So what are you saying? Are you saying that since the Canadian weapon toolbox is missing one tool they are forced to be docile?
I’m saying that what you’re saying is crap. That’s all.
Well you’ll have to do better than that. or not. Whatever. I think what you’re saying is crap, so there.
There are a number of points I’d like to raise to this, but its’ mostly about the way you put it, instead of your main point which I actually agree with, so I’ll bench them.
I concede freely that you have an individual’s inherent right to defend your person against any immediate, physical attack. Along with any other innocent person in your vicinity or purview. I contest that this does not equate with an inherent right (as opposed to the granted rights of the constitution) to arm yourself for the worst kind of trouble that could plausibly come along, in public.
I believe that a generalized, individual right and moral duty to arm yourself without the public mandate, training and sanction to uphold public safety would have an enormous net detrimental effect on society. To be more concrete, I am perfectly fine with the idea of a well-trained, schooled and disciplined militia to assist the police if they are unable to keep the public safe on their own. I am not fine with a general mandate for individual vigilantism, as that has rarely if ever ended well.
I’m discussing this as a matter of principle; of course I am realistically aware that the situation in certain parts of the States is such that arming yourself for your own safety may be, or appear to be, a prudent thing to do. As it’s currently legal, I cannot fault those who do so.
What are you going on about? Vigilantism? Who said anything about taking the law into one’s own hands? My “mandate” is the the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, of which I am a natural born citizen, that states that “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
“shall not be infringed**.**”
Don’t like it? Hold a constitutional convention.
Or you could move to Canada. I hear they have free health care.
Is it an actual “name” name? Who is named that?
Or is it a “name-calling” name? If it’s that, please forgive me, but I’m not really persuaded that that’s functionally different from a “slogan tugging on emotions.”
I’ve got free health care already, thank you. But I hear Canada is quite a lovely place. (My family is hosting relatives from Canada this week, and I expect to enjoy their company at dinner on friday.) You may not have noticed that you were discussing this with a foreigner.
Your constitution grants you certain rights. They are not inherent. There is a difference. As to the part you selectively omitted from your quote, I’ll just quote it in full.
“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.”
As ratified by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State. The context matters.
Well, they do draw their recruits from a pool with a history of fetishizing firearms possession and usage.
Australia has had heaps of mass shootings since we tightened up our gun laws in the wake of the last mass shooting.
Oh wait, no we haven’t.
Fucking gun nut idiots make my head hurt.
I recognized the fact that you were in Norway After I posted my response. Since you are foreign I am impressed with you knowledge of American politics and will forgive you of your mis-quote and therefore mis-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Or, you could work to make the U.S. a whole lot more like Canada, which would be even better.
Are there nail guns in Australia?
I’ll concede that there’s room for debate on whether he misinterpreted it, but what’s your justification for saying he misquoted it?
You have to understand that America is filled with doughy, paunchy middle aged white guys who are petrified that a black man will one day attack them. They would be too petrified to leave the house except for their magic talisman and all the fantasies they have had about getting the drop on the bad guy lurking out there.
Imagine a country full of middle aged Ralphies from a christmas story, whose fantasies about shootouts with Black Bart will never make sense to most of the people around him. Except, instead of adorable innocence and Ovaltine, you’re looking at unmitigated panic.
About 70,000 per year end up shooting their eye out, or shooting out someone else’s eye.
Why would I do that? If I wanted to live in a place like Canada I could just move to Canada, right?
Pssst. He’s been told repeatedly that it actually starts with an ellipsis.
As a non-American, I’ll take the gracious opening to bow out of the discussion. I am genuinely curious (no bones, sarcasm or snark - actually genuinely curious) as to how I misquoted it. But I’ll rather open a GD thread some day.
TJ was a man. He never “ratified” anything. The version that is in the national archive and passed by congresst is as follows…
Of course you think that. It’s because you’re stupid.
Never, ever again quote that without the first half:
But, it isn’t. The FFs were wrong about a lot of things (and that is far from the worst). All discussions of con-law should proceed with that held in mind.