• 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?