Do you believe that the Second Amendment is arcane?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:39:45 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Do you believe that the Second Amendment is arcane?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the Second Amendment is arcane?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
#3
Undecided
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 100

Author Topic: Do you believe that the Second Amendment is arcane?  (Read 7661 times)
sparkey
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,103


Political Matrix
E: 6.71, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: June 26, 2020, 03:37:15 PM »

I mean, it's not some special wisdom I alone possess; the historical facts are what they are Tongue  If you look at the wording of most similar laws passed by the states at the time and the way that language would've been widely interpreted at the time, then the inescapable conclusion is that the Second Amendment referred specifically to state militias and did not create any sort of Constitutional right for private individuals to own guns, much less to do so without substantial government regulation.  

What laws do you have in mind? The PA Constitution of 1776 has:
Quote from: PA Constitution of 1776
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

That seems to be pretty clearly a clearly worded defense of the individual right to bear arms, with both individual self-defense and militia purposes in mind. And it emphasizes the militia purpose not as a contrast to individual rights, but as a contrast to maintaining a professional army.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: June 26, 2020, 04:30:41 PM »

I mean, it's not some special wisdom I alone possess; the historical facts are what they are Tongue  If you look at the wording of most similar laws passed by the states at the time and the way that language would've been widely interpreted at the time, then the inescapable conclusion is that the Second Amendment referred specifically to state militias and did not create any sort of Constitutional right for private individuals to own guns, much less to do so without substantial government regulation.  

What laws do you have in mind? The PA Constitution of 1776 has:
Quote from: PA Constitution of 1776
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

That seems to be pretty clearly a clearly worded defense of the individual right to bear arms, with both individual self-defense and militia purposes in mind. And it emphasizes the militia purpose not as a contrast to individual rights, but as a contrast to maintaining a professional army.

Admittedly a few early state bills of rights were worded to say "right to keep and bear arms for public purposes" which Im willing to agree suggests a limited militia purpose.  But thats not how the 2nd amendment or the bulk of state bills of rights were worded so Id argue the lack of those 3 words clearly indicates public or private purpose absent any limiting language. St. George Tucker certainly interpreted it this way in his near contemporaneous commentaries on the constitution.
Logged
Sprouts Farmers Market ✘
Sprouts
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,749
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: 1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: June 26, 2020, 10:58:35 PM »
« Edited: June 26, 2020, 11:26:00 PM by Sprouts Farmers Market ✘ »

it's nice to see that even on this lean left political message board with many non-American posters that a small person's right to defend themselves against big people is still respected.
Lol dude if the government really wants you dead, owning an AR-15 ain’t gonna save you.
I didn't mention the govt, so strawman fail
Quote
The 2nd Amendment was written back when the only guns were muskets and pistols. Why tf should it apply to ALL guns? Did the founders even think of the possibility of fully automatic guns being created?
The 1st Amendment was written back when the only communication were slow mail and the printing press. Why tf should it apply to ALL forms of communication? Did the founders even think of the possibility of the internet being created?
Lol imagine thinking that this is a good comparison. Letting people communicate faster is totally comparable to letting people kill people faster. Also haven’t there been laws passed that address free speech rights online?

I was really hoping that this pandemic would at the very least kill off crazy American libertarianism, but  it looks like there’s still some holdouts

Legally its a perfect comparison. You dont get to arbitrarily declare some parts of the Bill of Rights less deserving of protection than others just because you personally don't like the right.

BTW I've purchased 12 guns in the last 3 months, none with federal paperwork. Suck it.

That serves as an indictment on your character and no one else's. The smart thing to do would be to immediately return all of your guns, otherwise you are complicit in the scheme of the NRA to hide behind the guise of the Second Amendment to do nothing about gun violence.

It's going to be a short Civil War II when your side ain't got no weaponry. Glad I have people like Mr. R keeping me safe and protecting the ideals of America from Gen Z fascists trying to strip it all away.

e: FTR, I voted Undecided back in May since I was a standard anti-gun northeasterner but didn't want to vote No on such an extremist question. The last month has all but confirmed just what I was leaving enough room for - that we are not a civilized country that is post-political violence. Very dangerous extremist ideologies are now floating in the mainstream because of the economic doom suddenly faced by millions. I liked to believe that we lived in a permanent liberal democracy (with the prospect of better) and the only people to fear were lone wolf terrorists with nothing to live for who we needed to take guns from, but some very nasty ideas have taken a deep stronghold over violent swaths of the populace and are supported by mainstream outlets. Guns are needed now more than ever to protect ourselves from mobs that our government cannot control.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: June 27, 2020, 07:51:29 AM »

it's nice to see that even on this lean left political message board with many non-American posters that a small person's right to defend themselves against big people is still respected.
Lol dude if the government really wants you dead, owning an AR-15 ain’t gonna save you.
I didn't mention the govt, so strawman fail
Quote
The 2nd Amendment was written back when the only guns were muskets and pistols. Why tf should it apply to ALL guns? Did the founders even think of the possibility of fully automatic guns being created?
The 1st Amendment was written back when the only communication were slow mail and the printing press. Why tf should it apply to ALL forms of communication? Did the founders even think of the possibility of the internet being created?
Lol imagine thinking that this is a good comparison. Letting people communicate faster is totally comparable to letting people kill people faster. Also haven’t there been laws passed that address free speech rights online?

I was really hoping that this pandemic would at the very least kill off crazy American libertarianism, but  it looks like there’s still some holdouts

Legally its a perfect comparison. You dont get to arbitrarily declare some parts of the Bill of Rights less deserving of protection than others just because you personally don't like the right.

BTW I've purchased 12 guns in the last 3 months, none with federal paperwork. Suck it.

That serves as an indictment on your character and no one else's. The smart thing to do would be to immediately return all of your guns, otherwise you are complicit in the scheme of the NRA to hide behind the guise of the Second Amendment to do nothing about gun violence.

How would it help anyone for  Mr.R to return his guns or even sell them to the government or what not?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: June 27, 2020, 07:53:57 AM »

No, it just doesn't mean what Republicans like to pretend it means.

Grant us your arcane knowledge of its true meaning, Wise One.

I mean, it's not some special wisdom I alone possess; the historical facts are what they are Tongue  If you look at the wording of most similar laws passed by the states at the time and the way that language would've been widely interpreted at the time, then the inescapable conclusion is that the Second Amendment referred specifically to state militias and did not create any sort of Constitutional right for private individuals to own guns, much less to do so without substantial government regulation.  

Now, you could argue for a living tree approach and argue that the meaning of the words in the Constitution should evolve with society and use such legal reasoning to argue that it has become a recognizable individual right under the Constitution were you so inclined.  However, this would fly in the face of one of the main originalist legal philosophies that have long been held up by the right as the model for jurisprudence.  

To admit so overtly that textualism is little more than a meaningless pretext for conservative judges to impose their personal beliefs and partisan interests on everyone else would be akin to screaming the quiet part at the top of one's lungs.  And even so, you still get nonsense like the majority holding like D.C. v. Heller that are really a grievous affront to textualism on a substantive level.  Incidentally, that case is a great way to see if someone claiming to be a textualist is a true believer or a pretextualist hack who really just wants to see right-wing legislating from the bench,

The idea that the second amendment only guaranteed state militias is laughable, as is the idea that it prohibits regulation.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: June 27, 2020, 08:19:39 AM »

The idea that the second amendment only guaranteed state militias is laughable, as is the idea that it prohibits regulation.
indeed.  You'd think someone with 20k posts here who is clearly passionate about the issue wouldn't make that mistake because he would have seen this play out at least a half dozen times, but here we are.

Many gun control nuts live in a little bubble of biases and emotion that can not be popped with inconvenient facts.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: June 27, 2020, 08:55:35 AM »

it's nice to see that even on this lean left political message board with many non-American posters that a small person's right to defend themselves against big people is still respected.
Lol dude if the government really wants you dead, owning an AR-15 ain’t gonna save you.
I didn't mention the govt, so strawman fail
Quote
The 2nd Amendment was written back when the only guns were muskets and pistols. Why tf should it apply to ALL guns? Did the founders even think of the possibility of fully automatic guns being created?
The 1st Amendment was written back when the only communication were slow mail and the printing press. Why tf should it apply to ALL forms of communication? Did the founders even think of the possibility of the internet being created?
Lol imagine thinking that this is a good comparison. Letting people communicate faster is totally comparable to letting people kill people faster. Also haven’t there been laws passed that address free speech rights online?

I was really hoping that this pandemic would at the very least kill off crazy American libertarianism, but  it looks like there’s still some holdouts

Legally its a perfect comparison. You dont get to arbitrarily declare some parts of the Bill of Rights less deserving of protection than others just because you personally don't like the right.

BTW I've purchased 12 guns in the last 3 months, none with federal paperwork. Suck it.
So when do you expect the world to randomly turn into 1984? The government is never gonna try to take away your rights.


Lol. 1984 started last month dude. Try to keep up.

Yes, yes, the Hutus in black helicopters are coming for you right now.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: June 27, 2020, 01:19:17 PM »

If this was 1984, the very existence of certain people and events would be denied and being erased from the memory. What's going on now is simply acknowledging that some people and some causes (like the so-called "Lost Cause" of the Confederacy) simply are not deserving celebration. If you're still claiming the Confederacy stood for something noble or that Ben Tillman's statue should remain, you're not defending the "history", you're being historically illiterate. And if the argument is "statues should remain, it's wrong to remove them", then I suppose we should still have Felix Dzerzhinsky's statue in Warsaw.

For the record, I'm not always in favor of removing certain statues or completely condemning certain figures without looking at the good things they done along with bad things, but in most cases the trend is correct.
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: June 28, 2020, 01:32:59 PM »


It's going to be a short Civil War II when your side ain't got no weaponry. Glad I have people like Mr. R keeping me safe and protecting the ideals of America from Gen Z fascists trying to strip it all away.

e: FTR, I voted Undecided back in May since I was a standard anti-gun northeasterner but didn't want to vote No on such an extremist question. The last month has all but confirmed just what I was leaving enough room for - that we are not a civilized country that is post-political violence. Very dangerous extremist ideologies are now floating in the mainstream because of the economic doom suddenly faced by millions. I liked to believe that we lived in a permanent liberal democracy (with the prospect of better) and the only people to fear were lone wolf terrorists with nothing to live for who we needed to take guns from, but some very nasty ideas have taken a deep stronghold over violent swaths of the populace and are supported by mainstream outlets. Guns are needed now more than ever to protect ourselves from mobs that our government cannot control.

A 2nd civil war will not happen, but if it did, it would be fought by the US Army divided in 2, not by the people themselves. People would be conscripted into the army and forced to fight. And of course the army would supply them with weapons.

What you say is accurate for an insurgency type of assymetrical warfare, but not for a conventional civil war.
Logged
Pulaski
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 690


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: June 28, 2020, 11:32:05 PM »

The argument for the 2nd amendment being arcane because the writers didn't envision modern weapons is a dangerous one; the 1st amendment certainly didn't envision the internet, which has enabled the rapid and widespread dissemination of false, fear-mongering and inflammatory speech, yet most people still advocate for free speech, myself included.

I've always wondered about the inherent loophole in the wording - the right to keep and bear arms is protected, but bullets and ammunition are not. Surely that's an avenue worth pursuing?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: June 29, 2020, 10:16:24 AM »

The argument for the 2nd amendment being arcane because the writers didn't envision modern weapons is a dangerous one; the 1st amendment certainly didn't envision the internet, which has enabled the rapid and widespread dissemination of false, fear-mongering and inflammatory speech, yet most people still advocate for free speech, myself included.

I've always wondered about the inherent loophole in the wording - the right to keep and bear arms is protected, but bullets and ammunition are not. Surely that's an avenue worth pursuing?

No.  Besides being common sense, it's fairly standard legal doctrine that if something is a right, so is access to the things needed to put that right into practice.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: June 30, 2020, 05:12:42 PM »

it's nice to see that even on this lean left political message board with many non-American posters that a small person's right to defend themselves against big people is still respected.
Lol dude if the government really wants you dead, owning an AR-15 ain’t gonna save you.
I didn't mention the govt, so strawman fail
Quote
The 2nd Amendment was written back when the only guns were muskets and pistols. Why tf should it apply to ALL guns? Did the founders even think of the possibility of fully automatic guns being created?
The 1st Amendment was written back when the only communication were slow mail and the printing press. Why tf should it apply to ALL forms of communication? Did the founders even think of the possibility of the internet being created?
Lol imagine thinking that this is a good comparison. Letting people communicate faster is totally comparable to letting people kill people faster. Also haven’t there been laws passed that address free speech rights online?

I was really hoping that this pandemic would at the very least kill off crazy American libertarianism, but  it looks like there’s still some holdouts

Legally its a perfect comparison. You dont get to arbitrarily declare some parts of the Bill of Rights less deserving of protection than others just because you personally don't like the right.

BTW I've purchased 12 guns in the last 3 months, none with federal paperwork. Suck it.

That serves as an indictment on your character and no one else's. The smart thing to do would be to immediately return all of your guns, otherwise you are complicit in the scheme of the NRA to hide behind the guise of the Second Amendment to do nothing about gun violence.

It's going to be a short Civil War II when your side ain't got no weaponry. Glad I have people like Mr. R keeping me safe and protecting the ideals of America from Gen Z fascists trying to strip it all away.

e: FTR, I voted Undecided back in May since I was a standard anti-gun northeasterner but didn't want to vote No on such an extremist question. The last month has all but confirmed just what I was leaving enough room for - that we are not a civilized country that is post-political violence. Very dangerous extremist ideologies are now floating in the mainstream because of the economic doom suddenly faced by millions. I liked to believe that we lived in a permanent liberal democracy (with the prospect of better) and the only people to fear were lone wolf terrorists with nothing to live for who we needed to take guns from, but some very nasty ideas have taken a deep stronghold over violent swaths of the populace and are supported by mainstream outlets. Guns are needed now more than ever to protect ourselves from mobs that our government cannot control.

Update: I sold 1 gun this weekend and bought 6 more today without paperwork. "Loophole" closes at midnight tonight so from here on out im just going to manufacture my own guns which means they don't need serial numbers. Your move antigunners. Wink
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: July 02, 2020, 05:42:30 PM »

Article

8.3 Million new guns sold since March. 40% to first time buyers. Clearly a lot of people don't think the 2nd amendment is arcane.

And none of my gun buying and selling is captured in these stats.

Buy while you can; a storm is brewing.
Logged
Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)
Muaddib
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,024
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: July 02, 2020, 07:20:30 PM »

You don't get to arbitrarily declare some parts of the Bill of Rights less deserving of protection than others just because you personally don't like the right.

Well not liking things it the schtick of the individual who started this thread.

I've always wondered about the inherent loophole in the wording - the right to keep and bear arms is protected, but bullets and ammunition are not. Surely that's an avenue worth pursuing?

You mean like this?

Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,233
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: July 06, 2020, 04:31:37 PM »

The events of the past few months have demonstrated the continued relevance and importance of the right to bear arms. I don't see how you can call it arcane in the summer of 2020 and expect to be taken seriously.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,280
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: July 27, 2020, 07:14:03 PM »

Lol the 2nd Amendment is so funny because non-Americans almost always are like "a constitutional right to keep and bear arms? that's f**king crazy lmao"
Logged
SInNYC
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,204


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: August 04, 2020, 12:52:54 PM »

Lol the 2nd Amendment is so funny because non-Americans almost always are like "a constitutional right to keep and bear arms? that's f**king crazy lmao"

Most Americans too. The two most prominent constitutions the US has written in the last century are Japan and Iraq. Neither has a right to bear arms.

I'm betting that if the Iraqi constitution had been written with a right to bear arms, most Americans would have had the exact same reaction you had above.
Logged
Benjamin Frank
Frank
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,069


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: August 14, 2020, 02:49:53 PM »
« Edited: August 14, 2020, 03:10:57 PM by Frank »

The Second Amendment is not arcane, the problem is the gun nuts have told all sorts of lies about what it does and doesn't protect.

There was a ruling today by the 9th circuit that contradicts this, but the precedents are actually very clear going back to the Supreme Court endorsing the banning of sub-machine guns in the 1930s.

While the courts obviously aren't going to ban any weapon themselves, with the exception of this 9th circuit ruling, the courts have made it clear that guns that are in line with the type of guns that existed at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment are protected.  The only guns that existed at that time were flintlocks and muskets.  The modern equivalent of those are handguns (flintlocks) and shotguns and rifles (muskets.)

Obviously there is some gray area regarding especially what constitutes a 'rifle' as opposed to a 'military style assault weapon', which seems to be at the heart of this latest ruling as well, but contrary to the lies from the gun nuts, there is a well established precedent that 'military style assault weapons' are not protected by the 2nd amendment.

So, for instance, when the gun nuts claimed that Beto O'Rourke was 'attacking the Second Amendment' they were lying.  The types of weapons O'Rourke referred to have been defined as 'military style assault weapons' and they are not protected by the Second Amendment.

Given the popular support for guns in the United States, I don't think there is a need for an amendment to protect them from being made illegal, but I also don't think that a fundamental right to own handguns, shotguns and rifles for protection of life and property or for hunting or other sporting purposes is a problem in itself either.

I think if more people were aware of the actual facts based on court precedent of what actually is and isn't protected by the Second Amendment, it would be a lot less of an issue, itself, but liars are going to lie.

The debate would then move to the legislative ground and with the public over whether 'military style assault weapons' should be made illegal or not unencumbered by this lie that they can't be banned.
Logged
Alcibiades
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,851
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -6.96

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: August 14, 2020, 05:36:36 PM »

When thinking about this issue, it is helpful to take a step back. What does it say about a society if its members have the right, which they utilise, to arm themselves to the teeth, including with weapons the only purpose of which is to kill other people? Is this a free society, or one which is distrusting, paranoid, enamoured with the use of force and sees violence as somehow more honourable, manly and brave than reasoned dialogue?
Logged
LtNOWIS
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 513


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: August 16, 2020, 12:25:32 PM »


A 2nd civil war will not happen, but if it did, it would be fought by the US Army divided in 2, not by the people themselves. People would be conscripted into the army and forced to fight. And of course the army would supply them with weapons.

What you say is accurate for an insurgency type of assymetrical warfare, but not for a conventional civil war.
A civil war would likely look like the Syrian Civil War. Even though that is largely "conventional," there is still an important role for militias to play, supplementing the regular army.

The common refrain that the side with jet planes and tanks will cruise to victory has not been born out in conflicts in the past 20 years.
Logged
Benjamin Frank
Frank
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,069


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: August 16, 2020, 12:44:01 PM »

A 2nd civil war will not happen, but if it did, it would be fought by the US Army divided in 2, not by the people themselves. People would be conscripted into the army and forced to fight. And of course the army would supply them with weapons.

What you say is accurate for an insurgency type of assymetrical warfare, but not for a conventional civil war.
A civil war would likely look like the Syrian Civil War. Even though that is largely "conventional," there is still an important role for militias to play, supplementing the regular army.

The common refrain that the side with jet planes and tanks will cruise to victory has not been born out in conflicts in the past 20 years.

Syria hardly has the might of the U.S military (including the technology.)
Logged
°Leprechaun
tmcusa2
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,114
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: September 07, 2020, 11:54:17 AM »

How many people who claim to need a gun for protection also refuse to wear a mask?
That is the question. As for me, between having a gun or wearing a mask, I prefer the latter.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: September 07, 2020, 01:18:34 PM »

How many people who claim to need a gun for protection also refuse to wear a mask?
That is the question. As for me, between having a gun or wearing a mask, I prefer the latter.
I was told the reason we wear masks is to prevent the wearer from spreading disease more than it was for personal protection*.  Were you told something else?




*I'm NOT saying masks don't offer any protection for the wearer.  I shouldn't have to add things like that, but I know you people like to assume the worst of people you disagree with politically.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: September 07, 2020, 01:50:27 PM »

How many people who claim to need a gun for protection also refuse to wear a mask?
That is the question. As for me, between having a gun or wearing a mask, I prefer the latter.
I was told the reason we wear masks is to prevent the wearer from spreading disease more than it was for personal protection*.  Were you told something else?




*I'm NOT saying masks don't offer any protection for the wearer.  I shouldn't have to add things like that, but I know you people like to assume the worst of people you disagree with politically.

So are you saying that people carrying guns, they don't offer any protection to society?  Devil Devil Devil
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: September 07, 2020, 01:55:30 PM »

How many people who claim to need a gun for protection also refuse to wear a mask?
That is the question. As for me, between having a gun or wearing a mask, I prefer the latter.
I was told the reason we wear masks is to prevent the wearer from spreading disease more than it was for personal protection*.  Were you told something else?




*I'm NOT saying masks don't offer any protection for the wearer.  I shouldn't have to add things like that, but I know you people like to assume the worst of people you disagree with politically.

So are you saying that people carrying guns, they don't offer any protection to society?  Devil Devil Devil
CC holders offer a tiny benefit to local society in some cases (the vast majority of time it's a wash, as most times/places are 100% safe in the US).  Mask wearers also offer a tiny benefit, but it's likely larger on average in the age of the Covid.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.073 seconds with 14 queries.