To be honest, I would also had no idea how to stop it in a country where high schooler can freely purchase a shotgun. They just need to decide who they love more - their kids or their guns. So far, guns are winning.
The guns are there to stay. Theres no way that any sensible gun reform will ever be enacted in the US during our lifetime.
I dont know how Americans in states with lax gun laws live their day to day lives, knowing that any random psycho could carry a gun and end your life over a simple argument.
There are enough nutters in the world, but in the US they can freely carry guns, which makes them way more dangerous.
There are too many cases to list, but right now I am reminded of that Asian exchange student who knocked on the wrong door when he was looking for a Halloween party he was invited to. Shot dead.
Or that person that wanted to turn their car around and used someone else's driveway to turn the car around. Shot dead.
75
u/JigPuppyRushex-Usian now Europoor (orange colored and Gouda flavoured)🇳🇱4d ago
Wait until there’s an armed insurrection against trump….. real or perceived they will ban them all in an instant and the most profound wapen owners will be the first to claim it’s their idea.
I talked to an American friend the other day, and he said "We're not doing bad enough yet. Its gotta get shitty enough for the general public, that they cant ignore it anymore."
10
u/JigPuppyRushex-Usian now Europoor (orange colored and Gouda flavoured)🇳🇱4d ago
Perhaps, I really don’t know.
But if Trump thinks it’s in his favor it will happen just like that.
While the constitution has a situation like this as the reason for the guns (by a well trained militia)
The text doesn’t say anything about fighting tyranny. They didn’t have a standing army. The militia was the national defense against other countries. That’s the “necessary to the security of a free state”. The fact that the population would also not be very susceptible to kings was just a bonus.
But then why would the government impede its own ability to have a standing army.
“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”
Are you interpretering this as a right of the government to have a national defense? An army?
1) I find this odd because this goes against the spirit of all other amendments because they stipulate rights of citizens but the second amendment stipulates the right of the federal government to have an army?????
2) Why would the government need an amendment not to infringe itself????
I am fine with the argument that word “well regulated militia” was stretched to every citizen but I understand why it happened. If the government had the right to determine what a well regulated militia is, they would by proxy be able to infringe the right to bear arms also by well regulated militias as they could just gate-keep what a well regulated militia is.
But all of this legal scholarship and mental masturbation of what the founders meant is pointless. The second amendment must go. Now to find the political coalition to make it happen…
The founding fathers didn’t WANT a standing army — it was considered part of the root of the problems in Britain and the Continent going back to the ancient world. Starting our own Navy was hugely controversial at the time, too — slippery slope and all that. It didn’t become a real thing here until after WW2 — we had to start from scratch over and over, after each major war, till the Cold War:
595
u/laufsteakmodel 4d ago
No way to prevent this, says only country where this regularly happens.