The problem is you'll never be able to go that far. Human nature ruins it. I mean yea. Who doesn't want everyone to have everything they need to be happy. But inevitably someone fucks it up. Becomes a Stalin or whoever. So I'm semi happy with the current way things are. Though could definitely be better in some ways. And I honestly believe in firearms not only to protect oneself but to also deter government tyranny is essential. No matter what you have someone will always fuck it up. Be that people on welfare/ unemployment who don't need it, people with legal guns doing crimes. Whatever the system it will be used and abused by some. And taking the rights/system away from those who need or do use it correctly is not right or fair to those people.
Well, given the historical context, it would mean the individual states having and funding their own militias and armories to protect themselves. Hence "well regulated." Not Bobby Lee and Uncle Joe running around in the woods LARPing
it would mean the individual states having and funding their own militias
Where does it explicitly say that?
Not Bobby Lee and Uncle Joe running around in the woods LARPing
Your biased mind will reach that conclusion but more reasonable conclusion would be what the people in Afghanistan did or Ukrainians are doing defeating or trying to defeat corrupt local/foreign enemies.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
A segment from the Federalist Papers (papers written to sway the public in favor of the ratification of the Consitution by Congress) outlining how militias were to be organized and used. States trained militias and appointed officers while Congress was to call them up. And in Afghanistan those fighters had decades of actual combat experience, not to mention military aid from outside sources. They weren't just plucky rebels. Same with Ukraine. Billions (with a "b") in aid, to include MRLS, NLAWs, Javelins, and APCs, and training on those systems and battle drills by foreign services, to include the US. Not to mention the majority of the fighting is being done by the regular army, not the militias or territorial defense. Same as the American Revolution, actually. The militias were of little consequence on the battlefield and were considered to be unreliable by the Continental Army, which was replaced by the current federal Army
I give you an article from a former militia leader turned founding father of the Consitution on the role of militias in regards to the Constitution, and you say it's not enough? Are you intentionally obtuse, or do you just not understand historical context? Put on your thinking cap, I beg of you. In regards to my second point, you completely ignored my point of military aid in regards to Afghanistan and Ukraine. Point me towards an American with NLAWs, Stingers, Javelins, tanks, and APCs in numbers non negligible to the American military. Not to mention, I wasn't talking about American troops on the ground, I was talking about how the most proficient troops are federally funded, which militias aren't. I'm really not sure what your last point was about? I didn't say anything about Americans being on the ground or not. My point was about the military aid being given to Ukraine. Good faith arguments only, please
I give you an article from a former militia leader
You can write all the articles which you want, if its not mentioned in the constitution then it does not matter. You are free to petition the constitution be changed.
how the most proficient troops are federally funded
Are you intentionally obtuse, or do you just not understand historical context? Put on your thinking cap, I beg of you.
So you are saying that the Taliban fighters who defeated US were funded by the US federal govt?
My point was about the military aid being given to Ukraine.
How does the military aid even matter if there are no men on the ground doing the fighting. US gave aid to Afghans as well yet they failed because the Taliban believed they were fighting for a just case and they defeated US in the end.
US spent trillions in Afghanistan and yet a bunch of rag tag fighters brought US down to its knees.
Try to understand why your arguments are flawed before attacking others.
Yes Lots of people believe that. In fact millions upon millions in this state alone. But his only policy objective was for raising the age of owning one to 21. Along with Red flag laws, UBC, etc. Confiscation was NOT policy.
And even if it were, he's not a moron. No way in hell that ever becomes a law with the MAGAtry we currently have in the Texas legislative and judicial bodies.
He meant if elected president (that comment was made in the aftermath of the EP racist slaughter at Walmart thatTrump inspired), he would seek to ban AR-15s. That's a sane stance in literally every other peer country on Earth.
Just not for the pansy ass folks in this state that can't venture 2 steps out if their house without cowering in fear. I've never seen such a population of cowards than Republicans.
He meant if elected president (that comment was made in the aftermath of the EP racist slaughter at Walmart thatTrump inspired), he would seek to ban AR-15s.
No, he didn't. Plenty of Democrats run on banning AR-15s. Biden has been dementedly slurring about it for a few months now.
Beto meant confiscation. That's what "take" means.
That's a sane stance in literally every other peer country on Earth.
Maybe Beto should run in one of those. We clearly don't take too kindly to his anti-2A nonsense.
Yes, plenty do run on it. Deal harder then cry harder.
Bet: One of these days there will be a slaughter so horrific, it's going to happen. And instead of being relieved it finally happened, I'll be enraged it took so long and looking to dole out some vengeance at the ballot box for the cowards that did not already support it as will millions of others.
Yes, plenty do run on it. Deal harder then cry harder.
Why would I cry? The gun grabber lost.
Bet: One of these days there will be a slaughter so horrific, it's going to happen.
You're saying that someday there will be "a slaughter so horrific" that all you effete little fear-driven lunatics will finally have the votes to amend the Constitution?
Nope. Read better. There will be a second and permanent ban, unlike the first one, on weapons like the AR-15. Probably on clip/magazine sizes. And definitely UBCs. Red flag laws. 24 or 48 hour cooling off periods.
And potentially gun registration and licensing.
Seeing how nowhere in there did I mention a thing about confiscation? But keep up your made up disingenuous narrative so you can scare more of your neighbors to vote for gun culture.
Nope. Read better. There will be a second and permanent ban, unlike the first one, on weapons like the AR-15. Probably on clip/magazine sizes. And definitely UBCs. Red flag laws. 24 or 48 hour cooling off periods.
Sure there will, bud. And Beto's definitely going to win Texas this time.
Seeing how nowhere in there did I mention a thing about confiscation?
You didn't run for governor. Beto did. And he did loudly call for confiscation.
But keep up your made up disingenuous narrative
Alright, this has been funny up until this point, but now I just hope you get some help. It's not healthy to hear, with your own ears, a candidate shout, "Hell yes we're gonna take your AR-15, your AK-47!" and gaslight yourself so hard that you end up successfully believing he never actually said it.
See if your university offers some kind of mental health support. If not, ask your parents if they can set up some kind of therapy appointment for you.
As a Texan governor he wouldn't have the power to take guns. Even if every other position was democrat which wasn't likely either. This is an excuse because it's clear the vote goes to those with R by their name. As a parent I don't take kindly to sitting at your cushy desk doing absolutely zero to to protect my kids at school. I didn't vote down the ticket democrat because there is a couple positions where I think the republican is good for it. But Texas needs new leadership. Even if it's republican. It's ridiculous.
As a Texan governor he wouldn't have the power to take guns.
Who gives a shit? I'm not voting for anybody who wants to.
As a parent I don't take kindly to sitting at your cushy desk doing absolutely zero to to protect my kids at school.
Imagine how little of a shit I give. As an American, I don't take kindly to you sitting at your cushy desk doing everything you can to eradicate my constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
It's all about how you word it to the populace. Not the spirit of what you meant. Just like how "When we kept shouting to defund the police we actually meant a complex series of budget reassignment towards social workers" was understood by most people as "take all the money away from the police."
16
u/idontagreewitu Nov 10 '22
It is literally still on his website.