• corm@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    The point of the right to bear arms is to have some defense against an oppressive government if needed.

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, not really, even in the wild West towns would force you to surrender your firearms to the sheriff before you could go anywhere else in town.

          Just because Reagan was a racist about it doesn’t mean the very concept itself is racist.

          • OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Honestly I have no hope for gun control in the US. What ever version we get will be so riddled with concessions it probably will be pretty racist.

      • ours@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        Want to get Republicans to jump on gun control? Just have minorities show up exercising their right to bear arms.

        Ask Reagan.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Police kill on average 1k civilians a year…aka 1/40 of all gun deaths, including the 66% of the 40k~ a year that are suicides… the majority of which are minorities…so no it’s not working.

                • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Republicans aren’t gun owners, they just use it as a wedge issue to get votes. They, just like the NRA, would love to make only rich people be able to afford defensive tools. Thinking that all gun owners are Republicans is hilarious.

      • kleenbhole@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes it is.

        Historians could only “uncover” this reason because it’s buried under the actual reasons. All the rationale behind the constitutional amendments was highly documented at the time, public, and easily accessed and referenced.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          You mean including the highly documented rationale that historian uncovered?

          By the way, do you really think you could defeat the U.S. military with your gun collection? Even if you and a bunch of buddies got together?

          • kleenbhole@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            As to your second paragraph, yep, yes, sure. We got beat by a bunch of illiterate desert goat rapists and jungle Asians. Just need to outlast the political will of the oligopoly

          • Captain Howdy@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            First of all, fuck this racist guy commenting to this thread. I hate that his kind are so often associated with people like myself who believe our population should remain armed.

            Second of all, the military cannot be called into domestic affairs, so your “question” is irrelevant. Maybe read more about history and the constitution before spurging your nonsense all over the place.

            But mostly… fuck racists, especially kleenbhole.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Where does the Constitution say the military cannot be involved in domestic affairs? You are probably thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act, which does limit the use of the U.S. military in domestic affairs, but wasn’t passed until 1878 and could be repealed.

        • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Historians could only “uncover” this reason because it’s buried under the actual reasons.

          Buried under the actual reasons? That somehow contradict the uncovered reason? Sounds like bullshit to me.

          All the rationale behind the constitutional amendments was highly documented at the time, public, and easily accessed and referenced.

          Then how did bullshit theory that guns were to overthrow the government get buried for so long?