Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
Here's what I've often wondered: why, when the Constitution clearly indicates that bearing of arms is in the context of a" well-regulated militia", is it not permissible, under the Constitution, to regulate firearms? Do the second amendment types have any kind of argument about this? It just seems to me that within the context of the amendment itself, it's clearly implied that regulation will be necessary and will exist. Is there something that I'm missing?
Yes. The text of the 2nd amendment is contested and several states passed different punctuation, which changes the meaning.
The most favorable version for individual gun ownership reads:
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.
The placement of the comma there makes the well regulated militia part an introductory clause, which explains the purpose of the second part protecting individual gun ownership.
That combined with the historical context that anyone called into miltia service was expected to provide their own gun is the justification for individual gun ownership being a protected right.
The more common text passed by congress is more ambiguous because it introduces an explanatory clause as part of the introductory clause, but you can still read it that way, which the supreme court currently has.
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.
If you cared at all you'd actually read up on the context and interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
Bad timing for this meme. I do not trust the cops, esepcially not now. Correct course of action is to disband the police and create well-regulated militias (regulated by the people themselves, not the state). I see you're from dbzer0, you should know that cops aren't to be trusted.
Also: Dems really need to drop the gun issue if they hope to win an election, going "Beto O' Rourke" every election isn't helping.
Context: The moment where Democrats lost Texas Gubernatorial Election: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QR4mNrW0AlE
Well, that latest mass shooting in the media was done by a trans person, yea? And Trump's busy deploying National Guard units to most blue states in an authoritarian/fascist push....
So I imagine, that the left may have a chance of getting gun control on the agenda this time. Though it may not look like how they want it to. It'd be gun control to deny lgbtq+ and blue voters guns.
3600....so far.
Welcome to the comments: Here you’ll find
In Japan there was zero child deaths by guns. They have a little less than half the population of the US but none of the gun deaths.
IDF: 36000
3000 people died one time in 2001 and the US government used the fear and rage to wage war and commit war crimes in multiple countries including those that had nothing to do with the attack for the next 20 years.
3000 children die at least every two years in the US and there's not enough fear and rage to wage war on the fucking NRA.
kinda makes you wish the gun manufacturers and their lobbyists were a bunch of brown skinned people, that shit would've been shut down pretty damn quick huh.