• devnull406@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    Before he passed away, my kids’ grandfather bought all his grandkids their first 22 rifle. Some of the cousins were still infants but he wanted to buy them something. He was a prolific hunter and marksman. My kids guns all lived in the safe until they were old enough to shoot them, and now they live in the safe when not in use. You can give guns to kids all day long, that’s not the problem and the gun is not the problem.

    • III@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      You can give guns to kids all day long, that’s not the problem and the gun is not the problem.

      The problem is not appropriately assessing whether the child in question she be allowed the gun. Are they responsible, are they going to use it for valid purposes. This holds true for, well, everyone always. A lack of reasonable regulation is the actual problem. I am glad you have responsibly managed the distribution and use of firearms for your children. We should do that for everyone.

      • FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        A lack of reasonable regulation There are hundreds of firearms laws on the books. What new law is both reasonable and would accomplish anything?

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              It’s almost like we should be getting something for our tax dollars other than a pittance at retirement and a genocide in the middle east.

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

            Fuck that, no way in hell people would allow authorities to inspect their private property inside their homes as a prerequisite to exercising a constitutional right.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              The “Constitutional” right to have weapons on you 24/7 and use them the second you are afeared is brand new. The actual text has a whole other half making clear that it’s for a well regulated militia. I had my room and weapon inspected in the military. So can you if you want that gun. If you have a problem with order and discipline then you don’t get a gun.

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

                Nope, that’s all bullshit and you’re lame for spouting it.

                Fortunately, what I said is fact and there’s never going to be a goddamn thing you can ever do about it. Our gun rights are extremely well protected.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Your idea of gun rights are one SCOTUS decision away from going back to the way they were in the late 1700’s. Kept at home and regularly inspected by the local militia. They’ve even set the historical standard as precedent. Now it’s just a game of judges willing to actually use that standard instead of making shit up to create a new right from whole cloth.

                  It could go the other way though, most people don’t know the court isn’t capped at a certain number. But everyone knows you can repeal an amendment. And the rubber band effect is coming. How many kids will it take before people demand the entire amendment be scrapped? I don’t know, but the idea grows every year. With every high profile shooting. You can compromise now or have all guns banned down the road. That’s the outlook.

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

                    Yeah sure. I’ll believe it if I see it, and not before.

                    I will not be giving up any rights, period.

              • Narauko@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                A well regulated militia made up of people who were supposed to bring their own guns and ammunition that they were proficient in using. The Militia Acts make this pretty clear, along with the Federalist Papers. The intent was that an armed population could be called on by the States to resist an invading army, be that army foreign or the standing Federal army. It also was an evolution of English law enshrining rights to self defense.

                If we change the sentence slightly and say “The free flow of goods and services being essential to the safety and functionality of the economy, the right is the people to keep money and travel freely shall not be infringed”, would not imply that you are only free to leave your house and have cash if you are engaged in business.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  People in good standing, registered with their town/county/state militia, and subject to the regulations thereof.

                  The idea that every farmer was a minutemen and that was our defense plan is a Hollywood level simplification of history. The Federalist and Anti Federalist papers make this very clear. Furthermore the founding fathers wanted a standing Army eventually. They knew a militia would not work forever. The idea was always for a standing Army to take over in the future, with the State militias to balance out any shenanigans by the federal army.

                  And again the state militias were not every Tom, Dick, and Harry. They were regulated affairs much closer to a national guard unit than a shooting club.

                  • Narauko@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Every Tom, Dick, and Harry was part of the militia, and still are today. Title 10 outlines that all able bodies men not enlisted in the military or national guard is part of the unorganized militia. The founders feared a standing army, while knowing it was inevitable and useful, and the militia was one of the balances of power between State and Federal power.

                    Hamilton layed out clearly that intention in Federalist 29. “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.” … “Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”…“if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”

                    The intent of the 2nd amendment was to preserve the existence of an armed populace that would protect themselves and their neighbors from any threats.

    • raoulraoul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      If this heartwarming story of responsible gun ownership is actually true, Mr/Ms Anonymous Voice On The Internet — y’know, because I believe every anecdote I read on social media — you are probably one of <1000 people in 336,000,099 (the 2024 population of the United States).

      [email protected]
      [email protected]

        • raoulraoul@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          9 months ago

          Oh, absolutely. Where would you put that impossibly quantifiable number? 10? 10,000,000? More? Less?

          My point being that every gun-owning household in the United States isn’t like yours and with almost weekly occurrences like the Oxford school shooting, the Michigan State University shootings of 2023, the Perry, Iowa school shooting, even the Detroit five-year-old who shot himself in the face among his playmates while their parents were out of the home, or the Lansing toddler who did the same with his father’s gun…

          …it’s hard to believe that your family is anywhere near the norm. You are 0.1% of 0.1% (yes, I made that up too).

          • SoleInvictus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            This, friends, is a great demonstration of why math and science courses are so important. Science teaches critical thinking skills. A lack of critical thinking skills often leads people to make things up to explain phenomena instead of questioning their assumptions and seeking factual information.

            Mathematics, especially statistics, provides a framework by which people can critically evaluate the validity and significance of numerical values as well as generate realistic, informed estimates. A lack of basic math skills causes many people to be unable to evaluate relative proportions and effect sizes of event drivers.