• gamer
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Bro just stop already. You like guns, it’s a neat little hobby, and you’re getting angry because people want to end it. I get that. My hobby is retro video games/consoles, and if it turned out that they were a threat to society and people wanted to take them away, I probably wouldn’t do the sane/rational/adult thing and accept it. I’d fight to defend my god given right to own a Wii, and I’d get into angry bad faith arguments on the internet in a desperate attempt to protect my cherished pastime.

    …but I’d be wrong, I’d be an asshole, and I probably wouldn’t realize it. I like to think that I’d have the self-awareness to not fall into that trap, since I generally consider myself to be self-aware, but also I really love this hobby and it’s a big part of my life, so it could go either way.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nope, I will never stop. It’s not about “a hobby” it’s about the rights of all Americans.

      If any of you had any fucking perspective, you’d realize that our rights are something that millions have died to obtain and it’s absolutely moronic to give any of them up.

      • gamer
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would definitely say something very similar if the guberment went after ma 'tendos.

          • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            We’ll see I went to law school and was a law review editor and passed a couple bar exams and practiced for years and years.

            You read a blog post and watched some YouTube videos made by other people with no relevant education or experience.

            Find me one usage of the phrase “bear arms” prior to 1776 outside of a clearly military context, that refers instead of an individual right, and I’ll drop it right now and forever.

            • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There’s plenty of historical context to support the citizen’s right to bear arms in the Federalist Papers from the 1780s, but that doesn’t meet your arbitrary criteria of the year of Independence.

              You make a lot of assumptions about the knowledge of others. That’s usually not wise.

              This is lame and a waste of my time, so I will conclude by saying the Supreme Court has spoken on this matter and their opinions outrank everyone else’s. Nothing you can do about your dumb opinion that our Rights are based on “lies” but continue to be mad about their existence I reckon.

              • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Maybe I’ll argue the appeal of the one that gets the Court to throw out Heller and Bruen, or some other case to hold you numbnutses responsible.

                I agree the date I chose is arbitrary. However, it is the date from which all originalism and textualism springs, as far as substantive constitutional rights. It is the originalists and textualists that read an individual right into a sentence that does not clearly have one.