cross-posted from: https://50501.chat/post/54068
Time to break free of traditional political ideological labeling and divisions. Time to abandon old, divisive sociopolitical labels like "liberal" and "conservative".
A new political party based on a vastly, commonly held virtures lends itself to embrace over 66% of Americans, and it clearly embraces progressive principled thinking. In the most ideal American sense of unity, a political party should not be able to be defined or placed as "to the left" or "to the right" of where the Democratic or Republican parties currently are. Just let it exist organically based on present-day principled thinking. The American Progressive Majority.
Originally Posted By
u/AtlanticbboyAt2025-03-23 04:38:18 AM| Source
I agree with all except not owning a gun. I’m not a 2A’er, but legal and responsible gun ownership is one of our constitutional rights. The problems we have with guns right now fall directly into gun control territory, which is listed right below owning a gun on this list.
The militias are not well-regulated.
Yeah, I would be very careful how they word any mention of guns. It's very easy to get people arguing past each other even when they share very similar views, thanks to how groups like the NRA have mucked up 2A discourse.
If only people felt as fervent about the other amendments.
Owning guns to defend yourself against tyrannical government made sense a hundred years ago .... it wouldn't make a difference in modern times.
Maybe. But, and hear me out, we do not want to make it easy for them when they inevitably come for us.
2A proponents suddenly supporting the right to own ICBMs
By "suddenly", you mean, they always have?
You'd be hard pressed to find someone who supports people being allowed to own ICBMs, nukes, RPGs, etc. Even the most fervant 2A people agree reasonable limits apply.
Well, I don't even own a gun, but I think you underestimate armed resistance
Everyone doesn't need guns in order to raid an armory. Hell, if it turns to that point, some armories will likely be given over. Also, if it gets to that point, foreign aid will provide weapons and munitions.
I agree with some responsible gun ownership, but the 2A does not say what people usually think it says. (We have a professional standing army, so a militia isn't required for the protection of the state, and a well regulated militia is not home gun ownership and storage.) It also wouldn't be enough alone to fight our military. Most insurgencies don't start incredibly well armed. You get to that point over time with good strategy.
Right, we need anti-air missiles now! Where do I sign up?
Theres no way the government would routinely drone people in their own county. An authoritarian regime wants control, which is achieved with boots on the ground, kicked in doors and a massive police state. All of those can be disturbed and fought with conventional firearms.
A revolver, shotgun, or other firearms without magazines are fine for most hunting and self-defense cases. I don't have a problem with an 18yo buying one of these on their birthday. I do have major problems with a teen, or anyone really, coming in with zero history of firearm ownership and buying 1000 rounds and a semi-auto, high-powered weapon.
Agreed. First comes education. Then comes ownership. When my kids are old enough, I’m going to get them firearm classes so they at least know how it all works.
I'd be open to "opt in" classes in high school as well. I don't believe ignorance of guns keeps you safe from them.
insane fudd take. There is nothing wrong with buying a modern firearm as your first gun.
With proper education, sure. Maybe 1000 rounds is a bit much though.
My opinion is you should have to put in a certain number of hours of range time with your weapon (per year probably, not just one time) in order to have it. You should also have to demonstrate knowledge of maintanace and proof of proper storage available for it, especially if there are younger people in your house.
We require a license for a car, which has utility and is almost required in the US. We don't have anything like that for guns for some reason. Why not? The 2A specifically states "well regulated" so it should be fine even with the most generous interpretation.
"well regulated" in this context means properly educated and trained, not regulated by laws.
I can agree with some of your other points but especially the range time and training requirements price out a lot of poor people which often are minorities with a higher need for personal security. If you consider owning firearms a right this would be a clear infringement in my view.
It means properly educated and trained, and also the weapons were stored in armories, not at home, and organized into regiments and ready to be called up for active duty. Essentially, what the national guard is, with less organization between groups.
I did not mean regulated by laws. I meant that home gun ownership without any training or organization is not part of a well regulated militia, so it is not protected by the second amendment. Random people just owning guns at home is not "well regulated" by any definition.
Same, it’s not left enough for me if we’re going no arms
Gun control does not mean no guns. It means it's more controlled. I think the definition could (though never does or should) even include a requirement to own guns.
Yeah I’m aware. There’s plenty there I support like making sure people who shouldn’t have them don’t have a way to get them. But when they get into these banning of certain magazines and threaded barrels, the scrutinizing just turns people off. Those minute things don’t do anything and their actions have shown time and time again that those are things that they want to focus on. I’m fine with reasonable stuff but the scrutiny stuff leads to a “well where does it end?”
FWIW, I’m not telling anyone to buy a gun. I simply feel that people should continue to have that choice.