comes to repeat offenders, are a-OK in your book.

People accidentally shooting themselves or others because they didn't know how to safely handle a firearm? Perfectly fine.

(I live here).

Ayo, STL. What area?

[The Chuck]

I mean. That happens either way. Criminals tend to be able to get guns. Because they are criminals.

And just allowing them to buy them with no restrictions at all is somehow fine because, eh, they will probably get them anyway?

The criminals will be able to obtain firearms legally or illegally so might as well allow Law abiding members of society to possess firearms to defend themselves.

[The Chuck]

(I live here).

Ayo, STL. What area?

You also a St. Louisian? If so, hit me up in TGs!

[Highever]

And just allowing them to buy them with no restrictions at all is somehow fine because, eh, they will probably get them anyway?

The criminals will be able to obtain firearms legally or illegally so might as well allow Law abiding members of society to possess firearms to defend themselves.

I don't disagree at all that Law abiding citizens should be able to possess firearms, but not sure I'm comfortable with just making it that easy for those with a history of gun violence to keep getting them.

[The Emerald Legion]

I don't support 'reasonable regulations' for the very reason that there is no reasonable regulations to be had that don't obstruct the purpose of the second amendment.

The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that all citizens are capable of taking up arms and waging war at a moment's notice if needed. It's not for hunting. It's not for sport shooting. it's explicit purpose is to ensure that if necessary the American public can operate as an effective military unit.

And judging by the flack the NRA gets, I'm not alone in this belief.

So, given that understanding of the 2nd Amendment, where does that leave us with regards to reasonable regulations? What possible regulations are reasonable under those circumstances?

Bioweapons. Nukes.

Nukes are so utterly difficult as to be practically unattainable even if their ownership wasn't against the law. And Bioweapons are effectively unregulated right now. Anyone can rent/buy some lab equipment no questions asked, and get themselves some bacteria and tinker with it to their hearts content.

[Novus America]

Exactly. I am an American. I own several firearms. And I think that is total nonsense.
I do support reasonable regulations.

I don't support 'reasonable regulations' for the very reason that there is no reasonable regulations to be had that don't obstruct the purpose of the second amendment.

The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that all citizens are capable of taking up arms and waging war at a moment's notice if needed. It's not for hunting. It's not for sport shooting. it's explicit purpose is to ensure that if necessary the American public can operate as an effective military unit.

And judging by the flack the NRA gets, I'm not alone in this belief.

So, given that understanding of the 2nd Amendment, where does that leave us with regards to reasonable regulations? What possible regulations are reasonable under those circumstances?

Well we should expand the National Guard back to early 60s levels or beyond and even bring back conscription then.
But an effective military unit requires training and discipline, not just arms.
Letting everyone have every weapon is not going to do that.

Some regulations are simply logical. Nuclear weapons obviously no. Most military units do not even have them, just a few. Even anti tank missiles and the like are not just handed out to anyone in the military, and not kept in the barracks it carried around everywhere by soldiers

Reasonable training requirements that are not unduly burdensome or expensive are fine.
Background checks that exclude violent criminals is also fine, as no military unit would want them. Severe enough mental disorder as well, no military unit wants that either.

Good military units are regulated, trained and disciplined.

Not just about hardware.

[Telconi]

The criminals will be able to obtain firearms legally or illegally so might as well allow Law abiding members of society to possess firearms to defend themselves.

I don't disagree at all that Law abiding citizens should be able to possess firearms, but not sure I'm comfortable with just making it that easy for those with a history of gun violence to keep getting them.

I think that should depend on the violence, and the history.

[Telconi]

I don't support 'reasonable regulations' for the very reason that there is no reasonable regulations to be had that don't obstruct the purpose of the second amendment.

The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure that all citizens are capable of taking up arms and waging war at a moment's notice if needed. It's not for hunting. It's not for sport shooting. it's explicit purpose is to ensure that if necessary the American public can operate as an effective military unit.

And judging by the flack the NRA gets, I'm not alone in this belief.

So, given that understanding of the 2nd Amendment, where does that leave us with regards to reasonable regulations? What possible regulations are reasonable under those circumstances?

Well we should expand the National Guard back to early 60s levels or beyond and even bring back conscription then.
But an effective military unit requires training and discipline, not just arms.
Letting everyone have every weapon is not going to do that.

Some regulations are simply logical. Nuclear weapons obviously no. Most military units do not even have them, just a few. Even anti tank missiles and the like are not just handed out to anyone in the military, and not kept in the barracks it carried around everywhere by soldiers

Reasonable training requirements that are not unduly burdensome or expensive are fine.
Background checks that exclude violent criminals is also fine, as no military unit would want them. Severe enough mental disorder as well, no military unit wants that either.

Good military units are regulated, trained and disciplined.

Not just about hardware.

You're not wrong. But an otherwise good unit becomes bad when under-equipped.

[New haven america]

Yeah sure, why not?

[Novus America]

Bioweapons. Nukes.

Nukes are so utterly difficult as to be practically unattainable even if their ownership wasn't against the law. And Bioweapons are effectively unregulated right now. Anyone can rent/buy some lab equipment no questions asked, and get themselves some bacteria and tinker with it to their hearts content.

The powerful stuff is hard to get. It is not like small pox samples are exactly easily to find or legal to purchase. Tinkering with some common bacteria is not going to create an effective military type bio weapon and you cannot get the delivery mechanism.

And cost aside, even the military heavily restricts nuclear weapons to a select few units. They are not for everyone.

[New haven america]

Bioweapons. Nukes.

Nukes are so utterly difficult as to be practically unattainable even if their ownership wasn't against the law. And Bioweapons are effectively unregulated right now. Anyone can rent/buy some lab equipment no questions asked, and get themselves some bacteria and tinker with it to their hearts content.

The US alone lost 14 nukes during the Cold War and the USSR is believed to have lost even more.

Sleep well tonight.