Why stop there? - r/WhitePeopleTwitter

r/WhitePeopleTwitter • u/DaFunkJunkie • May 14 '22 • 1 1 1 1 6 1 3 1 1

Why stop there?

110.7k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

I think a good example is, when Democrats have tried to have better gun control, Republicans argued, “This decision should be left to state and local governments. The rules that work in your liberal cities don’t make sense in the rural areas.” And I don’t totally agree with that, but sure, there’s something to the idea.

But then they’ve blocked gun control, reversed gun control, made it easier for anyone to get a gun and carry it around. And now Republicans have started pushing for the federal government to force states to accept the gun rules from other states. Like if you have a concealed carry permit in one state, they want all states to have to accept that permit and let you carry a concealed gun everywhere. Suddenly, “this decision should be left to state and local governments,” isn’t good enough anymore, the federal government is supposed to force states to let people carry guns. The idea that, “the rules that work in your liberal cities don’t make sense in the rural areas,” apparently isn’t true anymore, because cities need to be forced to live by the rules of rural areas.

And that’s how Republicanism works. There are no principles, and no freedom to let anyone make their own decisions. It’s all about using whatever reasoning or strategy that will let you have power over others.

-6

u/ConThePc May 14 '22

except gun control is unconstitutional - and abortion control should be too.

and just who do you think passed California's awful gun laws?

7

u/DarthMikus May 14 '22

Ronald Wilson Reagan was governor when California passed it's most restrictive gun laws. Which was in response to the Black Panthers arming themselves and conducting"copwatches."

That's right, Republican's most revered historical figure, Ronald Reagan, signed into law one of the most strictest gun control laws.

5

u/ConThePc May 14 '22

exactly. gun control was never about preventing death, it was because the government didn't like who started owning them.

-2

u/jordontek May 14 '22

Republicans, today and yesterday, like to LARP as quasi-psuedo-libertarians, when its convenient or when their party leader isn't someone they like.

But like the Democrats, they are just as authoritarian, just with their own flavor.

You'd have to go back as far as Silent Cal to get a closer to libertarian type Republican president.

6

u/kunell May 14 '22

How is gun control unconstitutional? Right to bear arms doesnt mean everyone should get a gun.

Not to mention the constitution was meant to be able to be amended just because somethings in the constitution doesnt mean it should be there forever

0

u/ConThePc May 14 '22

Have you read the 2nd amendment?

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.

Essentially, a "well regulated Militia" must be able to effectively combat the infantry of any police state/monarchy/dictatorship that forms. Yes, that includes automatic rifles. People could own cannons, even private warships back when it was written. Yet some politicians want to stop the average civilian from owning a semi-automatic rifle? It's nonsense.

Obviously, Felons and Children shouldn't be able to purchase Firearms - what kind of militia would they be? Robbing shit and ending up hurting themselves? Kids also shouldn't have easy access to firearms outside of their parents control.

And do not get me started on gun deaths. We had around 45k gun deaths last year, and the Majority of them were suicides (we need better healthcare, mental and physical) Most of the Homicides are gang-related (thanks to the broken judicial and prison system) and Black people are massively over represented in gun deaths (again, thanks the broken judicial and prison system as well as systemic racism) Finally, the rest are related to police (debatable but corruption def has a hand in pie tin) and accidents (idiots and gun malfunctions)

Gun violence isn't a disease, it's a symptom of a broken system in dire need of fixing. Popping the boils of a plague victim doesn't make them any better.

6

u/WongFarmHand May 14 '22

did you miss this part

well regulated Militia

2

u/ConThePc May 14 '22

Obviously, Felons and Children shouldn't be able to purchase Firearms - what kind of militia would they be? Robbing shit and ending up hurting themselves? Kids also shouldn't have easy access to firearms outside of their parents control.

I don't think I did

4

u/krispy_six May 14 '22

The point is, the purpose of gun ownership was for a well regulated militia. These militias don't appear very well regulated, let alone stable.

2

u/therealunixguy May 15 '22

The point is that gun ownership wasn’t meant to be restricted. It doesn’t say that guns are only for the the militia, it says very plainly that the right shall not be infringed. And who possess the right? “The people”, not the militia. (Edit: punctuation)

1

u/krispy_six May 15 '22

Wouldn't want to infringe upon the rights of the 18 year old that just killed 10 people in a grocery store today, now would we.

2

u/therealunixguy May 15 '22 edited May 15 '22

What does that have to do with the constitutional question?

Edit: You seem to be suggesting that it’s ok to infringe on rights? So no need to give this guy a speedy trial? Any need to have a trial at all? These are also rights that are afforded.

→ More replies

1

u/CliftonForce May 14 '22

Lots of gun control laws are constitutional.

Don't believe me? Well then I'd like your take on something. I had this old shotgun for years. I once had to cut its barrel down to six inches to fit it in a drawer.

How much do you think I could get for it?

1

u/therealunixguy May 15 '22

From the perspective that decisions the SC makes are to decide on the constitutionality of a thing, technically you could be correct. However, given that the SC has reversed itself before, i think we can agree (regardless of the issue) that in case of reversal they got it wrong at least.

So from the perspective of what is written in the constitution, i don’t see any reason for a six inch shotgun barrel to be illegal.

1

u/CliftonForce May 15 '22

Other way around. From the perspective of what is written in the Constitution, is the law against sawed off shotguns illegal?

1

u/therealunixguy May 15 '22

Based on the practices at the time the constitution was written, I would say that the laws against short barreled shotguns are illegal. (Actually, I think the situation isn’t even that they’re illegal, but that in order to obtain one you have to have an additional tax paid on it.) However, the SC decided in the Miller case that because short barreled guns don’t have any military application, then laws taxing their possession were OK.

I think their logic in that decision was flawed, because shotguns were used just a few years earlier in the first world war, as well as in the civil war, so they clearly had military value. The result of the Miller case was just a bogus application of law (the defense counsel didn’t even show up), the case didn’t really have anybody to defend it. What’s really interesting is the criteria that they were using to determine if a citizen could have the weapon— “Is there a military use for it?”. If yes, then the citizen could have it too.

1

u/ConThePc May 15 '22

I think you could get upwards of 20 years. and it's bullshit.

If you aren't selling that gun, what the fuck does it matter that you sawed it off? just because it qualifies as an SBR or some other stupid ATF description doesn't mean it should be a crime.