Honestly if I lived in the US I probably would. Not because I feel the need to pull it out and show everyone, but because I don’t want to die without a chance to defend myself.
That said - I think the fact that guns are so readily available in the US is bad and should be stopped so that people don’t feel the need to carry themselves.
Edit: woah boy this comment really got some people excited. Look, I’m not pro gun and I’m not American - I’m just saying how I feel…nothing more, or less. Over here in Europe I have the luxury of not needing to even think about it…and without any desire to live in America I also don’t need to think much beyond what i shared. Have a great weekend all!
I worked in the US for a long time and at no point did I ever feel the need to carry a gun around. If anybody ever did mug me they’d just get my wallet It’s not worth fighting over it.
If somebody wants me dead then the gun isn’t going to do me any good, how am I going to get it out of the holster in time?
Defend yourself how? Really imagine the scenario. Someone wants you dead, so they walk up behind you and shoot you. Where is your opportunity for defense?
Fair…I have no reason to dispute you and no reason to believe you…but it sounds sensible and hence if I had to actually make the decision for real I’d look into it!
I know I sound flippant, and that’s because I am. I don’t need to choose - that choice was made for me. And I’m glad it was.
I live in the US, you’re more likely to die in a car accident than get killed by someone with a gun. Plus all us Americans should be pretty desensitized to shootings and what not now, just get over it lol
The kind of country that has the NRA, The Republican Party, Florida, multiple mass shootings a month, a militarised police force, Donald Trump, the KKK…need I go on?
Honestly mate I’m well aware of the fact that most folks can lead entirely ordinary gun-free lives in the US. As a European I train in martial arts to ensure I can defend myself, in the US I’d also train in firearms - because that’s the worst case. Not the likely case. The worst case.
Fair play, I believe you. I also have never felt that way, I am simply applying my views on self defence in Europe to a wildly different set of laws…so I’m guessing what I would do. Not saying that’s how everyone feels - just how I feel.
From my read of the article he wasn’t wearing it, he was holding it in his hands along with the trash…
What’s the line of thinking on that?
Get up. Realize it’s trash day and grab the trash to go outside - but wait! What if some ne’er-do-well has been lying in ambush until 6 in the fucking morning to rob me of my precious trash? Better grab my heat. Shit I’m still in my pajamas and my holster is in the other room. I’ll just walk out like some romcom librarian, except instead of books I have a heap of trash and a loaded gun and the part where I trip is a lot less cute.
Idk I’m a very small woman who lives alone in a bad neighborhood. Had a man try to break in my house. He simply saw me with a gun and ran away. Don’t want to imagine what he could have done if something didn’t scare him away, because it wasn’t my Great Dane and it damn sure wasn’t me that intimidated him.
The fact that the person had criminally trespassed, made no due announcement of their presence and was attempting to enter her property absolutely falls within acceptable brandishment in all states of the Union. There is no question that brandishing a firearm in that situation is with lawful excuse.
Now, if she had pulled the trigger, had an unlicensed or illegal firearm in her state, or sought after the fleeing person, then there’s an argument that she commited a crime.
I am not a lawyer. But every state in the u.s. has different laws, about stand your ground. Even in Canada we are only allowed to use as much force as they use against us.
Brandishing a weapon and firing it are two completely different things. I would advise caution on making suggestions to people that live in a country whose laws you are not directly familiar with.
He was attempting to break down my door. According to the castle doctrine, I could have defended myself in that instance if he would have made it across the threshold. I had my weapon at the ready when he opened my front door without permission. Then he retreated. I called the cops and reported it. Filed a report. The cop said I did everything right.
This logic I’ll agree with you on. It is strange that a grown man felt the need to wear his weapon to take the trash out, whereas I never felt like I had to even in my neighborhood. I keep mine in the house purely for defense.
I kept reading “Man taLking trash to a dumpster” and I was like lol get rekt noob it wasn’t even armed. Then I read “dumpster with gun” and thought hmm, maybe it was. I should go to sleep.
Literally the ONLY way to have Prevented this was if he Shot his GUN first before his Gun could shoot HIM! LITERALLY nothing else could have Prevented this! Nothing like background checks or safe storage laws or other things to ensure only safe gun owners have Guns!
When’s the time to talk about the grammatical butchery that is the interpretation of the second amendment to the Bill of Rights?
Even if the government argues the unorganized militia is all male citizens aged 18-45, and females in the National Guard, that’s still not everyone. Also, if the 2nd amendment isn’t actually what grants states their own Defence Forces, but instead the Compact clause of the Constitution, than why the fuck can they exist in times of peace? Americans refuse to read and interpret their own laws, at the detriment to their children, to their families, their existence, and to their future.
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.
Can you explain?
The Second Amendment was written with the expectation that the United States would not have a standing army. That’s why why the first clause is there. The well-regulated Militia in this context means (potentially) every citizen with a gun willing to fight in the defense of the state. Essentially, the amendment guarantees every capable and trustworthy person access to weapons of war for the explicit reason that if a large portion of the populace is armed, then it becomes impossible to forcefully occupy the country.
Thats grammatical trash that makes no sense. 2 commas? The Militia is what is necessary to the freedom of the state, and its ability to bear arms shall not be infringed. You’re saying “everyone is a militia”, but even the government defines the “nonmilitary militia” only as males of 18-45.
Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is based on decades of propaganda.
Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is based on decades of propaganda.
No, the decades of propaganda weren’t so sophisticated. My opinion comes from a reading by an anarchist who closely studied the writings of the founding fathers, and based his interpretation on that and the context of who now qualities as a “person” (women and people of colour). It’s very obviously influenced by what he wants it to mean, but it’s not an unreasonable interpretation.
Edit: I mean this guy called me an anarchist for some reason and I guess I’m just sooo dumb because I’m arguing less people should have guns. Choke on it
Why can’t you just read it? It has nothing to do with enabling weaponry in the populace. the fact you say you can’t even interpret it, but go by an anarchists interpretation (which would similarly be biased?), is no better. Why need an interpreter at all. What a joke. “what he means it to mean”, literally admitting to swallowing propaganda whole
Like it really does. The Republicans are always so adamant in the “living” portion of only certain pieces of the constitution. Otherwise, staunchly “originalist”, right? Even you go out on this limb to say people can be black, too, so why not have Militias be people? So why doesn’t privacy extend to women’s health? Why not… so many other shit fucking arguments relating to originalism? Is it maybe… theyre fucking liars that use post-justification to find the outcome they want? That the gun lobby infected America and wants you to believe that you have the god-given right to shoot black people?
You’re cheekily saying you shouldn’t listen to me, cause everyone around you says something different. Thats makes me an anarchist. Incredibly cute. Incredibly disturbing, as you’re implying you don’t need to understand or even believe in the law at all, just so long as your peers aren’t pressuring you. At least I gave you the benefit of the doubt, that you were simply illiterate, instead of a complete shill.
Also wrong, cause I’m not exactly arguing in favor of anarchy… I’m saying less people should have a gun. Which is why it wasn’t obvious, which is why it’s not really a lesson in anything but setting up your jokes better? I’m starting to realize this platform sucks because we were all banned from better places.
Again, point in the “creepy American Nazi” column. Like most of them. It’s just reaffirming really, that most Americans can lose all of their rights entirely. It simply depends on the SCOTUS.
You realize that in order to maintain a militia, the average citizen needs to have access to firearms without relying on issuance of them by the state? A militia “in good working order” requires people to occasionally take their personally owned firearm and train with it. How the fuck do you do this without allowing people to freely purchase them?
How the fuck do you maintain a militia “in good working order” while also banning their existence in peace time?
Lmfao oh so now the militia is just all people again. The fucking state owns the arms, dumbass
I just love this deep assumption that the founders wanted every person to have a gun to ensure every citizen could “kill invaders”. Lmfao maybe if all you Americans didnt need propaganda to go and melt a bunch of vietcong to palm trees, you wouldnt need such shot fucking justification to wrap yourselves around a massive lie. Literally americans get murdered by tree kids, and go back to use that as their justification to own weapons. The founders literally knew the word “PEOPLE” and instead chose “Militia”. Leave it pick-and-choose republican-americans to determine what words mean when they want it to. There are no good Americans.
The state doesn’t own arms for a militia. Look up the fucking definition of a militia. They are ran by civilians and are not an official military organization (they are paramilitary), but can still be leveraged by state governors.
The state already funds for arms separately for their state National Guard using public tax money funded by the local tax payer, and mandate training on them. They don’t care if a militia doesn’t hold regular training, as long as they are capable of taking orders from the governor and can maneuver in an organized manner.
Militias are necessary for when the feds leverage their militarized entities to supplant democratic process.
You are a dipshit that needs to work on reading comprehension instead of non-sequiturs to grasp a “win” in this argument.
Also, you didn’t answer my question, so I assume you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about and everyone here should simply ignore you.
Black people and women aren’t mentioned in the Constitution either you fucking moron. We had to fight fuckheads like you to finally give them the rights they deserve. You want to follow it literally? Go back to your shithole trailer you MAGA inbred fuck.
Lmfao I’m the maga fuck? Who’s the one out here stretching words when it’s convenient? They absolutely are mentioned, specifically. Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. I don’t understand why originalists get all defensive about the 2nd amendment when its clearly grammatical horseshit, but they’ll skip over all these rules about black people and women.
Is it a living document or is it not? Is abortion a right or not? Anything can be completely destroyed by SCOTUS, any time.
Oh welcome to my point. Maybe read the 2nd amendment again and get back to me and why I’m right, and why all the hand-wringing and propaganda for the last 5 decades has literally been in propagandizing enough people into believing that’s what it says
What question? Americans are literally misinformed, using propaganda to peop up their worldviews. See how it hurts you so bad to confront it?
Your shit question, was “how can the militia have guns” is pretty simple: the state owns the guns.
You didn’t even see my original point, which is that the government also defines the non-military members in the population, which is all males 18-45 and females in the national guard. If you actually believe in the 2nd amendment and the words actually written, those are the only people that should have the right to bear arms. No one else.
See again, edits comment to add more ignorance. States dont have National Guard, they have State Defense Forces, which the compact clause gives them the right to have “in times of peace”.
Like literally these rights were enumerated in 2008. Thats a long time after the founders had an opinion…
Man this site is just choke full of sarcastic cucks, no one really has anything to say but “here’s some propaganda, you better believe it!” Lmfao. At least on reddit people will actually like read and talk. People here are just sarcastic, cryptic assholes
Okay so I read some of your edits and I see many holes in your arguments about not allowing everyone to own guns.
That being said, I cannot deny that societies that have restricted firearms ownership across the board have less homicides.
The factor that no one considers is that those societies are mostly homogenous, whereas the USA is not only more diverse than all countries combined, it’s also difficult to secure due to the size. Pandora’s box was opened long ago and it’s too fucking late to disarm the entire population.
You’re cheekily saying you shouldn’t listen to me, cause everyone around you says something different.
No, not at all; I asked you to clarify what you meant, and explained my perspective to you twice.
Thats makes me an anarchist.
Huh? What? How the fuck did you come to that conclusion?! I implied that I associate with Anarchists and consume anarchist media. I don’t think I’ve said a single thing about you except that you lack reading comprehension.
I’m going to assume you’re a troll, and maintain that assumption unless your next comment is even halfway decent.
Is this the definition of cryptofascist? Where you just cryptically make your points and use your peer position to hold authority? Garbage americans are garbage, im not exactly surprised
Your points are literally nonsense. If you believe “an anarchist interpretation” you 1) literally can’t read and 2) anarchy is definitely not what the founders intended. So amazing, you’ve destroyed your point while just being a confusing shit-brainwd american. Sorry I repeat myself
Oh so Im right? Americans are bullies, and they use peer acceptance as their understanding of their rights. This is why abortion isn’t legal in all 50 states any longer, and why literally any right, whether you believe to be enumerated by the Constitution or not, is hogwash
ksat.com
Hot