Usually the ones trying to tell people they’re racist are the most racist of them all. They think that because I point out the flaws in society that I must be white male, that’s a gun owner who votes for trump… little do they know I am a minority who’s heavily for societal safety nets, but also am armed to the teeth.

An armed minority is harder to oppress.

Ok, here’s Motherjones guide to mass shootings

Weapons: Of the 143 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally. They included dozens of assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns with high-capacity magazines. (See charts below.) Just as a perpetrator used a .40-caliber Glock to slaughter students in Red Lake, Minnesota, in 2005, so too did the one in Aurora, along with an AR-15 assault rifle, when blasting away at his victims in a darkened movie theater. In Newtown, Connecticut, the attacker wielded a .223 Bushmaster semi-automatic assault rifle as he massacred 20 school children and six adults.

Yea nothing here proves that the GVA isn’t bullshit…

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/08/27/640323347/the-school-shootings-that-werent

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year/

That’s two left leaning anti-2a publishers who even call out the GVA. It’s not a reputable source.

Or here’s Pew Research: About eight-in-ten U.S. murders in 2021 – 20,958 out of 26,031, or 81% – involved a firearm.

The overall increase in U.S. gun deaths since the beginning of the pandemic includes an especially stark rise in such fatalities among children and teens under the age of 18. Gun deaths among children and teens rose 50% in just two years, from 1,732 in 2019 to 2,590 in 2021.

Yes the pandemic years where an outlier and has drastically dropped back to pre-pandemic levels and now furthering the trend of continued decrease in overall violence/crime. This stilll…once again, has nothing to do with the GVA being a shit source…

The rate of children dying to firearms in the US is 6.01 per 100,000

Yea during the pandemic… it’s not anymore as I said, and further still not on topic.

The rate of children dying to firearms in Canada is 0.21 per 100,000

Same as above…

In 2023, 754 people died in mass shootings in the USA.

No they did not, the term mass shooting in the eyes of the public is like uvalde or LA…not gang violence or drug violence. People see mass shootings as random acts that target indiscriminately…this also once again bullshit.

In Canada, there have been 171 deaths to mass shootings for all of the 21st century so far. We would have had to lose 83 people per year to shootings to keep up with you for 2023. We lost 11.

O you’re Canadian…why am I arguing this with you… you’re not in the USA.

In the ruling? In the article? United States v. Rahimi. Court rulings aren’t yea/nea votes. They are very explicitly arguing over why/how broadly they think Bruen, which Thomas wrote, should be interpreted in this case and going forward.

So you don’t, just say that. We’re not talking about the rahimi ruling. You don’t need to explain how a ruling works and yes they do still “vote” on a ruling. They don’t all just write opinions and then magically uphold or strike down a ruling…

Focusing on the words on the page to the exclusion of where/when/why the letters were written is taking them out of context. Just reading the text, it sure seems like Jonathan Swift is really in favor of eating babies.

No it’s not, you’re literally trying to make it something its not. You’re assessment that Jefferson was anti gun is completely incorrect.

The fuck are you talking about? Nothing you just rambled off makes any damn sense.

Not even worth my time for someone who is so ignorant to the subject. Have a good day.

Gun violence archive is not a legit source. It’s completely bullshit from an anti-2a group. It’s been called out multiple times by even left leaning sources like NPR and motherjones its so bad.

No they did not. Tons of research has come out during that time. They put a stop to funding research that held a bias. Which at the time was from the CDC wanting to make shit up to push an anti2a agenda. The head of the CDC stated during that time that they wanted to use research to prove guns are a public health crisis, no matter how the came to that conclusion. They had a ton of really flawed studies as well that were proven to be terrible studies with a major bias. In science you can’t just make studies say what you want without being criticized, and that’s what they did. It’s why the dickey amendment was passed with bipartisan support in 96.

Edit: you can downvote me all you want, this is exactly what happened. This isn’t some fake news shit from the repubs, it’s actual history. It’s not my fault you’ve been fed a lie that the cdc was bared from studying gun violence.

You have a higher chance of getting killed by bees or lightning than dying from a “mass shooting”. Most gun violence is gang related. It’s like people think the usa is dangerous everywhere. When in reality it’s super safe in 99.9999% of the country. It’s not the guns, its our society that’s troubled and it seems neither side wants to actively work on the why it happens just the what tool was used.

And we know it’s not the guns that magically make people more suicidal…as there are multiple countries with basically 0 access to firearms with higher suicide rates than we have here in the USA. Japan is the main one.

Wondering how much the budle deals effect this number. I’ve got a lot of games from bundles and a lot of them I didn’t really want but they came with the bundle, so they’re added to my library.

SC justices don’t do name calling on news shows, they file dissenting opinions. Every SC justice ruled to limit the legal hole Bruen left except for Thomas who thought the guy should be able to keep his guns.

They’re not fighting over bruen then. Do you have any dissenting opinion pieces they have written?

If you remove all context you can create a banger slogan. You’re right, if you discard the sentences bracketing what you originally posted, you’re left with only the piece you posted.

Nothing I’ve posted has been taken out of context. It’s very very clear what both of those letters meant.

I’m in no way saying that someone shouldn’t if they want to. I do understand that it’s possible, I just prefer my wife without makeup, that’s all.

I might be the minority group here, but I prefer my wife without makeup. After our second date I told her I’d rather see her face as it is, than it be hidden under a mask. Everyone has flaws, it’s what makes us unique and there is beauty in that alone. She hasn’t worn makeup since and were pushing 2 decades of marriage now.

I mean that the conservative judges are arguing amongst themselves how far Bruen applies.

News to me, I’ve not seen anything on them arguing with each other. Just a ton of anti-2a groups and media calling the ruling horrific… though I will say that this scotus is not 2A friendly so it wouldn’t surprise me if they actually are doing so. I’d love to read about it if you have a source.

Literally from Adams

Resolved That it be recommended to the several Assemblies, Conventions and Committees or Councils of Safety, of the United Colonies, immediately to cause all Persons to be disarmed, within their respective Colonies, who are notoriously disaffected to the cause of America, or who have not associated, and shall refuse to associate to defend by Arms these united Colonies

Yea, remove the arms from those who do not support the cause to fight the British…no where in there did he say to disarm those who support the new nation. They literally were fighting for independence.

Taking up arms against the US is Treason. That’s not even an amendment. Jefferson was writing to a US representative in England reassuring him that the US is strong and the rebellion was “no big deal”. That section starts off:

The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted?

and continues

Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order.

The “few lives lost in a century or two” he’s talking about are those of the people rebelling.

And finishes with the exact line I provided you in my previous comment:

And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

To assume Jefferson was speaking of disarming the people and telling them they’re traitors is incorrect.

I don’t know how much you think that paper supports your argument, but the “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Is a motto that a lot of 2A supports use. It’s literally the embodiment of the 2nd amendment.

Yup, you can DL enterprise Win11 for free to, just gotta know how to grab it from MS.

The justice system is not vibe based. It’s ruling on whether laws were violated or if a particular case is novel in some way. Laws change as what a population wants to do changes.

That’s literally what I said. You acted like they’re not.

Several courts decided otherwise until SC revised Bruen with this decision, and the SC justices are still arguing with themselves because of how ambiguous Bruen is.

You mean the left judges who are anti-2a are arguing with the pro-2a judges…this is nothing more than anti-2a sides being annoyed that the 2nd doesn’t have more rules and or being completely ignored and repealed eventually.

Perfect should not be the enemy of good. Mental Healthcare is exponentially better now than it was 20+ years ago, Background checks succeed a lot, parents that treat firearms responsibly have more living children. Guardrails don’t stop all people from falling off bridges, but they should still be there. That things fail sometimes doesn’t mean they should just go away without replacing them with something better.

The issue with this logic isn’t that they stop some, it’s that they put rules in place that do not actually do anything. More bullshit gun laws are not going to reduce crime. Anti-2a groups want to focus on the tool used vs why the crime happened in the first place.

Also mental health while its better, it was stripped because of Reagan, and has never really recovered.

And they immediately limited that scope when the Whiskey/Shay rebellions happened and further as time when on because they explicitly wanted the laws to grow and change.

No it did not, I don’t know what parallel history you’re coming up with here, but the 2nd was not created to limit the scope.

The founders did not put in place the tools for their own overthrow, nor did they bring tablets down from a mountain. It’s not that they didn’t realize technology was going to advance, it’s that you can’t write laws for things or situations that don’t exist. Pretending you can divine intent from what did get written, as Bruen calls for and Justice Thomas has explicitly said for years, is just saying you are the only arbiter of what is allowed in the guise of “the founders wanted it that way”.

They absolutely did put in place tools to be able to stop the gov from becoming a tyrannical gov.

Literally from Jefferson:

What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.

https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/blood.htm

Laws are complicated because people are complicated.

People can be complicated all they want, actions are what are judged not how complex a person is. It’s literally why we have a judicial system. So people can be judged on their actions.

This guy having those tools means other people are more directly in danger of having to defend themselves. His personal rights don’t overshadow theirs, so his rights will be restricted based on his past actions. Claiming that’s impossible because 100 guys didn’t think of explicitly saying that in regards to this specific issue in the first few years of constructing an experimental government from scratch is insane.

What are you talking about? The ruling here is exactly that, if you’re a criminal, you can’t own firearms.

There have been lots of gun control laws that have helped drive down crime. That’s why we support mental health care, do background checks, and make people separate unsupervised children and guns.

No there has not, mental healthcare is completely lacking in this country, background checks fail all the time, and kids find their parents firearms a lot more than they should.

It’s why “arms” doesn’t include suitcase nukes and howitzers.

It actually does mean exactly that. The revolution was fought using mainly private arms. There wasn’t even a standing navy, we literally had people who owned the equivalent of a battle ship today. To act like the founders didn’t realize technology was going to advance is ridiculous.

Where did I defend him? I’m not the one acting like the 3 people he shot were angels, and I sure as fuck am not the one who is completely ignorant to the case. There are still tons of people on the left who seem to think he shot minorities…hell even in this thread someone said it.

Years after Ukraine has destroyed and won this war, I have a feeling the body count on the russian side is going to look even worse than WWII.

Boeing: “naa fuck that. They’ll be fine coming back down”