Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy. (Politics General)

@YourPalContrail
I’ve talked to enough, there’s no functional difference between them and the GOP outside of surface-level crap.

@The Smiling Pony
the only functional difference is if they use psudo science or religion to justify their ideas,

How would the TF2 Heavy react to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?

How would the TF2 Soldier react to January 6th and the Supreme Court’s recent attitude?

Does TF2 Medic get tired of being called a Nazi simply because he’s German by every edge lord?

Would this go in nerd?

Touché

@The Smiling Pony
Can you explain your logic on this? Considering the old meaning and the application in the Constitution I find it a hard sell to use it as justification for a government license.

@Background Pony #6B50
The 2nd amendment states:

That places the whole importance and purpose on the “well regulated militia” part, with the general right to bear arms as a corollary necessary for it. I’m all for well regulated militias, I’m all for sports shooting and hunting, and all for proper home defence. I’m less for the idea that anyone can walk into a bazaar and pay $50 for a snubnose then carry it into a mall where, because of their paranoid delusions the state doesn’t want to pay to care about, they’ll shoot up a news stand for selling foreign tabloids.

There are less “checks and balances” for people buying and using guns, instruments explicitly designed and made to kill other people, than there are for cars or credit cards. And that’s just silly.

@The Smiling Pony
It sounds like your issue is more that you think the Constitution should be amended again to either reword it or outright remove it.

I disagree that the whole importance lies with those three words, but their meaning back then would have basically boiled down to the people being well trained and practiced, the kind of practice you would get in the 18th century by existing in the 18th century. The argument that it would allow the government to further mandate some sort of training or licensing requirement doesn’t make much sense when written into a document which exists to constrain the government. The purpose of the amendment is to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement, it doesn’t take a genius to see how giving the government the ability to regulate the right doesn’t also give them the ability to infringe on that right.

horseshoe theory confirmed? xD

@Background Pony #6B50
The government should train the populace in how to properly handle weaponry, with the understanding that when it fails to do so, or fails in some other subject, there will be a very large amount of well trained and armed populace ready and willing to bring them back in line, or take them out.

Instead we just have a vague concept of “guns for all” that results in a large amount of people that should have no business being near a gun, or no training in how to use them, creating general popular resentment towards their general existence.

Unfortunately this and many other problems will never be resolved in any sensible way thanks to the radical two party system that dictates every single policy fall on one party or the other with 100% support or 100% opposition, blind to all nuance or dialogue.

US politics are exhausting in their utter futility.

@The Smiling Pony
I don’t have an issue if the government wants to offer training, just as long as it is optional. You can get training now if you want to (and I recommend people do). The issue I have is if you make it mandatory suddenly only specific training courses are acceptable, and not many of them so you have a long line, and they are far away from people, and expensive, etc. I don’t have any confidence in government bodies to not overreach, especially seeing how some have acted.

You are right though that it’s gotten so polarized that if you aren’t lockstep in line you get ostracized from the party.

@The Smiling Pony
Agreed. I support the Second Amendment as every American should, but it must be understood that owning and/or carrying a gun is a big responsibility. There needs to be training first and some sort of test so that not every lunatic off the street can easily buy a gun.

@kleptomage
At this point, screw the Second Amendment and all that comes with it. There is something fundamentally wrong with US society when they think owning guns is a human right, but not access to education and healthcare.

@kleptomage
Third.

@IWTCIEM
Owning guns is a constitutional right, it stems from the right to defend yourself. You do have a right to pursue education and healthcare. The difference is, for example, a socialized healthcare system is something provided to you. So the 2nd amendment is saying the right is something you have and can’t be taken away, as opposed to have something provided to you.

@Background Pony #6B50
Amendments have been repealed before, and this “right” has become a privileged for those who don’t deserve it.

@Meanlucario
You can, I don’t think you’ll get the support any time soon, but their is a process in the Constitution to amend it.

@Background Pony #6B50
That only goes to prove how fucked up the vast majority of the US population is.

@Background Pony #6B50
Because people don’t want to lose their privilege especially after abusing it.

@Meanlucario
I think this shows the US population is correct, it is and should remain a constitutional right.

@Background Pony #6B50
I think it proves that humans are idiots. And Australia is doing quite well with their gun restrictions. Apparently faces the same backlash as the USA, but did what was right and not what was popular.

@Background Pony #6B50
How does it show that when the US has a far higher violent murder rate, and gun violence rate, than every other western/“first world” country? Including ones with high gun ownership (but required training)?

@Meanlucario
They are fine, but isn’t a country I would want to live at, I prefer the laws here.

@The Smiling Pony
The US had a higher violent crime rate before these countries passed gun restrictions, after the restrictions passed you didn’t see a sudden drop there as compared to the US.

For instance, when Great Britain passed sweepign restrictions in the 90s you didn’t see a drop in violent crime (it actually went up, but that might be due to changes in measurement.) The US violent crime rate dropped through the 90s.

@Background Pony #6B50
Past trends aside, it doesn’t change the fact that since the UK confiscated guns in 1996 they have experienced just 2 mass shootings (one in 2010, the other just last year) and 0, I repeat, 0 school shootings. In the meantime I’ve already lost count of how many shootings with double-digit fatalities have occurred in the US, because no effective gun laws have been passed, and people allow it to happen.

what is your definition of rights?

@IWTCIEM
But on net it doesn’t appear to be saving lives.