Someone: "Guns shouldn’t be sold like candies. Perhaps they should create a permit or something. Why not limit "
American shows up: “MUH GUNS RIGHTS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. WHAT PART OF SHOULD NOT BE INFRINGED DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND? EVEN CRIMINALS SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO GUNS. IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
Canadian: Why does the US Senate require a super-majority (60/100) to legalize abortion? Why does the US Senate require a super majority (60/100) to reduce drug prices? How can empty states block stuff like that? In Canada, we just did this with a simple vote in the House.
American shows up: “THIS IS CALLED THE SENATE FILIBUSTER. IT PROTECTS OUR SACRED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 60 OUT 100 SENATORS PREVENTS DICTATORSHIP. WE ARE NOT A SHITHOLE LIKE CANADA”
European: “Why do people who have 10 or 20 speeding tickets don’t lose their driving license? Wouldn’t this reduce car crashes and save lives?”
American shows up: “FUCK SPEED CAMERAS. THIS IS ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL. THIS IS AGAINST WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED”
I’m tired. Americans are the most conservative people I have ever seen. It’s like they are against any improvement at all to their country. They don’t realize how extremely conservative they are.
It actually does, from your own link:
“the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.””
The whole idea of a “well regulated militia” is an armed populace, with privately owned weapons, able to stand up virtually instantly for the security of a free state.
The difference between “self defense” and “civil defense” is negligible. The intent was to guarantee private ownership of weapons. The utility of which to be determined elsewhere.