Again ‘common usage’ is not ‘someone used it ever’.
as for the rest you’re proving my point. Sounds like we should restrict more destructive weapons.
Again ‘common usage’ is not ‘someone used it ever’.Lewis & Clark used wind rifles on their expedition. Never wanted to own an MLRS, but it might be classified as a destructive device under the NFA - tons of paperwork and probably tons of money.
I'm fine with that. Figure out how to get conservatives to move with the times and maybe we can try that out. Until then, we have a rather intractable problem.How about we just interpret every amendment the way the founders actually intended, which was to grow with the times.
If they wanted it to be specific they could have made it so but it’s not. All that happens now is duplicitous shitbags pretend two centuries old dead liberals intended their social values to endure for all eternity.
I'm fine with that. Figure out how to get conservatives to move with the times and maybe we can try that out. Until then, we have a rather intractable problem.
Also, some would argue that 'the right to bear arms' is pretty clear. We may not like the consequences of it, but there's not a lot to hide behind.
Still say tax the shit out of ammo. 2A doesn’t talk about ammo rightsGo after the gun manufacturers. Make gun advertising illegal and remove the liability shield.
That doesn’t violate 2A
Won't matter, loading your own ammo is trivial, and if you try to deal with the components you end up with the same shit show you run into with 'drug paraphernalia'. The only reason people buy ammo now is it's cheap.Still say tax the shit out of ammo. 2A doesn’t talk about ammo rights
Worth a try, might open up liability to other industries too, which might be good or compete chaos.Go after the gun manufacturers. Make gun advertising illegal and remove the liability shield.
That doesn’t violate 2A
I'm not entirely convinced. I think for some it did but it took the deadliest war in American history, the civil war, to even start in that general direction. And much of the progress we've made for the rights of the underprivileged are now being stripped away. So I think a large part of the country is not on board and certainly wasn't back thenI think it espouses universal values to live up to that the people who wrote it weren’t good enough to do.
Our choice today is to live up to those values or to decide we can’t be any better than 1789.
Layers upon layers of failure. Fucked up indeed.
Still say tax the shit out of ammo. 2A doesn’t talk about ammo rights
yeah its harsh but I think showing the victims regularly might actually motivate voters to elect congress critters who may do something real, possibly.More gun violence survivors need to speak out. Over 400 people were wounded by the las Vegas shooting. Limbs lost. People had lower bowels removed. Scars both mental and physical that never go away.
That one act destroyed thousands of lives. But they won't really be anything more than a side note in history. Congratulations. You get to shit in a colostomy bag for the rest of your life so some petulant ammosexual can stroke his AR-15 to sleep at night.
Welcome to freedom.
Unfortunately it would probably just desensitize voters further. That's shocking to people who grew up before Columbine, but for those that have grown up during/since? It's a regular occurrence. Everyone 'knows' that there's suffering as a result of gun violence, not sure how that would sway voters.Show the graphic pictures, stop sanitizing mass shootings. Let these rightwing tarts talks about AR-15s with the headless body of a 7 year old on the split-screen.
How are you gonna get that past congress? Or at this point, the SC just simply stating it's unconstitutional?We don't have to live like this. NFA all semi-auto weapons. Buy them back from people who don't want to. I'll file the paperwork for my stuff, I don't care.
How are you gonna get that past congress? Or at this point, the SC just simply stating it's unconstitutional?
Expanding the court is a prerequisite for essentially any legislation democrats want to pass. Really. SCOTUS just ruled ‘this statute is constitutional and the issued regulation is in accordance with the statute but LOL’How are you gonna get that past congress? Or at this point, the SC just simply stating it's unconstitutional?
Still need to convince R's to sign that into law, unless you intend on using some back-end finagling to NFA those which the next R president will just undo.Ideally obtain a majority with some balls and pack the court.
You're probably right on that part. I think expanding the SC to 51 should be the first priority of Democrats at this point.Expanding the court is a prerequisite for essentially any legislation democrats want to pass. Really. SCOTUS just ruled ‘this statute is constitutional and the issued regulation is in accordance with the statute but LOL’
Like imagine you want to pass a nationwide bill to improve mental health. Very good chance it is ruled unconstitutional. You might say ‘on what possible grounds?!’ to which I would refer you to the above.
Still need to convince R's to sign that into law, unless you intend on using some back-end finagling to NFA those which the next R president will just undo.
As if Republicans 'facing the voters' has ever meant anything. They already lose every popular election due to their policies, and still retain power over the entire govt. Really think it'll matter if everyone hates them further?If they want to reverse it and face the voters that's how it is supposed to work, not them hiding behind the court.