U.S.A. Politics Thread

[plad101]

St Louis doing its sole job of being dogstuff so the rest of Missouri can enjoy not being full of gang violence and murder

[Ad Bot]

[Sheepocalypse]

Hey buddy boy you might want to look up the cities with the highest gun death rate, most of them are in deep red states or border one. I swear to god if you try to pull up Chicago to counter me I will actually explode.

Consequentially the cities with the lowest have great gun laws too. And states, in general. New England loves guns yet they're considered to be safest ones in the nation.

[Aide33]

Consequentially the cities with the lowest have great gun laws too. And states, in general. New England loves guns yet they're considered to be safest ones in the nation.

consequentially, yall are both wrong

depending on how the laws are implemented, its pretty easy to carry a gun from one state to another. states that have successful gun laws are the ones that are surrounded with other states with successful gun laws and vice versa.

if you really want to have an accurate idea of what federal gun laws would do, look at europe. its not as easy to get a gun across their border as it is to go from texas to new york, so comparing across states for point of sale gun laws is pretty moot.

this is not to say that gun laws in certain states dont have an effect, some do, like restricted open carry or something that police can easily catch on.

i find it incredibly stupid that yall are always stuff slinging at whos state is the stufftiest because of local laws like shut the forget up it doesn't matter in the case that theres like 4 guns per human in the USA

[MoltenKitten]

consequentially, yall are both wrong

depending on how the laws are implemented, its pretty easy to carry a gun from one state to another. states that have successful gun laws are the ones that are surrounded with other states with successful gun laws and vice versa.

if you really want to have an accurate idea of what federal gun laws would do, look at europe. its not as easy to get a gun across their border as it is to go from texas to new york, so comparing across states for point of sale gun laws is pretty moot.

this is not to say that gun laws in certain states dont have an effect, some do, like restricted open carry or something that police can easily catch on.

i find it incredibly stupid that yall are always stuff slinging at whos state is the stufftiest because of local laws like shut the forget up it doesn't matter in the case that theres like 4 guns per human in the USA

Oh no this is the exact reason why I think this should be a federal thing and not state thing

[plad101]

I think the state power should actually matter, it's almost like that's in the constitution or something. But oh well give the fed more power over your stuff and then cry when politicians refuse to do what you voted them in to do.
Maybe someday they'll codify half the stuff that they promised.

[MoltenKitten]

I think the state power should actually matter, it's almost like that's in the constitution or something. But oh well give the fed more power over your stuff and then cry when politicians refuse to do what you voted them in to do.
Maybe someday they'll codify half the stuff that they promised.

Yes, we should listen to a vague statement in a document made almost 250 years ago when most firearms could only fire one ball with an excruciatingly long reload.

[plad101]

Yes, we should listen to a vague statement in a document made almost 250 years ago when most firearms could only fire one ball with an excruciatingly long reload.

You know they had automatics in the 1700s right? You know they had ways to quickly load muskets as well? Oh wait, you don't know anything about historical guns or the constitution do you?

[MoltenKitten]

You know they had automatics in the 1700s right? You know they had ways to quickly load muskets as well? Oh wait, you don't know anything about historical guns or the constitution do you?

Yes I know those existed but you're lying to yourself if you're trying to tell me stuff like the puckle gun was a widespread weapon, they did not have the industrial capacity to produce those weapons that we do today. It honestly baffles me how you can look at those guns and go "yup this is just like my AR-15", there's a very clear difference in stopping power between guns of then and guns of now.

While we're on the topic of knowing about the constitution why don't we give it a read. "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.". Taken in it's most blunt form you could theoretically restrict weapon ownership only to militias and have it be reduced to something like swords without technically violating this. At no point does it guarantee the right to gun ownership and the part where it says "right of the people" is taken out of context if ignoring the parts preceding it.

Speaking of constitution here's a fun fact for ya, it was originally proposed that it should be reviewed and altered every 19-20 years but that didn't exactly happen. We also have the oldest unaltered constitution currently in use.

[plad101]

They should revisit the constitution, are they going to? No. It doesn't make politicians and lobbyists any money to look into it.
Of course the manufacturing of the 1718s can't produce to the same amount as a loving modern AR15 plant.
Now if you want to talk how the 2A is written, you want to base that off how the original Comma was? Or the current day? A comma isn't always for a list or even to fully connect two thoughts it can still be used (like it was) as a period. And it does guarantee the people gun ownership, that's what arms are, that's why they allowed people to own warships and cannons. You really think a group of people who fought their own war for independence, and stopped allowing armies to reside in the people's homes wanted those people to be defenseless against any tyrannical group? How is acknowledging the right of the people taking it out of context, the 2a is both allowing militias to operate and function and allowing the individual citizenry to have their own arms.

[Potatoh]

Literally lived in the middle of bumforget nowhere for 17 years of my life in an area known for having wolves, bears, and the occasional mountain lion. I had never seen any of those but they were there. I had also never met anyone who had seen one for more than a brief passing. If you get killed by wildlife it's either darwinism for getting way too close or it's divine intervention because wildlife kind of hates being near people.

is it a sound assumption to think maybe you never go outside in past and present tense

[Drydess]

most "blue cities" are just a mafia municipality of dems with big mouths whose only policy decisions are a direct result of the massive corporate lobby. hence "law and order" types. theres a reason that the most unanimous and swift decisions are bulldozing homeless encampments out of business areas

i spend a lot of time in dc and theres really no better example. of course you should hold the party responsible for this but people love to act like "blue cities" failing reflects some cultural marxist agenda, or even just the stated neoliberal platform of the dnc, instead of simple mafia activity. gun control in particular in these cities is horribly executed because the intent is to criminalize and sustain poverty, the city is incentivized to sustain violence

[MoltenKitten]

They should revisit the constitution, are they going to? No. It doesn't make politicians and lobbyists any money to look into it.
Of course the manufacturing of the 1718s can't produce to the same amount as a loving modern AR15 plant.
Now if you want to talk how the 2A is written, you want to base that off how the original Comma was? Or the current day? A comma isn't always for a list or even to fully connect two thoughts it can still be used (like it was) as a period. And it does guarantee the people gun ownership, that's what arms are, that's why they allowed people to own warships and cannons. You really think a group of people who fought their own war for independence, and stopped allowing armies to reside in the people's homes wanted those people to be defenseless against any tyrannical group? How is acknowledging the right of the people taking it out of context, the 2a is both allowing militias to operate and function and allowing the individual citizenry to have their own arms.

Is that what the founding fathers intended? Probably, but it's not like we can ask them. Heck if we could ask them it would give a huge amount of insight into their view on whether or not someone should be able to own an MBT, Fighter Jet, or Nuclear ICBM. The funny thing about the word "Arms" is that it just means a weapon, its definition as explicitly firearms is quite far down the list in usage because we kind of already have a word for that. Also no, the 2A doesn't guarantee normal people anything they were just allowed to use them (although definitely for the reasons you stated).

If they wanted to explicitly state it as a right of the people and not a militia they could have very easily wrote it differently, it's almost like they're flawed people or something.

[Sheepocalypse]

Not sure why you guys are comparing the US to European countries that never had firearms introduced to the civilians outside of under/over bullstuff guns and .22s.

[MoltenKitten]

Not sure why you guys are comparing the US to European countries that never had firearms introduced to the civilians outside of under/over bullstuff guns and .22s.

I mean at the time of the revolution it was about as common as in America, which technically didn't have civilian guns either because most were owned by militia members

[plad101]

If you say it doesn't allow "normal people" once again I swear I'm gonna have an aneurysm. SCOTUS has confirmed that it's not the power of the Militia to bare arms, its of the people. It's also ya know, written that it is.