The mass shooting last month in Maine — perpetrated by an Army reservist allowed to keep his guns reportedly bought days before he underwent psychiatric evaluations due to his erratic behavio…
First, attacking the person, not the proposition. I feel like I hit a nerve, so that started off well.
Next paragraph, I don't know who to thank for that, chatGPT Wikipedia. The location in the documents is not the issue at hand, other than "well actually"ing someone on the internet.
But that last line… And the part I take issue with.
How many 2A supporters can say with a straight face that a flintlock musket and modern weapon are even remotely comparable. The intent of these modern tools is to commit harm to your fellow man, which they do with much more efficiency than they did in the past. If the founders had the ability to see into the future, I'm confident they would have phrased the 2A differently.
Furthermore, if fear of a tyrannical government is your excuse to not take a moment of reflection on our relationship to the 2A, then you must be naive as you think I am… Revolution or whatever you want to call it does not work that way anymore. The last 60ish years of asymmetric conflict the US has been involved in should be a good enough example of that. (Best get used to dystopias, your in one)
Lastly, the part that is most frustrating is that this is a partially solved problem in countries that took action like Switzerland and Australia (that took very different paths to get to where they are today, but I want to focus on Aus). In 1996, Australia, in the wake of the worst mass shooting in their countries history, they collectively decided that the number of arms in the country was too damn high and did something about it. [Ref]
All that I propose is a good faith attempt at serious federal regulation with a focus on their current need as tools, ethics and actual results/consequences. Unfortunately, as long as the NRA exists, America will collectively sit on its hands and this all comes off as wishful thinking.
First, attacking the person, not the proposition. I feel like I hit a nerve, so that started off well.
Next paragraph, I don't know who to thank for that, chatGPT Wikipedia. The location in the documents is not the issue at hand, other than "well actually"ing someone on the internet.
But that last line… And the part I take issue with.
How many 2A supporters can say with a straight face that a flintlock musket and modern weapon are even remotely comparable. The intent of these modern tools is to commit harm to your fellow man, which they do with much more efficiency than they did in the past. If the founders had the ability to see into the future, I'm confident they would have phrased the 2A differently.
Furthermore, if fear of a tyrannical government is your excuse to not take a moment of reflection on our relationship to the 2A, then you must be naive as you think I am… Revolution or whatever you want to call it does not work that way anymore. The last 60ish years of asymmetric conflict the US has been involved in should be a good enough example of that. (Best get used to dystopias, your in one)
Lastly, the part that is most frustrating is that this is a partially solved problem in countries that took action like Switzerland and Australia (that took very different paths to get to where they are today, but I want to focus on Aus). In 1996, Australia, in the wake of the worst mass shooting in their countries history, they collectively decided that the number of arms in the country was too damn high and did something about it. [Ref]
All that I propose is a good faith attempt at serious federal regulation with a focus on their current need as tools, ethics and actual results/consequences. Unfortunately, as long as the NRA exists, America will collectively sit on its hands and this all comes off as wishful thinking.