• Veneroso@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you follow the constitution, the right to bear arms is for a well regulated militia. Not for a stressed 18 year old buying an AR-15 at Walmart to shoot up rioters from another state.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes totally forgot about that the people part…go read some federalist papers and a few history books the 2nd is for the people not the militia.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You might not like where that logic goes. The Supreme Court took a stance in United States v. Miller (1939) that the NFA’s provisions on short barreled shotguns could be enforced on the basis that it’s not a weapon that would be used by a well-regulated militia.

      That brings us to a conclusion that literally nobody likes. The government could ban shorty shotguns and .22 rimfire, because those aren’t militia weapons. It could not ban fully automatic weapons or even rocket launchers.

      • Veneroso@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We have to come up with something. I am a gun owner. There are legitimate uses for them. But a rifle marksman course requirement? Gun safety classes? 30 day waiting period? Mental health screening? Accountability if you buy it for someone else who uses it to commit violence? Anything?

        Something has to stop the senseless violence.

        I know that it won’t stop it.

        People in Brittain use knives… Acid in the middle east.

        The difference there is that the harm is limited to a few people and not these mass casualty events.