Bonus points if it’s usually misused/misunderstood by the people who say it

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The people that spout the second part are only slightly more annoying than the people that spout the first part. Both sides are idiots who think they have a “gotcha!”. Rhetorical geniuses.

    The second amendment exists. The courts have upheld it to mean the right of individual ownership. There is zero wiggle room here. If anyone wants to debate how it is vs. how it should be, I welcome that conversation! But be warned, we’ll be arguing opinions, not these two facts.

    The next comment is where some kid, fresh out of Remedial PolySci, tells us all that amendments can be changed. Who knew? Of course they can’t explain the method by which that happens or propose a path forward in the foreseeable future. (Hint: The point is entirely moot.)

    • baggachipz@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah the genie is already waaaay out of the bottle in the US. It would be logistically impossible to get rid of guns, nice as that would be. This is something both extremes refuse to accept, because they wouldn’t have a cause or solution to rally around. No, Bubba, nobody’s going to take your guns. No Stewart, we can’t just ban guns and wash our hands of it. Other countries have indeed mostly eradicated firearms in normal society, but nowhere near on the scale that the US has.