this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
1027 points (98.1% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
7131 readers
851 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
- Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
- This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
I am pro second amendment. I believe the constitution explicitly grants the states the right to regulate militias.
Fun facts: The 2nd amendment was created before bullets let alone bump stocks. Kamala was a gun owner. Trump isn’t allowed to own one because he’s a convicted rapist.
It's because he's a convicted felon. The rape thing was in civil court.
Not just before bullets and rifling, but firearms were single shot muzzle loaded.
What's the relevance? There were also cannons...
Cannons that were massive and while they could deal a great deal of damage in a single firing, everyone would see it coming. Cannon required a lot of support or else their crew would get wiped out by enemy foot soldiers. You couldn't just pop out, surprise, fire a cannon before anyone notices.
The writers of the amendment wouldn't have conceived of small arms that would allow a single person to rapidly take down dozens of people at significant distance without any warning or support. Melee weapons were the only viable weapons for a prolonged single person fight, with small arms requiring a long reload activity between shots where the wielder was vulnerable and big weapons being huge, slow, and similarly vulnerable before even the first shot. All of the firearms of the time had the projectile go vaguely in the direction of firing, so at range it was essentially useless for a person by themself without a bunch of others firing balls chaotically in the same direction in hopes of hitting their target.
Im pro 2ndA Democrat as well but this who thing is pretty damning proof that there is no need for guns because we Wouldn't use them anyways.
But damn guns are fun to shoot... But im not sure the pros outweigh the cons anymore since the biggest pro seems to be a lie and the biggest con is how many of us die needlessly to them.
Yeah so I'm not using my guns to enact violent revolution. But if the neo-SS comes to take me to a slave camp, they're going to have a bad day.