po-lina-ergi ( @po-lina-ergi@kbin.social ) 43•3 months agoFor anybody who doesn’t understand the argument, it’s specifically a rebuttal to the idea that “The second amendment only applies to muzzle loaded muskets because nothing more advanced existed at the time”
“Free speech only applies to newspapers and soapboxes because nothing more advanced existed at the time”
Kit Sorens ( @GlitchyDigiBun@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English22•3 months agoIt’s not a bad counterargument to that claim, we’ve just moved so far past that into the cost-benefit-analysis stage. The cost to keep the 2nd ammendment as it is is pretty fucking high.
JackGreenEarth ( @JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee ) English17•3 months agoThe problem is taking the amendments as unchangeable and almost divinely commanded. They were things written by people hundreds of years ago, and they can be changed. They’re literally called amendments. It doesn’t matter whether the second amendment protects gun rights, it’s up to us nowadays to decide if we want people to have the right to a gun, decided based on our ethical arguments, not what an old document says.
I say this as a non American, it’s just pretty weird to me that even the anti gun people defend their position by quoting the second amendment (usually), rather than suggesting changing it.
SweetBilliam ( @SweetBilliam@midwest.social ) English7•3 months agoChanging it is very difficult. It takes 2/3rds of our legislative branch agreeing. We don’t see that much.
It says something about how fucking nuts Prohibition was that the states agreed to it and then agreed that was a terrible idea.
idiomaddict ( @idiomaddict@feddit.de ) 1•3 months agoIt was a huge womens rights movement issue at the time. They weren’t all prudes, they just thought it would be a more effective way to cut back on domestic violence than going at it directly (more enforceable and politically viable), iirc. Then everyone hated it.
One reason is you can’t change Amendments, only repeal and add them. Second you need 2/3 of all 50 state legislatures or Congress to ah Gree before even start that process, ratification requires 3/4 of the states to agree, it’s a fucking process from hell
Jake Farm ( @Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz ) English10•3 months agoIf you are scared of semi-automatic rifles, wait until you find out about fully-semi-automatic rifles.
survivalmachine ( @survivalmachine@beehaw.org ) 3•3 months agoWhat do the mass shooting statistics say? More mass killings with full auto, semi-auto, or non-auto firearms? Or does the type not matter and they’re all pretty much used equally? I always hear about semi-auto, but the media never mentions full auto rifles in school shootings and such. Or whatever fully-semi-automatic means.
apotheotic(she/they) ( @apotheotic@beehaw.org ) English1•3 months agoFully semi automatic (probably) refers to semi auto with a modification like a bump stock
Jake Farm ( @Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz ) English1•3 months agoNo I’m referring to the nonsense term used by news casters when talking about semi-auto guns. Fully-semi-auto don’t exist.
apotheotic(she/they) ( @apotheotic@beehaw.org ) English2•3 months agoCool! It’s hard to catch sarcasm over text :)
fl42v ( @fl42v@lemmy.ml ) 4•3 months agoWhile the author of the meme seems to be unfamiliar with the concept of causality, the last part doesn’t seem that wrong if you look at Assange, for example…
Kairos ( @LodeMike@lemmy.today ) 3•3 months agoWell it doesn’t “apply” to nuclear weapons so.
And it literally does apply to ALL weapons.
cum ( @moon@lemmy.cafe ) English2•3 months agoIt’s literally communist north Korea’s if I don’t have a nuke detonator up my ass at all times