Please wait...
You are also failing to include all the qualifiers before "shall
not be infringed", but that's a different topic than what
specifically the ATF does to infringe.
It is interesting that the 2nd Amendment is the only one out of the first ten that contains an explanation of why the amendment is there. It was clever and proactive for them to put it there, but unfortunate that they used the word "militia" whose interpretaton has changed a bit over the years.
When that was written, the blood had barely dried from the revolution. Just about the entire Bill of Rights was written in the context of preventing a future government from becoming oppressive in the way the British government had done. To understand any of those amendments you have to think in that context.
I would hazard to guess that most people hell-bent on infringement do know this. But don't care.
Sat Apr 19 2025 16:19:30 UTC from IGnatius T FoobarTo understand any of those amendments you have to think in that context.
In other news, I guess I won't be buying any new handgun models for a while. It seems the entire industry has decided that these beveled square trigger guards are what's hip now. They're so ugly. This fad can't go out of style soon enough for me.
While i don't approve of omnibus bills, at all, and its freaking hypocritical that people now support them since its 'their guy in office' ( be careful what you wish for. idiots ) it seems that this insane bill Trump is trying to get thru, now has gun rights components tacked on to its sides.
Specifically it sounds like they want to remove SBRs and suppressors ( no they are NOT silencers ) from the NFA. While i would support that Id rather see the NFA removed, as its unconstitutional to being with and was originally created to suppress the rights of minorities. ( and rather see it done on a standalone bill, not the way its happening )
( no they are NOT silencers ) from the NFA. While i would support
This is a stupid talking point. The original inventor Hiram Maxim called them silencers.
If Hxwrks or whatever it's called came out with a revolutionary design tomorrow that did make them silent, would you still say they are protected by the 2A? If the answer is yes, then arguing over whether they are or aren't "true silencers" is beside the point.
The correction of term wasn't really about the 2A, it was about using the correct terminology. It merely suppresses, it does not silence.
Maxim may have called it that, but he was wrong and should be chastised for it.
Totally disagree. And its smarter than 99% of the scum that inhabit this planet.
And the other 2, yes, its false marketing and they should be penalized for it.
Thu Jun 19 2025 00:41:18 UTC from zelgomerAI isn't actually artificial intelligence.
This may come as a surprise to you, but deoderant doesn't actually
eleminate odor, hover boards don't actually hover, and AI isn't
actually artificial intelligence.
Deodorant prevents odor from accumulating by suppressing the bacterial activity that causes it. If it's already there though, there's not much you can do about it except wash it off.
Agreed on the other two though.
So as part of a final rider, the big bloated omnibus bill included a provision to remove taxes on some ( most? i didn't read it ) NFA items. Of course, as expected the original rider to remove them from the NFA totally fell apart. ( more DC circus )
Soon after, several pro 2A entities state they plan to file suit. Basically saying "hey, the NFA regulations, registration, etc was there to manage taxation, and since the tax has been removed, these items no longer qualify to be restricted via NFA rules"
While technically they may be correct, who wants to bet that the result will be more like "The court has determined that this is true, however they are still listed as NFA items according to law, therefore simply removing the tax violated the law in the first place and the tax will be reinstated. Also, as this being a new revised tax, in effect, it must reflect the current economy, not as it was originally valued in 1930's. Therefore the tax will be raised from $200, to $5000. "
And who wants to bet that was the plan all along, to get it raised beyond reach and not get blamed. Much like it was intended when it first passed, to keep it out of reach of 'colored folk', but now, all the serfs.
Sure, i might sound paranoid, but NOTHING they do in DC is as it seems, and its always for their benefit, not ours. That is not paranoia, its fact.
bla bla bla 1 killed and 1 injured in mass shooting bla bla bla.
Um no. That isn't 'mass' anything. shut the F up with your agenda.
Sounds like its not guns that are the problem... Lets ban hands and feet instead. Or people in general.
Rifles of any type were used in 523 homicides in 2023, according to the FBI’s 2023 Uniform Crime Report Data Explorer. Knives were used in 1,630 killings, “other” weapons were used in 1,231 homicides and personal weapons (defined as hands, fists and feet) were used in 731 killings, according to the data.
I see debate over whether not allowing 18, 19 and 20 year olds to own handguns is constitutional or not. If 18 is the age of adulthood, then no. Frankly I think the age of majority/adulthood should never have been lowered from 21 but the military was hellbent on being able to draft teenage boys.
At 18 you can enter a contract. You can be tried as an adult if you commit a crime. But, you cant drink. ( for example )
Wont debate what it should be, but it should at least be consistent.
Sun Aug 10 2025 15:30:26 UTC from SouthernComputerGeekI see debate over whether not allowing 18, 19 and 20 year olds to own handguns is constitutional or not. If 18 is the age of adulthood, then no. Frankly I think the age of majority/adulthood should never have been lowered from 21 but the military was hellbent on being able to draft teenage boys.
Complete bullshit. I didn't know it was lowered to 18 for the draft. That's horrible.
Of course, I'd like to raise the voting age back to its original 35. Young people vote stupidly (including me back then)
2025-08-10 15:30 from SouthernComputerGeek
I see debate over whether not allowing 18, 19 and 20 year olds
to own handguns is constitutional or not. If 18 is the age of
adulthood, then no. Frankly I think the age of
majority/adulthood should never have been lowered from 21 but
the military was hellbent on being able to draft teenage boys.
I don't know, not so long ago you could enlist in the Roman Legion at what? 14 years?
Society keeps pushing adulthood age forward whereas south east asia gets men "life readied" by age 15. This leads me to believe that the problem with adulthood is not age but the way people gets prepared for life.
Of course, I'd like to raise the voting age back to its original 35.
Young people vote stupidly (including me back then)
I don't think the problem is age, I think the problem is universality.
I have an impopular opinion here, but I think that the people contributing money and resources should be the people deciding how those are used. That is the edge Athens had back in the day. The people doing the voting had commited money and were probably part of the militia.
When voting becomes universal you get good-for-nothing scumbags voting for other people to go to war, or voting for other people to pay for their own luxuries.
I think that is the angle they used for generations to keep women from voting, especially here in the US. "you stay home and tend the house, you don't need to contribute to important stuff, nor have the knowledge"
( at least that is how i remember it in history class.. i'm old, but not so old to have lived it :) )
Mon Aug 11 2025 10:36:32 UTC from darknetuser
I have an impopular opinion here, but I think that the people contributing money and resources should be the people deciding how those are used.