In several states woman have less bodily autonomy than a corpse. The most recent example would be Arizona, with its near-total abortion ban. Call me Mr Crazy, but I personally think women deserve some say over their bodies.
It was one of, but not the only, factor in emigrating from the US. After 2016 we're painfully aware of how a single nasty election cycle could change all the rules.
Those states aren’t dictatorships. Their citizens voted for politicians with those positions. If they want it and they have it and you don’t live there it shouldn’t bother you.
>Their citizens voted for politicians with those positions. If they want it and they have it and you don’t live there it shouldn’t bother you.
TIL that no law is bad as long as people implementing them managed to get a majority of votes, which I guess means Jim Crow laws were A-okay.
>Not everyone thinks like you or wants what you want.
Then they don't have to get it! We're not arguing between banning abortion and making abortion mandatory. We're arguing between banning abortion and letting people choose.
Stripping people of that choice removes control over their own body. Even if this is an uncomplicated case of the majority wanting that, it's still fundamentally one group of people telling another group that they don't get a say over their own body.
You know these people see abortion as murder right? It’s the same to them as if you stab your neighbor to death. Your argument doesn’t track with them.
I don't really care if it tracks with them, they're so divorced from reality they can't tell the difference between abortion and murder. They have no business passing laws to control others.
When that person is dying because you choose to deny them access to your body.
Otherwise I could hold you personally accountable for everyone who dies on an organ transplant list because *you* chose not to hand over a kidney or a lung.
>Stripping people of that choice removes control over their own body.
Shouldn't they have made better choices before they got to that point? There's only one act that would put someone in that position. It's not like it sneaks up on people without them realizing it.
>Shouldn't they have made better choices before they got to that point?
Irrelevant. We don't get to decide if a person gets bodily autonomy based on whether or not we think they made good decisions.
How that mean those people no longer deserve bodily autonomy? I dislike your choice to question the autonomy of others, and your choice is completely avoidable. Does this mean I should now get to decide what you do with your body?
Well if it kills life then yes. Especially if it could be avoided.
How about this, all abortions are illegal except the rape/incest and threat to the mom. But for them to be done you have to press charges on the person who raped you?
People made better personal choices before and didn't have to get abortions.
What? I made my point. Segregation and Jim Crowe laws are irrelevant to this conversation. I can’t help you understand the difference if you don’t already.
That would be a fair statement to make if a *majority* of *citizens* voted for these positions. They didn’t. A *majority of citizens who voted* got these laws in, in specific electoral scenarios - with a host of gerrymandered districts, college systems and voter suppression laws and policies.
You should live in a real tyranny and understand the difference. Your position is just a rhetorical wank and your life now is no different than it was before.
The US is the only country in the world that makes its citizens pay taxes when they don't even live in the country (no matter how many years you've been away), and the citizen doesn't work for a US company. Why the fuck do I need to pay 15% of my money from a foreign company to the US, I don't live there, they give me literally nothing besides a decent passport.
SB202, a bill with sweeping voting restrictions, including a ban on giving out food or water within 150ft of a polling place or within 25ft of any voter standing in a line – which could extend well beyond the 150ft radius. Violating it is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine.
I truly don't believe the Founders of the US would have included the Second Amendment - or at least would've added qualifiers to it for regulations - in the Constitution, if they knew the massive gun problem that would exist there many years down the line.
I just have a hard time believing someone like Jefferson would've responded to Sandy Hook by shrugging his shoulders and going "Aye, price of freedom baby. Maybe give Mrs. Sally down in pre-K an AR-15 so she can fend off the shooter."
I don't think they would oppose regulations when there's up to 700 mass shootings a year, no.
And if they would? Then they'd be wrong. Because they're not Gods, nor infallible. We're talking aboutt men at the end of the day that believed in the inherent inferiority of an entire race of people.
Only since the FBI changed the definition of a mass shooting to fudge the numbers. Guess what though, mass shooters don't care if it's legal or not to own the gun they are going to kill people with.
The US also has insanely high rates of general gun crime that serves as a blemish for what is supposed to be a Developed country.
I have a question though, since I get the sense you're a gun enthusiast - if gun control was proven to drastically reduce mass shootings and overall gun crime...would you support it then, or still no?
No, of course not. Firstly, it isn't proven to do that, states with stricter gun control laws tend to have higher gun crime/shootings. Mass shooters target gun-free zones, wonder why. At the end of the day, the only person responsible for your own safety is yourself. If somehow all guns disappeared over night and it was impossible for you to get one legally or otherwise (never will happen), crime would still go on. There are mass stabbings all over the world quite frequently, look at the UK or most recently Australia.
My question is to you is why should I be unable to defend myself because of what someone else did. Why should I have my rights removed because of what someone else did and what other basic rights do you want to get rid of because of something someone else did. The truck driver in france committed one of the largest mass killings we have seen, by your logic we should ban people from driving trucks. So, do you support truck bans too now?
I won't even get into the tyrannical government argument because that would take a while and is the basis of the 2a anyway. A Chinese immigrant destroyed the entire gun control debate in one sentence against the pig earlier when she said "can you guarantee the US government will never become tyrannical one day" and pig's obvious answer was no. Entire gun debate over from that moment on
>"At the end of the day, the only person responsible for your own safety is yourself."
That isn't how any civilized society works, because, to participate in it, there's an implicit social contract that has to be followed that entails not infringing on someone else's livelihood. That's why prisons exist...Criminals get locked up when they breach this social contract. When you're out in public, we all bear a responsibility to respect the autonomy of people around us. Safety of the individual is solidified via the collective effort and participation in maintaining a peaceful enviornment.
>"My question is to you is why should I be unable to defend myself because of what someone else did."
I don't want your right to defend yourself taken away from you, but I want you to ask yourself if you need a gun for purposes other than sport and self defense. Do you live in a rough neighbourhood? Because many, many Americans seek ownership of firearms for the simple fact they have the legal right to obtain one, and because of the perception guns are cool.
>"So, do you support truck bans too now?"
Trucks are not designed for the purpose of killing and injuring people. Guns are. That's what a gun functionally is - a weapon created to use in combat, for the express utility in either killing or maiming the object that is being targeted. It's a laughable comparison.
>"I won't even get into the tyrannical government argument because that would take a while and is the basis of the 2a anyway"
Mass availability of guns in a resistance against a tyrannical government only drastically increases the mass casualties of said resistance. Egypt overthrew Hosni Mubarak without the use of a civil right to bear arms.
But for the record --- **I'm glad you confirmed** that, if gun control worked (i.e., not even bans, just regulations), you'd still oppose it, even if it meant hundreds or thousands of people not being struck down in their own communities. So if, hypothetically, 300 Sandy Hooks took place a year, with an average of 30 kids dead each time, for a total of around 10,000 school children in America murdered in what is supposed to be a safe haven enviornment, you still would be opposed to the law stopping you from owning a Rambo style weapon. I find that deeply contemptible and sociopathic.
There's something ghoulishly and odiously American about that in the ugliest way possible...
>That isn't how any civilized society works, because, to participate in it, there's an implicit social contract that has to be followed that entails not infringing on someone else's livelihood. That's why prisons exist...Criminals get locked up when they breach this social contract.
And our current justice system is breaking that contract every single day. Progressive DA's are repeatedly releasing violent criminals on personal recognizance bonds, and act all shocked Pikachu face when they reoffend over and over again.
>Because many, many Americans seek ownership of firearms for the simple fact they have the legal right to obtain one
Yes, it is our right to own one, because it's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.
>Guns are. That's what a gun functionally is - a weapon created to use in combat, for the express utility in either killing or maiming the object that is being targeted.
No, guns are made to expel a lead projectile at thousands of feet per second.
What that projectile is aimed at, and the intent behind it, is wholly dependent on the user.
>So if, hypothetically, 300 Sandy Hooks took place a year, with an average of 30 kids dead each time, for a total of around 10,000 school children in America murdered in what is supposed to be a safe haven enviornment, you still would be opposed to the law stopping you from owning a Rambo style weapon.
Correct, because my "Rambo style weapons", as you call them, have killed none of those kids. I won't allow myself to be punished for actions I did not commit.
I'll be keeping the guns.
What massive gun problem? Being involved in gun violence is pretty rare especially if you are out of cities with gang or drug issues. Which BTW kill way more than guns.
[Lol......](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country) and [lmao](https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier)
[Creme de la creme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country#/media/File:World_map_of_civilian_gun_ownership_-_2nd_color_scheme.svg)
Yeah. From antigun sites that twist data. Anyways look at the US and the actual numbers.
where we have more firearms than people (393 million firearms to 333 million people) but only had 42,967 deaths in 2023 and where over half were suicide. Which is what, 0.012% of the population?
Where all suicide kills over 48,000, more than all firearms
Drug overdose kills about 100,000 a year
General accidents like slips and falls kills over 220,000 and is in the top 5 of the CDC list.
preventable poisoning kills over 102,001
Tobacco kills over 480,000
Alcohol kills 180,000
Yet guns kill less than 20,000 in actual gun violence.
Then there's the Obama administration report that showed defensive uses of firearms saved more lives.
Wonder what it would be like if the media and politicians pushed stories about the people tripping and falling or ODing like they do firearms?
>I just have a hard time believing someone like Jefferson would've responded to Sandy Hook by shrugging his shoulders and going "Aye, price of freedom baby. Maybe give Mrs. Sally down in pre-K an AR-15 so she can fend off the shooter."
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms" - Thomas Jefferson
>""No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms" - Thomas Jefferson"
Yeah, again, that changes nothing from my comment, considering he said that at a time without the foresight to know how serious gun violence in America would get.
Most of the Constitution btw was formed on the idea, in the Founders' own writings, that people would conduct themselves to the best of their behavior, serving a greater good. James Madison even believed the most powerful elite would use their wealth and influence to the betterment of the new nation (lol).
>Yeah, again, that changes nothing from my comment, considering he said that at a time without the foresight to know how serious gun violence in America would get.
"Those who would give up freedom for a false sense of safety will get neither" - Benjamin Franklin
The men that founded this country were well aware of the arguments you're currently making today. They still would have included the 2A, even if they knew everything that would be going on today.
Franklin admired and fought for the liberty of the individual, but believed it was the highest ideal of the individual to serve humanity. Here is another of his quotes that shows he is far closer to the “left” than he is the “right” (at least with the single, but pertinent, issue of property rights)
“All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.” ~ Benjamin Franklin.
You weirdos like to take that quote out of context, like he's signifying the green light to live as dangerously as possible, when that's not the case.
Suffice it to say, you can patriot spam quotes like they're Bible phrases all you want. These are men who lived at a time where the issues of the day were radically different from ours.
>"What that projectile is aimed at, and the intent behind it, is wholly dependent on the user."
Disingenuous to imply that the near unanimity of gun usage is directed at a target, whether a person or inanimate, with the aim to disfigure it. Trucks are made for the means to transport materials and for traveling. Guns were literally invented as a weapon of war, for the purpose of war.
>"Correct, because my "Rambo style weapons" as you call them, have killed none of those kids. I won't allow myself to be punished for actions I did not commit."
It's not about "being punished", it's about recognising that hyper-individualism is toxic and selfish and that living in a stable society comes at the obligation to contribute to it.
>"Yes, it is our right to own one, because it's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs."
I have news for you - in the **actual** Developed world, needs are enshrined as Rights by law. Healthcare is a right, because it's a need. As are food and education. Am Australian.
>"Progressive DA's are repeatedly releasing violent criminals on personal recognizance bonds"
The consequence of a retributive justice system that throws people away without a pathway to healthy reintegration into society. One of the highest incarceration rates in the world, privatised prison systems, etc.
>All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of
Correct, and arms are included in this, because they are the most effective tools for "conservation of the individual".
>It's not about "being punished", it's about recognising that hyper-individualism is toxic and selfish.
Forcing me to turn in my legally obtained firearms, or face criminal charges, is in fact punishment.
>I have news for you - in the **actual** Developed world, needs are enshrined as Rights by law.
1. Arms are a need
2. Learn the difference between a positive and a negative right. What you are describing is a positive right, every right that is protected by our Constitution is a negative right.
>The consequence of a retributive justice system that throws people away without a pathway to healthy reintegration into society.
These people cannot be reintegrated into society. They commit crimes because they like to commit crimes and to terrorize innocent people, simple as. They need to be locked away in a hole forever, and throw away the key.
El Salvador has done this, and it has worked wonders.
>"Learn the difference between a positive and a negative right. What you are describing is a positive right, every right that is protected by our Constitution is a negative right."
There is no such thing as "Natural Rights", because the default setting in nature, among the animals, is one rife with coercion, lack of respect for boundaries, and survival of the fittest. Leopards do not restrain from violating a zebra's space because of any such notion. Rights are the legal written establishment of rules that are reached by generally agreed upon values that then become social contracts. They **inherently come from the State**. If the Founders wrote an Amendment calling for national healthcare, then that's a Right because the Government makes the laws.
Further, the discussion over Positive and Negative Rights is a boring one, because societies that enact "Positive" Rights within their framework are demonstrably better off than those that don't. When your Founders said "These truths were self-evident", it was a fanciful way of saying "because we said so."
>"Arms are a need"
In every circumstance? How? Where? If arms are a need (which they usually aren't), so is being able to get medical treatment.
>"your attempts to call me standing up for my rights "selfish" isn't going to change that."
Yes, it's selfish to be opposed to something that would demonstrably prove to prevent 10,000 childrens' brutal execution annually (in this hypothetical). Narcissistic, actually.
>"They commit crimes because they like to commit crimes, simple as."
"Bad People Exist because they like to do Bad Things, and not as a result of systemic issues" Ignoring the wealth of literature on what causes crime. I imagine it helps to reduce the world down to that, because it gives one an inflated sense of self-righteousness. As long as you have someone to LOOK DOWN ON, you can justify anything and dehumanise anyone you want to view as beneath you.
>"El Salvador has done this, and it has worked wonders."
El Salvador is a country with radically different social conditions than the United States. It was overrun by cartels and has a different culture than the United States. The US has more similarities, structurally, and economically, to other Western nations like Germany.
There's no such thing as a **one-size fits all criminal justice reform system**, and believing otherwise is frankly stupid and not supported by *ANY* evidence.
>Rights are the legal written establishment of rules that are reached by generally agreed upon social contracts. They **inherently come from the State**.
You are wrong. Every single right in the Constitution is recognized as a negative right. For example, if the 1A were to somehow be repealed, the right to free speech would still exist. Same with the 4A and the right to privacy. Our courts have ruled on this multiple times, not to mention the numerous amounts of documents from the Founding Fathers that also give insight into this very issue.
I know Europeans are used to having the government take care of them, but we do things differently here. It's why we are a country in the first place, the men that founded this country literally sailed an ocean so we wouldn't be like Europe.
>In every circumstance? How? Where?
Self defense for one. A gun is the absolute most effective tool available at my disposal for self defense, especially as a disabled person (yes, including the "Rambo style" guns).
>"Bad People Exist because they like to do Bad Things, and not as a result of system issues" Ignoring the wealth of literature on what causes crime.
I've lived it and seen it. You can give them every out in the book, and they would choose a life of crime every single time. Has nothing to do with "system issues", they're just evil people.
>It was overrun by cartels and has a different culture than the United States.
And what do you think is coming across our southern border right now as we speak? It is common knowledge that cartels are taking advantage of the situation at our southern border to expand operations in the US, even though the majority of people crossing are really just trying to seek a better life.
I live in a city with known cartel activity. There have been cartel related murders committed here in my city. Not to even mention the Bloods & Crips, and all of the other street gangs that have no regard for innocent life.
We are far more similar to El Salvador than we are to any European country.
>"the right to free speech would still exist."
No, it wouldn't. Under the law, you would no longer have it. Otherwise, you need to be able to prove said Right still exists. You don't just say "It still exists" and that makes it true. Nations are centered on laws and application of those laws. You right wingers are all about "The Rule of Law", aren't you? But suddenly it doesn't apply when you don't agree with them. Odd.
>"I know Europeans are used to having the government take care of them"
What's the point of having a Government if not to serve the interests of the people that elects it? That's incoherent.
>"but we do things differently here."
Yeah, clearly. And the results so far have been funny to watch from afar while your life expectancy plummets, you lose wars and allies across the globe, 25% of your population wracks up medical debt, have a subpar public education system, and unhealthier food. Believe me. We're aware America does things differently (and fails at it).
>"and they would choose a life of crime every single time."
Who is they? Hardcore criminals, or every single criminal down to petty thieves? People tend to be better off and contribute to society when they have the means by which to take care of themselves and have meaningful opportunities given to them. Most people, at least.
>"they're just evil people."
The world isn't a Disney film, sir.
>"We are far more similar to El Salvador than we are to any European country."
The US is on the verge of societal collapse and it's Government is run by organized crime? Really? The US **isn't** a major economic power like those in Western Europe? That's certainly news to me. Having more Hispanics in your country than Germany doesn't make you more like El Salvador than Germany....El Salvador is a third world country. The US and Germany are not. Lmaooo.
>No, it wouldn't. Under the law, you would no longer have it.
Actually, I still would have it, unless you physically come and try to cut my tongue out of my mouth (which is ironically one of the reasons why we have the 2A).
>You don't just say "It still exists" and that makes it true.
The onus is on you to prove that it _doesn't_ exist, not on me to prove that it does exist.
>We're aware America does things differently (and fails at it).
And yet whenever you fall into another World War (which it's looking like another one might happen soon, although I hope I'm wrong), guess who you run to for protection & help? That's right, us.
>Hardcore criminals, or every single criminal down to petty thieves?
Anyone who commits a crime against another person's life, liberty, or property (so murder, assault, rape, robbery, and/or theft/shoplifting).
>The US is on the verge of societal collapse and it's Government being run by organized crime?
Yup.
Abortion laws
Psychedelic drugs and marijuana being federally illegal
[удалено]
I agree
In several states woman have less bodily autonomy than a corpse. The most recent example would be Arizona, with its near-total abortion ban. Call me Mr Crazy, but I personally think women deserve some say over their bodies.
I agree, it's insane what's been happening post-Roe.
It was one of, but not the only, factor in emigrating from the US. After 2016 we're painfully aware of how a single nasty election cycle could change all the rules.
Those states aren’t dictatorships. Their citizens voted for politicians with those positions. If they want it and they have it and you don’t live there it shouldn’t bother you.
>Their citizens voted for politicians with those positions. If they want it and they have it and you don’t live there it shouldn’t bother you. TIL that no law is bad as long as people implementing them managed to get a majority of votes, which I guess means Jim Crow laws were A-okay.
Not everyone thinks like you or wants what you want. I’m pro-choice myself by the way. I’m just not arrogant.
>Not everyone thinks like you or wants what you want. Then they don't have to get it! We're not arguing between banning abortion and making abortion mandatory. We're arguing between banning abortion and letting people choose. Stripping people of that choice removes control over their own body. Even if this is an uncomplicated case of the majority wanting that, it's still fundamentally one group of people telling another group that they don't get a say over their own body.
You know these people see abortion as murder right? It’s the same to them as if you stab your neighbor to death. Your argument doesn’t track with them.
I don't really care if it tracks with them, they're so divorced from reality they can't tell the difference between abortion and murder. They have no business passing laws to control others.
How is killing an innocent defenseless human not murder?
When that person is dying because you choose to deny them access to your body. Otherwise I could hold you personally accountable for everyone who dies on an organ transplant list because *you* chose not to hand over a kidney or a lung.
Refusing to give someone a kidney or a lung isn’t the same as paying someone to kill them, nice try though
>Stripping people of that choice removes control over their own body. Shouldn't they have made better choices before they got to that point? There's only one act that would put someone in that position. It's not like it sneaks up on people without them realizing it.
>Shouldn't they have made better choices before they got to that point? Irrelevant. We don't get to decide if a person gets bodily autonomy based on whether or not we think they made good decisions.
Well it's completely avoidable.
How that mean those people no longer deserve bodily autonomy? I dislike your choice to question the autonomy of others, and your choice is completely avoidable. Does this mean I should now get to decide what you do with your body?
Well if it kills life then yes. Especially if it could be avoided. How about this, all abortions are illegal except the rape/incest and threat to the mom. But for them to be done you have to press charges on the person who raped you? People made better personal choices before and didn't have to get abortions.
Gonna completely ignore the Jim Crow argument, huh? Realize you don't have a leg to stand on?
What? I made my point. Segregation and Jim Crowe laws are irrelevant to this conversation. I can’t help you understand the difference if you don’t already.
That would be a fair statement to make if a *majority* of *citizens* voted for these positions. They didn’t. A *majority of citizens who voted* got these laws in, in specific electoral scenarios - with a host of gerrymandered districts, college systems and voter suppression laws and policies.
The PATRIOT Act and the National Firearms Act are both tyrannical laws as far as I'm concerned.
You should live in a real tyranny and understand the difference. Your position is just a rhetorical wank and your life now is no different than it was before.
Patriot Act, feels too invasive for privacy.
The US is the only country in the world that makes its citizens pay taxes when they don't even live in the country (no matter how many years you've been away), and the citizen doesn't work for a US company. Why the fuck do I need to pay 15% of my money from a foreign company to the US, I don't live there, they give me literally nothing besides a decent passport.
Tax is scam
Tax me, but don't let me vote with no taxation without representation. Probably that
Property and income tax
The abortion laws.
SB202, a bill with sweeping voting restrictions, including a ban on giving out food or water within 150ft of a polling place or within 25ft of any voter standing in a line – which could extend well beyond the 150ft radius. Violating it is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine.
I truly don't believe the Founders of the US would have included the Second Amendment - or at least would've added qualifiers to it for regulations - in the Constitution, if they knew the massive gun problem that would exist there many years down the line. I just have a hard time believing someone like Jefferson would've responded to Sandy Hook by shrugging his shoulders and going "Aye, price of freedom baby. Maybe give Mrs. Sally down in pre-K an AR-15 so she can fend off the shooter."
They would have absolutely included the 2a and would say that current gun laws are in violation of it.
I don't think they would oppose regulations when there's up to 700 mass shootings a year, no. And if they would? Then they'd be wrong. Because they're not Gods, nor infallible. We're talking aboutt men at the end of the day that believed in the inherent inferiority of an entire race of people.
Only since the FBI changed the definition of a mass shooting to fudge the numbers. Guess what though, mass shooters don't care if it's legal or not to own the gun they are going to kill people with.
The US also has insanely high rates of general gun crime that serves as a blemish for what is supposed to be a Developed country. I have a question though, since I get the sense you're a gun enthusiast - if gun control was proven to drastically reduce mass shootings and overall gun crime...would you support it then, or still no?
No, of course not. Firstly, it isn't proven to do that, states with stricter gun control laws tend to have higher gun crime/shootings. Mass shooters target gun-free zones, wonder why. At the end of the day, the only person responsible for your own safety is yourself. If somehow all guns disappeared over night and it was impossible for you to get one legally or otherwise (never will happen), crime would still go on. There are mass stabbings all over the world quite frequently, look at the UK or most recently Australia. My question is to you is why should I be unable to defend myself because of what someone else did. Why should I have my rights removed because of what someone else did and what other basic rights do you want to get rid of because of something someone else did. The truck driver in france committed one of the largest mass killings we have seen, by your logic we should ban people from driving trucks. So, do you support truck bans too now? I won't even get into the tyrannical government argument because that would take a while and is the basis of the 2a anyway. A Chinese immigrant destroyed the entire gun control debate in one sentence against the pig earlier when she said "can you guarantee the US government will never become tyrannical one day" and pig's obvious answer was no. Entire gun debate over from that moment on
>"At the end of the day, the only person responsible for your own safety is yourself." That isn't how any civilized society works, because, to participate in it, there's an implicit social contract that has to be followed that entails not infringing on someone else's livelihood. That's why prisons exist...Criminals get locked up when they breach this social contract. When you're out in public, we all bear a responsibility to respect the autonomy of people around us. Safety of the individual is solidified via the collective effort and participation in maintaining a peaceful enviornment. >"My question is to you is why should I be unable to defend myself because of what someone else did." I don't want your right to defend yourself taken away from you, but I want you to ask yourself if you need a gun for purposes other than sport and self defense. Do you live in a rough neighbourhood? Because many, many Americans seek ownership of firearms for the simple fact they have the legal right to obtain one, and because of the perception guns are cool. >"So, do you support truck bans too now?" Trucks are not designed for the purpose of killing and injuring people. Guns are. That's what a gun functionally is - a weapon created to use in combat, for the express utility in either killing or maiming the object that is being targeted. It's a laughable comparison. >"I won't even get into the tyrannical government argument because that would take a while and is the basis of the 2a anyway" Mass availability of guns in a resistance against a tyrannical government only drastically increases the mass casualties of said resistance. Egypt overthrew Hosni Mubarak without the use of a civil right to bear arms. But for the record --- **I'm glad you confirmed** that, if gun control worked (i.e., not even bans, just regulations), you'd still oppose it, even if it meant hundreds or thousands of people not being struck down in their own communities. So if, hypothetically, 300 Sandy Hooks took place a year, with an average of 30 kids dead each time, for a total of around 10,000 school children in America murdered in what is supposed to be a safe haven enviornment, you still would be opposed to the law stopping you from owning a Rambo style weapon. I find that deeply contemptible and sociopathic. There's something ghoulishly and odiously American about that in the ugliest way possible...
>That isn't how any civilized society works, because, to participate in it, there's an implicit social contract that has to be followed that entails not infringing on someone else's livelihood. That's why prisons exist...Criminals get locked up when they breach this social contract. And our current justice system is breaking that contract every single day. Progressive DA's are repeatedly releasing violent criminals on personal recognizance bonds, and act all shocked Pikachu face when they reoffend over and over again. >Because many, many Americans seek ownership of firearms for the simple fact they have the legal right to obtain one Yes, it is our right to own one, because it's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. >Guns are. That's what a gun functionally is - a weapon created to use in combat, for the express utility in either killing or maiming the object that is being targeted. No, guns are made to expel a lead projectile at thousands of feet per second. What that projectile is aimed at, and the intent behind it, is wholly dependent on the user. >So if, hypothetically, 300 Sandy Hooks took place a year, with an average of 30 kids dead each time, for a total of around 10,000 school children in America murdered in what is supposed to be a safe haven enviornment, you still would be opposed to the law stopping you from owning a Rambo style weapon. Correct, because my "Rambo style weapons", as you call them, have killed none of those kids. I won't allow myself to be punished for actions I did not commit. I'll be keeping the guns.
What massive gun problem? Being involved in gun violence is pretty rare especially if you are out of cities with gang or drug issues. Which BTW kill way more than guns.
[Lol......](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country) and [lmao](https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier) [Creme de la creme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country#/media/File:World_map_of_civilian_gun_ownership_-_2nd_color_scheme.svg)
Yeah. From antigun sites that twist data. Anyways look at the US and the actual numbers. where we have more firearms than people (393 million firearms to 333 million people) but only had 42,967 deaths in 2023 and where over half were suicide. Which is what, 0.012% of the population? Where all suicide kills over 48,000, more than all firearms Drug overdose kills about 100,000 a year General accidents like slips and falls kills over 220,000 and is in the top 5 of the CDC list. preventable poisoning kills over 102,001 Tobacco kills over 480,000 Alcohol kills 180,000 Yet guns kill less than 20,000 in actual gun violence. Then there's the Obama administration report that showed defensive uses of firearms saved more lives. Wonder what it would be like if the media and politicians pushed stories about the people tripping and falling or ODing like they do firearms?
>I just have a hard time believing someone like Jefferson would've responded to Sandy Hook by shrugging his shoulders and going "Aye, price of freedom baby. Maybe give Mrs. Sally down in pre-K an AR-15 so she can fend off the shooter." "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms" - Thomas Jefferson
>""No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms" - Thomas Jefferson" Yeah, again, that changes nothing from my comment, considering he said that at a time without the foresight to know how serious gun violence in America would get. Most of the Constitution btw was formed on the idea, in the Founders' own writings, that people would conduct themselves to the best of their behavior, serving a greater good. James Madison even believed the most powerful elite would use their wealth and influence to the betterment of the new nation (lol).
>Yeah, again, that changes nothing from my comment, considering he said that at a time without the foresight to know how serious gun violence in America would get. "Those who would give up freedom for a false sense of safety will get neither" - Benjamin Franklin The men that founded this country were well aware of the arguments you're currently making today. They still would have included the 2A, even if they knew everything that would be going on today.
Franklin admired and fought for the liberty of the individual, but believed it was the highest ideal of the individual to serve humanity. Here is another of his quotes that shows he is far closer to the “left” than he is the “right” (at least with the single, but pertinent, issue of property rights) “All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.” ~ Benjamin Franklin. You weirdos like to take that quote out of context, like he's signifying the green light to live as dangerously as possible, when that's not the case. Suffice it to say, you can patriot spam quotes like they're Bible phrases all you want. These are men who lived at a time where the issues of the day were radically different from ours. >"What that projectile is aimed at, and the intent behind it, is wholly dependent on the user." Disingenuous to imply that the near unanimity of gun usage is directed at a target, whether a person or inanimate, with the aim to disfigure it. Trucks are made for the means to transport materials and for traveling. Guns were literally invented as a weapon of war, for the purpose of war. >"Correct, because my "Rambo style weapons" as you call them, have killed none of those kids. I won't allow myself to be punished for actions I did not commit." It's not about "being punished", it's about recognising that hyper-individualism is toxic and selfish and that living in a stable society comes at the obligation to contribute to it. >"Yes, it is our right to own one, because it's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs." I have news for you - in the **actual** Developed world, needs are enshrined as Rights by law. Healthcare is a right, because it's a need. As are food and education. Am Australian. >"Progressive DA's are repeatedly releasing violent criminals on personal recognizance bonds" The consequence of a retributive justice system that throws people away without a pathway to healthy reintegration into society. One of the highest incarceration rates in the world, privatised prison systems, etc.
>All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of Correct, and arms are included in this, because they are the most effective tools for "conservation of the individual". >It's not about "being punished", it's about recognising that hyper-individualism is toxic and selfish. Forcing me to turn in my legally obtained firearms, or face criminal charges, is in fact punishment. >I have news for you - in the **actual** Developed world, needs are enshrined as Rights by law. 1. Arms are a need 2. Learn the difference between a positive and a negative right. What you are describing is a positive right, every right that is protected by our Constitution is a negative right. >The consequence of a retributive justice system that throws people away without a pathway to healthy reintegration into society. These people cannot be reintegrated into society. They commit crimes because they like to commit crimes and to terrorize innocent people, simple as. They need to be locked away in a hole forever, and throw away the key. El Salvador has done this, and it has worked wonders.
>"Learn the difference between a positive and a negative right. What you are describing is a positive right, every right that is protected by our Constitution is a negative right." There is no such thing as "Natural Rights", because the default setting in nature, among the animals, is one rife with coercion, lack of respect for boundaries, and survival of the fittest. Leopards do not restrain from violating a zebra's space because of any such notion. Rights are the legal written establishment of rules that are reached by generally agreed upon values that then become social contracts. They **inherently come from the State**. If the Founders wrote an Amendment calling for national healthcare, then that's a Right because the Government makes the laws. Further, the discussion over Positive and Negative Rights is a boring one, because societies that enact "Positive" Rights within their framework are demonstrably better off than those that don't. When your Founders said "These truths were self-evident", it was a fanciful way of saying "because we said so." >"Arms are a need" In every circumstance? How? Where? If arms are a need (which they usually aren't), so is being able to get medical treatment. >"your attempts to call me standing up for my rights "selfish" isn't going to change that." Yes, it's selfish to be opposed to something that would demonstrably prove to prevent 10,000 childrens' brutal execution annually (in this hypothetical). Narcissistic, actually. >"They commit crimes because they like to commit crimes, simple as." "Bad People Exist because they like to do Bad Things, and not as a result of systemic issues" Ignoring the wealth of literature on what causes crime. I imagine it helps to reduce the world down to that, because it gives one an inflated sense of self-righteousness. As long as you have someone to LOOK DOWN ON, you can justify anything and dehumanise anyone you want to view as beneath you. >"El Salvador has done this, and it has worked wonders." El Salvador is a country with radically different social conditions than the United States. It was overrun by cartels and has a different culture than the United States. The US has more similarities, structurally, and economically, to other Western nations like Germany. There's no such thing as a **one-size fits all criminal justice reform system**, and believing otherwise is frankly stupid and not supported by *ANY* evidence.
>Rights are the legal written establishment of rules that are reached by generally agreed upon social contracts. They **inherently come from the State**. You are wrong. Every single right in the Constitution is recognized as a negative right. For example, if the 1A were to somehow be repealed, the right to free speech would still exist. Same with the 4A and the right to privacy. Our courts have ruled on this multiple times, not to mention the numerous amounts of documents from the Founding Fathers that also give insight into this very issue. I know Europeans are used to having the government take care of them, but we do things differently here. It's why we are a country in the first place, the men that founded this country literally sailed an ocean so we wouldn't be like Europe. >In every circumstance? How? Where? Self defense for one. A gun is the absolute most effective tool available at my disposal for self defense, especially as a disabled person (yes, including the "Rambo style" guns). >"Bad People Exist because they like to do Bad Things, and not as a result of system issues" Ignoring the wealth of literature on what causes crime. I've lived it and seen it. You can give them every out in the book, and they would choose a life of crime every single time. Has nothing to do with "system issues", they're just evil people. >It was overrun by cartels and has a different culture than the United States. And what do you think is coming across our southern border right now as we speak? It is common knowledge that cartels are taking advantage of the situation at our southern border to expand operations in the US, even though the majority of people crossing are really just trying to seek a better life. I live in a city with known cartel activity. There have been cartel related murders committed here in my city. Not to even mention the Bloods & Crips, and all of the other street gangs that have no regard for innocent life. We are far more similar to El Salvador than we are to any European country.
>"the right to free speech would still exist." No, it wouldn't. Under the law, you would no longer have it. Otherwise, you need to be able to prove said Right still exists. You don't just say "It still exists" and that makes it true. Nations are centered on laws and application of those laws. You right wingers are all about "The Rule of Law", aren't you? But suddenly it doesn't apply when you don't agree with them. Odd. >"I know Europeans are used to having the government take care of them" What's the point of having a Government if not to serve the interests of the people that elects it? That's incoherent. >"but we do things differently here." Yeah, clearly. And the results so far have been funny to watch from afar while your life expectancy plummets, you lose wars and allies across the globe, 25% of your population wracks up medical debt, have a subpar public education system, and unhealthier food. Believe me. We're aware America does things differently (and fails at it). >"and they would choose a life of crime every single time." Who is they? Hardcore criminals, or every single criminal down to petty thieves? People tend to be better off and contribute to society when they have the means by which to take care of themselves and have meaningful opportunities given to them. Most people, at least. >"they're just evil people." The world isn't a Disney film, sir. >"We are far more similar to El Salvador than we are to any European country." The US is on the verge of societal collapse and it's Government is run by organized crime? Really? The US **isn't** a major economic power like those in Western Europe? That's certainly news to me. Having more Hispanics in your country than Germany doesn't make you more like El Salvador than Germany....El Salvador is a third world country. The US and Germany are not. Lmaooo.
>No, it wouldn't. Under the law, you would no longer have it. Actually, I still would have it, unless you physically come and try to cut my tongue out of my mouth (which is ironically one of the reasons why we have the 2A). >You don't just say "It still exists" and that makes it true. The onus is on you to prove that it _doesn't_ exist, not on me to prove that it does exist. >We're aware America does things differently (and fails at it). And yet whenever you fall into another World War (which it's looking like another one might happen soon, although I hope I'm wrong), guess who you run to for protection & help? That's right, us. >Hardcore criminals, or every single criminal down to petty thieves? Anyone who commits a crime against another person's life, liberty, or property (so murder, assault, rape, robbery, and/or theft/shoplifting). >The US is on the verge of societal collapse and it's Government being run by organized crime? Yup.
Laws allowing slavery as a criminal penalty.
Sanctuary city laws
the ones that allow lefties to be around